Thank you for your messages. Let me start with Wayne’s comment as a way to address Ted’s definition of evolution as a ‘theory of everything’ or ‘creation story.’
“You object to the tendency of scientists to seize on ‘evolution’ as a way to explain everything they observe including the formation of the universe, life and even ethics and consciousness. Your opinion is that some of these involve change and perhaps some others are immutable.” – Wayne
Yes, this is fair and accurate, especially in relation to ‘ethics and consciousness’ since this thread is about psychology. Though I’m careful with the word ‘scientists’ (not only because the language/culture I’m currently studying uses ‘scholar’ and ‘scientist’ to mean the same thing and its natural science/social science/humanities division is different from the Canadian-American-UK system), and the word ‘immutable’ could be equated with ‘unchanging’ or ‘static’ also. The word ‘mutation’ doesn’t really apply in many fields, so it seems to me; thus ‘immutable’ is limited.
Yes, it is true that I do think there are some things that ‘are what they are’ and that ‘don’t evolve’ in the sense of evolutionary theory that it seems Ted is using. I am glad that Wayne draws attention to the linguistic issue and also to the possibility of scientism. Similarly, that it is not by Process that we have grace, but by Grace that we have process.
The difficulty I am suggesting is not so much with TE’s or EC’s (see D. Lamoureux’s reasoning behind why the E comes first and the C second, and more importantly), but rather with the foisting of a biological-naturalistic metaphor on areas where it doesn’t ‘fit.’ Evolution cannot be reduced to mere ‘change-over-time,’ as if everything changes, therefore everything evolves; end of story. Heraclitus vs. Parmenides repeated. The evolution question is more subtle and complex than speaking about simple change. There are origins and there are processes, there is a struggle for existence, struggle for life and there is mutual aid and cooperation, there is differentiation and integration, there are mechanical analogies and organic analogies, there are variations and divisions (e.g. of labo[u]r) and there are unities and synthetics, there is teleology and purpose and there is a-teleology and meaningless-ness, etc. In some places, evolutionary concepts apply accurately or
satisfactorily, in others they are inappropriate, in others they are possibly damaging when misused. It may just be that evolutionary psychology exhibits the latter, but then again, evolutionary psychology may be a wonderful thing to help us understand free will and morality.
The argument I wish to make is that evolutionary theory *simply cannot be* a theory of everything, just as gravity or uncertainty or cybernetics or equilibrium cannot be theories of everything. There are some places where they do not apply. This is the thrust behind my web (i.e. not-line) of questions and propositions. There *is* no theory of everything; evolution dis-included.
We may put the issue more clearly, while accepting the general outline of ‘history’ that Ted Davis gives using MY (million years) for life and the universe in natural scientific terms. Question: how does Ted’s version of ‘evolution as a theory of everything’ differ from ‘universalistic evolution,’ where ‘everything evolves’ (i.e. even the words I just wrote and the reader just read)? Evolutionary psychology is one of the boundary areas; the article referred to in this thread about free will displays that. Should contemporary scientific philosophy acknowledge ‘the evolution of free will’? Personally, I feel it is wrong to allow evolution free reign in all areas of the academy, under the pretense that according to philosophy of science, it is or should function as a ‘theory of everything.’
This is why I was so interested to hear from members of ASA where they think boundaries are between things that evolve and things that don’t evolve. Daniel Dennett thinks ‘freedom evolves.’ Does Ted Davis think ‘freedom evolves’? A response to this question connects directly to the issue of evolutionary psychology, whether one supports it claims or thinks such things as what Miles is saying are ‘over the top.’ If free will is an example of something that doesn’t evolve, then it would be helpful for psychological scientists to adjust their vocabulary and research approach in finding a better way to discuss it. What I’m still waiting for, is for Ted to give an example, any example will do, of something that doesn’t evolve. This doesn’t seem to be unreasonable.
“[M]ainstream science tries to offer explanations for when/where/how
things came into being.” – Ted Davis
Yes, we are agreed that ‘science’ is concerned partly with origins. Yet, there are many sciences, each in/with their own sovereign mainstream(s), which don’t deal with origins but rather with processes. It would seem that there are many sciences in the academy today that are predominantly unconcerned with or (functionally) uninterested in the age of the earth. A person can ‘do science’ without any reference to the age of the earth. Can this be agreed upon? When an evolutionary psychologist attempts to explain or describe free will or where morality comes from and how it influences behaviour, they need not appeal to the age of the earth. Even still, they need not appeal to the spiritual or material origin(s) of consciousness. Nevertheless, appealing to human evolution is common and biophysical theories aren’t excluded from the discussion of consciousness.
“I don't think TEs are saying that the Decalogue (ten commandments) is necessarily explainable by science and in particular evolution.” – Wayne
This is a fine example. Here then is my question: how did the Decalogue ‘come into existence’ if not by (an) evolution(ary process)? What do TE’s and EC’s use to describe the ‘origins’ of the Decalogue, if they don’t appeal to evolutionary linguistics and process philosophy/theology? Can we fairly say that the Decalogue didn’t ‘evolve’ into existence?
If not, it seems to me that theology, let alone science, will be stuck in a post-modern-like quagmire of indecision and culpability for both the pros and cons of process-oriented ideologies. Even morality and ethics would fall under the realm of evolutionary universalism, and the Bible could be said to have evolved into existence (!). Is this what Ted proposes? Probably not, and I am simply misreading the consequences of his position.
Gregory
p.s. I appreciated Mervin's comments on 'mechanisms of choice' and wonderings about 'emergence'
p.p.s. curious if those persons I posted are respected by Loren Haarsma, after his request
Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
Gregory,
If I may try to summarize the main points of you post:
(1) You object to the tendency of scientists to seize
on "evolution" as a way to explain everything they observe
including the formation of the universe, life and even
ethics and consciousness. Your opinion is that some
of these involve change and perhaps some others are
immutable.
(2) You see TEs and CEs(what are CEs?) not raising any
objections to this general tendency of scientists.
(3) You sense Ted is using evolution in much this same way.
On (3), Ted answered for himself, but actually, whereas I
could see how you might get that impression of me, I'm a
little puzzled how you got this impression about Ted. Perhaps
you misunderstood whatever point he was trying to make at
the time.
As to (1):
First, that is a general tendency in the way that scientists
work. When an approach seems to be working in one place, we
try to apply it somewhere else.
Second, we tend to be far less cautious in defining terms than
philosophers and some other disciplines: so expressions like
"watching the system evolve" perhaps sound more "sexy" than
"watching the system change"; but certainly for an experiment
that uses a He-flow cryostat (for example), the latter statement
is actually more correct.
So I think a lot of this is misuse of words for various
reasons that have little to do with evolution. We probably
should be more reserved about grasping for sexy sounding words,
but that is another issue.
As to (2), we do have to work on different levels. If we want to talk about
"science", we must discuss what we obtain from a process of methodological
naturalism; because that is all we can do with science. It is also important
to know what we can obtain from that avenue. The fundamental difference
is not in how we do science; good science should be good regardless of who
does it or where it is done. Rather, it is when we start to ask the why question.
If the universe (or multiverse) is all that was, is and ever will be, we are
expressing a philosophical naturalism that insists on everything being explained
by science. Such is what you refer to as scientism, and this is clearly where
we get of the train. Science does explain the prosaic questions, but why
we are here to ponder our existence and whether there is a God and what
purpose life and following Christ could mean, these are not things that
science can or should be expected to answer.
I am not challenging scientific-evolutionary theories, when applied in their ¡Æproper¡Ç domains. What I am though challenging, is the ideological misuse of evolution, for example, when it is extended into a universalistic theory or worldview that ¡Ætends¡Ç to cast doubt on the Biblical view of human origins, creation, the image of God, and sometimes the entire biblical narrative. Can these things not be considered comparatively, distinctly?I don't think TEs are saying that the Decalogue (ten commandments)
is necessarily explainable by science and in particular evolution.
Crows steal from other birds because they are big enough and strong
enough to do so. On the other hand, lions will take up orphaned
pups. Are crows evil and lions saints? I'm sure we can explain
these through methodological naturalism using some group selection
model or evolutionary stable states model, but we cannot say which
is actually "right" by way of science. To that, I think we have to
turn to something that is outside. That may be partly why Jesus
says, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be satisfied" (Mt 5:7), we will know that satisfaction
(if we are faithful) when we reach heaven's gates and hear "well
done". But in the mean time, we can surely expect the world to
follow the examples of crows, lions and other beasts. (My apologies
in advance if I have offended any crow lovers on the list. They
are very intelligent birds, but we should not follow their example
on this point above, though the world does.)
By Grace we proceed,
Wayne
---------------------------------
The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo! Mail.
Received on Fri May 5 18:36:44 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 05 2006 - 18:36:44 EDT