Re: Conflicts and confrontation

I'm trying to figure out what "evolutionary philosophy" is. It seems like
a category mistake, confusing materialism, a philosophical position, with
a scientific theory for the development of living things and, perhaps,
the development of the material universe (cosmology). Despite Johnson's
dictum, it is not true that restricting one's study to material entities
and processes makes one a materialist. Methodological naturalism is NOT
metaphysical naturalism. Suggesting that this limits the divine power is
really silly. All it does is recognize that God's creation is orderly,
that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the whimsical actor of
the pagans. Luther had it right when he referred to natural laws as the
masks of God. It's the way all things are held together by Christ. I
depend on it. I do not presume God will change things to suit me. The
notion that one can control nature fits demonism and magic, not Christian
theology.

How does one speak out against "evolutionary philosophy"? Deny that there
is evolution? The evidence is too compelling, except to those who KNOW
that God doesn't work through natural causation. Do we add a statement,
after noting that a particular gene and its effects can be traced from
yeasts or bacteria up to multiple copies in mammals, that it was all done
at the command of the Creator? A scientific report is not the same as a
devotional.

An anthropological or sociological paper describes rather than endorses.
One cannot add, after describing the official and practical beliefs of a
group, "They are right." There is, of course, a place for developing
therapy within a religious commitment, but that brings us to the boundary
between science and art, where there may be recognized beliefs.

As to the relevance of ID, it's nil. It declares that God isn't bright
enough to get it right at creation so has to revise things along the way
by activities that we can detect. The fossil record on their
interpretation says that he had to experiment with many forms before he
finally got the cetaceans properly functional. It sounds great to the
unthinking to suggest that we can prove God at work, but it usually
demeans him when one thinks things through. I have run across a
description of the evolution of an IC feature, step by step. Also, it has
been pointed out that the recognition of human agency translates directly
to the recognition of divine agency is flawed.

As with other human activity, there is need to find out what is being
assumed. This is perhaps the toughest job a human being can have,
especially where emotions are involved. But a Ponzi scheme sounds better
to most people than a reasonable investment. Related is what one is
holding onto. An obvious example here is hanging onto falling stock, a
near universal tendency. And there are surely other matters that do not
come to mind at the moment.
Dave

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 17:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
“every person I know involved in the science/religion dialogue, or who is
a Christian in science, who accepts evolution, whether they call
themselves a TE or not, does not merely "tolerate" or "accomodate"
evolution--I mean the science, of course, not the philosophy…” – Bob
Schneider
 
‘Of course, not the philosophy’ – why? Is the philosophy unimportant? Is
the sociology unimportant too?
 
Can I make the (over-generalized) suggestion that natural scientists,
especially theists, are not doing enough to speak out against
evolutionary philosophy? What this demonstrates is that natural
scientists actually (indirectly) benefit from evolutionary philosophy
because it reinforces a hierarchy of sciences in their favour. And who
doesn’t want their ‘science’ or field of study to be on the top of the
pile instead of on the bottom? Evolutionary philosophy becomes
unimportant with such a naturalistic view of science that avoids its
impact and significance.
 
Natural scientists don’t do enough (sweeping generalization coming) to
simply clarify the limitations of evolutionary theory (*Keith Miller’s
defense is noteworthy). It may be that those dialoguing about science and
religion, however, are more sensitive and in tune with ensuring the
rightful sovereignty of knowledge(s) considered ‘not-science.’ After all,
evolution is regarded as a primary theory in many natural sciences
(botany, geology, zoology, physiology, chemistry, biology, et al.), while
the reality of actually ‘practising’ evolution (an updated progress
theory from the 19th century) is something else entirely. Some Christian
natural scientists even elevate evolution into a ‘theory of everything,’
which is a symbolic turn of events that could appear as limiting God’s
omnipotence as if even God the Creator evolves (!).
 
“…but rather "integrate" it into their religious world view. I confess
that my range of contacts is limited, but I know of no TE whose faith has
been "weakened" or "destroyed." – Bob Schneider
 
There are certainly many critiques of TE, including theological ones. It
is not really a surprise that those who accept evolutionary biology feel
no threat to their faith in the natural and physical manifestation of
God’s creation. Integration and accommodation are somewhat neighborly,
after all.
 
Saying that the faith of natural scientists isn’t weakened by
evolutionary natural science is not the main issue (perhaps even a red
herring, preaching to the converted). The problem of evolutionary
philosophy, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary sociology, evolutionary
economics and evolutionary theology (cf. process theology) is much, much
more dire. On the other hand, it appears to be a rather simple task for
certain people (e.g. natural scientists) who consider those spheres
‘unscientific’ to take the academic-scientistic high road and say those
types of evolution don’t really matter.
 
The issue of truly integrating knowledge, i.e. not refusing or not
shunning any areas of scholarly work that approach topics such as
origins, processes of change, meaning and purpose, which is relevant to
our Christian perspectives, could be addressed at ASA. Instead, it seems
the ‘natural science of evolution’ is given top priority and any
non-natural scientific challenges to evolution, for example, if that is
what IDers or creationists are doing (e.g. in applied engineering,
biotech, pattern recognition, etc.), is considered invalid or outside the
scope of ASA’s conversation/association. The dialogue conveniently stops
in the comfort zone of natural science; damages to other
‘sciences/scholarship’ in the academy from evolutionary thinking are
deemed irrelevant.
 
Such recognition might lead a person to wonder: does the ID movement have
greater interdisciplinary value/relevance than ASA?! It certainly is
shaking a lot more branches in America today! If not, then it appears
that ASA might have a loud enough voice to help minimize the
secularization of society connected with evolutionary theory (even if not
the natural scientific varieties of evolution!).
 
Denying that evolutionary theories secularize society requires teaching a
program of ‘natural science-only evolutionism’ that explicitly states the
limits of evolutionary ideology for other spheres of knowledge. Then
again, this could just sound like anti-evolution complaining to the ears
of those who live in a country where even evolutionary natural science is
questioned by a small majority of the non-scientific population.
 
“I am still trying to develop good and sensitive answers to YEC concerns
about where 'evolutionary philosophy' will lead a person. Science aside,
it seems to me their concerns remain well-founded… Until Non-YECs are
able to really address this concern and give it good answer, I don't
think YECs will be very sympathetic with the ASA cause, no matter how
scientifically compelling it is.” – merv
 
“Even though I am not comfortable with accepting total macroevolution…” –
Jon Tandy
 
If evolutionary philosophy is a legitimate issue, will the ‘well-founded’
concerns of scientific and non-scientific Christians, evolutionary
creationists and even YEC Christians be addressed at ASA or just put
aside? Is this something that dialogue between science and religion
should focus upon? Otherwise, perhaps it really is satisfactory after all
for a Christian natural scientist to be compliant with, dependent upon or
to recommend to other Christians, Michael Ruse’s or Daniel Dennett’s
evolutionary philosophies, or to succumb to a sociology of knowledge that
privileges scientism at the cost of denigrating other scholarly points of
view.
 
 
Gregory
 
p.s. ‘where evolutionary philosophy will lead’ and YECism are meant above
as two things, not as one – where I live, there is not much (if any)
influence from YECism/biblical literalism; scientific materialism and
physicalism are otherwise still relative concerns
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Sat Jun 3 19:14:50 2006