Re: Conflicts and confrontation

I would also add to Bob's comment below that we see evolutionary philosophy
peeking through its scientific disguise in words such as "meaningless" as
applied to the development of life. That is when science ceases to be science
and becomes something else [philosophy].

--merv

Quoting Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>:

> When I referred to the "philosophy" of evolution I meant "evolutionism" as a
> materialistic philosophy that claims that the natural world is all that
> exists.
>
> Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gregory Arago
> To: Randy Isaac ; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 5:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Conflicts and confrontation
>
>
> "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 Sun Jun 4 22:45:05 2006