Gregory,
I have to confess to all of you listserv readers that I am finding it difficult to work through long messages, so I have not read all of your note. I am more likely to respond to shorter messages. I suppose that many people mean many things when they use the phrase "philosophy of evolution." Right now I don't have the mental energy to consider them all. I'll simply stick with the statement I made before.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Arago
To: Robert Schneider ; Randy Isaac ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 6:22 AM
Subject: Evolutionary Philosophy [was: Conflicts and confrontation]
"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
"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
Equating 'philosophy of evolution' with 'evolutionism,' i.e. as a materialistic philosophy or as a form of naturalism, can be misleading. For example, you'll find evolution employed by theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists to be neither of those things. To combine or compare evolutionism with materialism and naturalism is partly justified by evolutionary philosophers, but is not sufficient to explain the specifics of evolutionary philosophy.
Please also excuse if I fail to see how this distinction addresses the themes I raised.
Is it your position, Bob, that: 1. Evolutionary philosophy is important, but not for natural scientists? 2. Evolutionary philosophy is important, but not important enough for natural scientists to discuss its effects on their respective scientific fields? 3. Evolutionary philosophy is important, but philosophy itself is 'less important' than science (and technology) because it 'produces' less (i.e. has less pragmatic value) in our current social situation? 4. Evolutionary philosophy is unimportant because it has no impact on society? Or perhaps your position is something else entirely?
"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). How does one speak out against 'evolutionary philosophy? Deny that there is evolution? The evidence is too compelling." - Dave
~
Let me point to two sources that may contribute to this topic, though they are already quite dated, so that evolutionary philosophy will not merely be denigrated or waved away:
The Ascent of Life: A Philosophical Study of the Theory of Evolution, by T.A. Goudge (University of Toronto Press, 1961)
"What caused evolution? Why did it happen? What is its purpose, to what end is it directed? What is the meaning of evolution, and what is the meaning of that vastly greater world of which man is only a recent and minute fragment? Few of these questions are scientific.but it is important to recognize them for what they are, even if as scientists we must lay them aside. The biologist as a philosopher cannot escape seeking answers to them, and neither can any thinking person." - G.G. Simpson, C.S. Pittendrigh, L.H. Tiffany (introduction)
"A century has now elapsed since the period of intellectual ferment which followed the appearance of The Origin of Species (1859). This work not only revolutionized biological thought. It also profoundly affected the social sciences, the humanities, and even theology. The influence exerted by the work sprang from the unprecedented support it gave to the view that there had been an evolution of living things on earth. Darwin's theory of evolution quickly became a powerful force in Western culture.Thinkers such as Spencer, Peirce, Bergson and Dewey incorporated the theory into their systems. Throughout the whole range of this influence, however, it came to be assumed that the Darwinian doctrine was authoritative and to a large degree final. Even today, outside the field of biology, most people identify the theory of evolution with the ideas put forward by Darwin. Meanwhile, within biology, the theory itself continued to evolve." (13)
"The purpose of the present study is, then, to review major aspects of the ascent of life as depicted by modern evolutionary theory, and to examine a number of linguistic, logical and metaphysical questions which can be asked in the light of that theory." (18)
"Whatever else may be signified by the word 'evolution', it undoubtedly refers to a type of change which has taken and is taking place in the world. This can be seen by a moment's reflection on the ordinary, non-technical use of the word. It would sound self-contradictory to say: 'The automobile evolved from the horseless carriage, but no changes of any kind occurred.' Whenever we are prepared to use the word 'evolution' we are also prepared to use the word 'change'." (25)
"The goal of evolution may be represented in a variety of ways as the maximizing of life, the production of man, the realizing of absolute freedom, etc. Since the achieving of the goal is implicit in the evolutionary process, it may be argued that the vital agency must be allowed some degree of foresight and hence of consciousness. From this point many extrapolations can be made which lead into the domain of natural theology." (81)
"Biologists have never perceived, and never will perceive, the 'final end' or 'ultimate goal' towards which evolution is supposed to be moving. These concepts are fictions, the products of wishful anthropomorphic thinking. They can have no place in a scientific theory of evolution." (81, 82)
"[Man] is still producing his cultural environment, and still striving to increase his understanding and control of it. He is thus continuing the process of his own evolution." (221)
~
"Evolution as an Easygoing Theory" by Addison Leitch (Quarterly Journal for Encouraging Original Work in Philosophy, 1967)
"In approaching the question of evolution there are those who hold evolution to be a hypothesis and a very good hypothesis, because like any good philosophical approach it seems to be the best single answer for a wide variety of phenomena..Yet, no less than the evolutionist's view, the approach of the creationist yields a true and satisfactory philosophy of life, for it too provides the largest possible answer for the greatest number of questions. There is no reason.why a first cause cannot be thought of in terms big enough to account for everything that follows in its train." (70)
"To say that there is no valid knowledge except that which can be known by the scientific method is to say in effect that there is no other possible method of knowledge except the scientific one." (70)
"A warning against easygoing belief in evolution, for such belief shows the evolutionist to be naïve, gullible, and obscurantist." (71)
"Science qua science cannot speak of beginnings because there simply is no evidence. There is no way to bring into experience or into the control of the laboratory how matter and eventually life got underway. Once the process is underway it is possible for us to assume millions and even billions of years." (71)
"In a way it [evolutionary philosophy] is not really a bad solution to the problem, but one has a feeling that a great deal of this is 'mere' belief-the sort of thing we condemn in the creationist." (73)
"If the scientist worries about the beliefs of the creationist, he [sic] needs to re-examine the number of places in his theory where he has to be a believer himself." (73)
Arago: Perhaps these two authors, one writing in book form and one in article form for a philosophy journal, can help shed some light on what evolutionary philosophy is and isn't. Is evolutionary philosophy strictly a type of natural philosophy or does it press on the boundaries of what is 'natural,' leading people to question their faith in the transferability of a scientific concept (eVo) into philosophy and beyond? Isn't evolutionary philosophy important for discussion at ASA?
~~
We should think of God as "the evolutionary-historical process that has brought us into being." - Gordon Kaufman (Theology for a Nuclear Age. Manchester U, 1985: 43)
YES/NO!!!
G. Arago
~~
Hymn sung on June 4, 2006:
There is a Spirit in the air, telling Christians ev'rywhere:
'Praise the love that Christ revealed, living, working in our world!'
Lose your shyness, find your tongue, tell the world what God has done:
God in Christ has come to stay. Live tomorrow's life today!
When believers break the bread, when a hungry child is fed,
Praise the love that Christ revealed, living, working in our world!
May his Spirit fill our praise, guide our thoughts and change our ways.
God in Christ has come to stay. Live tomorrow's life today!
There is a Spirit in the air, telling Christians ev'rywhere:
'Praise the love that Christ revealed, living, working in our world.'
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Mon Jun 5 09:22:37 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 05 2006 - 09:22:37 EDT