Re: [asa] Resolution affirming Creation and Evolution

“Here in Kansas, it was the ID advocates who changed the science standards to argue that evolution did deny purpose, meaning and divine guidance. They also explicitly identified evolution with scientific materialism and atheism. The ID movement has not helped to overcome the popular identification of modern science with metaphysical naturalism – they have explicitly encouraged it.” – Keith Miller
   
  Yes, the ID community says/does many things in their diverse expressions. Their ‘big tent’ appears sometimes to be even bigger/wider than ASA’s (though I suspect really it is not!). Darwin, however, also denied, or simply couldn’t see any purpose or divine guidance ‘in evolution.’ Please don’t gloss over the un-theological aspects of Darwinian evolution with a non-universal theological version of evolution.
   
  One issue that’s been pressed here before is that of evolutionary philosophy vs. evolutionary science. Now, after recently reading Robert Schneider’s contribution to Perspectives of an Evolving Creation, it should be noted that a distinction is there attempted between the two. For this I give him credit and express thanks, with further comments, support and qualifications to follow.
   
  It appears there is still reluctance on behalf of natural scientists to accept limitations for their sciences, perhaps because this would effectively limit their contribution to (i.e. status in) society. ‘Science’ would suffer from a decline in public perception if it admitted, en masse, that there are some things it can’t answer. However, most of us here would likely accept the bounded-ness of science as a given (i.e. obvious). The theological dimension adds something to the (science, religion, philosophy) conversation which most scientific materialists and atheist scientists wouldn’t often acknowledge. In this sense (and in others), Don Nield’s attention to confronting ‘scientism’ is justifiable.
   
  At this particular stage in the epoch of ‘modern science,’ the purpose, meaning and divine guidance of science itself is being called into question; not just the methods, functions, research programs, theories, experiments, etc. that scientists perform. Perhaps ASA will engage this discussion by hermeneutically self-situating itself and its special position, protecting the sovereignty of philosophy and religion beside science. Evolution is in this case a key topic to address and compare for its widespread usage in science, religion and philosophy. So is creation, creativity, and what it means to create.
   
  “Yet how much effort are we able to make in confronting the advocacy of metaphysical naturalism itself?” – Randy Isaac
   

“Many ASA members have indeed been agreesive in arguing against

metaphysical naturalism.” – Keith
   
  Probably ASA is unique on this front. Probably ASA has done more, given more effort than most groups. At least those I’ve surveyed don’t confront the advocacy of metaphysical naturalism much, if at all. But the fact that most of ASA is made up of ‘natural’ scientists (i.e. biologists, chemists, geologists, botanists, ecologists, comparative anatomists, physiologists, physicists, cosmologists, etc.) poses a significant challenge to undermining *any* kind of ‘naturalism.’
   
  Philosophy and history of science, sociology of science and knowledge have much to contribute here; but those fields sometimes aren’t recognized or just aren’t respected by ‘practicing’ scientists (as if we’re not all ‘practising humans!’). How about at ASA? Why not seek to diversify ASA by inviting and promoting the contribution of anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, politologists and other non-natural scientists (even economists) who hold different views on such topics as evolution, creation and, as Keith writes, ‘divine action in nature’? Surely there are also non-natural(istic) scientifically minded Christians!
   
  “While we may have difficulties with some aspects of ID, at least they have managed to get the issue on the table so that secular scientific communities around the world are putting it on their agenda. I don't know of any other perspective in ASA that has managed to do that. This gives all of us an opportunity to share the perspectives from the Christian community. We do indeed differ (and widely so) on the details but we are united in our belief in the Creator and that science does not imply metaphysical naturalism. I wish we could be more aggressive on that score.” – Randy
   
  I as well wish ASA could be more aggressive on that score. At the same time, I support the sharing of perspectives from the Christian community (or Christian communities) at all levels. As Chuck has mentioned, sometimes it seems the party sets its own rules for what is acceptable discussion and what is not, even while the mission of ASA is not to promote a single view on controversial topics. Some sciences do indeed seem to imply (or in ID language, ‘infer’) metaphysical naturalism, even if they are not justified (warranted) in doing so.
   
  ‘Secular scientific community’ seems like a sociological construct. ‘Disenchantment,’ i.e. ‘the disenchantment of the world’ and (or secularization) of science, is likewise a sociological phenomenon. ASA has managed to successfully-reactively combat ID on ID’s terms. But theistic evolutionism and evolutionary creationism are both concept-duos that belong to 20th century generations; they do not reflect the needs, desires and preferences of 21st century scientists, philosophers or (if it may be so bold to suggest) theologians. I’m not calling ASA ‘old,’ but rather suggesting that ID has gained ground with a young generation because it appeals to their sensibilities, language and to the spirit of the age.
   
  Evolution surely belongs in some places of the scientific world, but *not* in all places. A stepping back from variants of theistic evolution, by members at ASA who elevate evolution a bit too high, would help not only to situate the science of evolution, but also to clarify where theology is not suited to go. It would put ASA ahead of the IDM, which up to this point refuses to properly contextualize theology. Much more could come out of the dialogue at ASA than maintaining an evolutionary status quo (cf. stable strategy).
   
  Gregory Arago
   
   
  P.S. Re: Resolution – theories of evolution, the theory of evolution, evolution, evolutionary theories, evolutionary, to evolve, evolved, evolving, evolvere / theories of creation, the theory of creation, creation, creation theories, creative, to create, created, creating, cre…
   
  E.g. this message (absolutely) did not ‘evolve’ into existence (i.e. having become what it is) – Click.

Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz> wrote: Randy:
Sure, ASA should turn up the heat on the Dawkins' and Weinberg's and Provine's. But the heat should be applied precisely at the the weak point, namely the scientism of these people. I agree with Keith that the approach of the ID political advocates has been counterproductive.People as diverse as Ruse and McGrath are doing a good job in putting the heat on Dawkins re his scientism. I suggest that ASA members could well join them.
Don

                 
---------------------------------
Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 27 16:11:47 2006