Greg,
I fear your approach overlooks a very basic human tendency, if not a
compulsion. What one believes will be totally supported by every "fact"
in the universe. Atheists are certain that all science demonstrates that
there is no God. YEC are certain that all true scientific facts
demonstrate that the world is 6000 years old (with semi-heretical YEC
allowing 10 K). "Good" ID (excludes Behe) and OEC like Hugh Ross are
certain that evolution either never happened or cannot produce anything
new. Phil Johnson knows that methodological naturalism is only disguised
metaphysical naturalism.
It is very difficult for any human being to recognize their own basic
commitments, or even the habits they grew up with. Americans know that
Europeans hold their fork funny and eat with a knife. Europeans know
Americans are unsanitary because they stick dinner knives into the
butter. Chinese, of course, know that a knife has no place at the table.
When matters are abstract and involve deep commitments, they are
especially difficult to spot. You seem not to have noted that TE involves
giving full credit to science without a commitment to denial of the
deity. ID assumes that God is susceptible to empirical test, which is
theologically impossible without humans causing effects in God even as
God is First Cause. OEC are usually a little milder, assuming that the
universe, or at least life, is too complex to have evolved, without the
insistence on detection, ID's claim. An amazingly wide group of
Christians are committed to a God-of-the-gaps approach, which runs into
difficulties if God is omniscient and omnipotent, as well as with the
continual reduction of gaps as scientific understanding increases.
I was early taught YEC with a dollop of gap theory. I discovered what I
call the Evangelical Revised Version when a professor who signed the
statement of faith without reserve told me, in the face of the express
language of scripture, "I can't imagine ..." I realized I had to be true
to the Word, not what I wanted it to say. I encountered scientific
evidence of age, which forced me to OEC. A better understanding of
science, theology and philosophy compelled me to TE. I was already, when
ID was proposed, beyond that position. I still recognize the full
authority of scripture for faith and practice. Like Brother Martin, I
have to say, "Here I stand."
Dave
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
“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 Wed Jun 28 00:03:22 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 28 2006 - 00:03:22 EDT