[asa] Opposing Anti-Evolution

The post below by David Campbell, whose views on this forum I quite respect, prompted me to follow it up with a few questions, one in particular about anti-evolution(ism):
   
  “Antievolutionism typically dismisses evolution as a religious view, so the author's support for teaching evolution would definitely be seen as trying to impose his [sic] religious view by most antievolutionists. Evolution ought to be defined as a scientific theory, without specific religious or philosophical baggage [not that science operates in a philosophical vacuum but that specific laws, data, etc. have little metaphysical relevance], so this particular objection may be invalid.” – David Campbell
   
  The main question then of this post is to ask, when is it wrong to oppose anti-evolution?
   
  The first question, linguistic and theoretical in orientation, is *which evolution* are people opposing, to garner the label of ‘anti-evolution’? For example, if evolutionary (or process) theology is included in the categorization, then it would be wrong to dismiss evolution as a religious view, when it is also possible to accept evolution within one’s religious view, to whatever degree of integration or disintegration an individual believer sees fit. To question *which evolution* is to identify a diversity of evolutionary views.
   
  If a person accepts biological evolution, evolutionary geology or natural scientific evolution broadly speaking, then this is o.k. But if they reject evolutionary philosophy, evolutionary economics or evolutionary psychology, then is this not acceptable? Do certain types or manifestations of evolutionary theory thus hold greater or lesser degrees of validity, in given spheres?
   
  For example, Pope John Paul II of the RCC wrote that evolution “is more than just a theory.” At the same time, “[T]heories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.” (Address to the Pontifical Academy, 1996)
   
  Pope Benedict XVI of the RCC says, “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.” (Homily, St. Peter’s Square, April 24, 2005)
   
  It can be held that neither of the above views is ‘scientific,’ nonetheless they do both identify places where it is apparently wrong to oppose anti-evolution or where it is right to oppose evolution.
   
  As for ID, there are varying opinions. Not all IDists are anti-evolutionists. In fact, P. Nelson seems to be the only confirmed Young Earth Creationist-IDist among the IDM leadership and his book on “Common Descent” is being held back, perhaps partly for this reason. The truth is that mainstream ID (what I prefer to call i+d) and IDists hold diverse opinions on when to be anti-evolution and when not to be. W. Dembski, for example, recently awarded a small monetary prize to someone for their on-line explanation/description of what constitutes ‘technological evolution.’
   
  So let me return to the main question and set it free to ASA: when is it wrong to oppose anti-evolution?
   
  Arago
   
  P.s. “Science is interpreted broadly to include anthropology, archeology, economics, engineering, history, mathematics, medicine, political science, psychology, and sociology as well as the generally recognized science disciplines.” – ASA

                 
---------------------------------
 All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 12 10:43:47 2006