Re: [asa] Opposing Anti-Evolution

Hello Roger,
   
  Let me respond by quoting a paper from a link I followed from your web page. Asa Gray can speak to the idea that the NT is supposedly an ‘evolution’ from the OT and that revelation changes-over-time. It is therefore subject to evolutionary speculation or theological reverse engineering.
   
  “I accept Christianity on its own evidence, which I am not here to specify or to justify; and I am yet to learn how physical or any other science conflicts with it any more than it conflicts with simple theism. I take it that religion is based on the idea of a Divine Mind revealing himself to intelligent creatures for moral ends. We shall perhaps agree that the revelation on which our religion is based is an example of evolution; that it has been developed by degrees and in stages, much of it in connection with second causes and human actions; and that the current of revelation has been mingled with the course of events. I suppose that the Old Testament carried the earlier revelation and the germs of Christianity, as the apostles carried the treasures of the gospel, in earthen vessels.” – Asa Gray (“Natural Science and Religion”)
   
  My view is slightly different, more nuanced, more humanitarian, so to speak, though the first sentence above I support entirely. I realize my views rub against those who have made evolution an integral component of their theological world and beyond worldview, but that does not dissuade me from holding them. Gray was a botanist, therefore when he evaluated evolutionary theory he did so through the eyes of someone studying the botanical, and the geological and biological consequences of Darwin’s work. However, not all participants in discussion about Creation, Evolution and Intelligent design, including questions of origins and processes, are necessarily natural scientists.
   
  Instead, I have studied the work of Herbert Spencer (‘survival of the fittest’), Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Ferdinand Toennies, Talcott Parsons (U.S.A. – ‘evolutionary universals’), Robert Merton (U.S.A. - ‘unintended consequences’), Jurgen Habermas, and other social scientists that use the metaphor ‘evolution’ in their scientific theories and contributions to knowledge. The growth of evolutionary thought/reasoning (logos) in areas such as economics and psychology verifies that natural sciences hold no monopoly over the (methodological) usage of ‘evolution,’ as a linguistic concept or perceptual device for understanding research and investigations in given fields. It is noticed that you are a mathematician and geologist, so I might hope that you likewise respect the sovereignty of fields of study which may seem mysterious to you, but which do contain detailed histories behind their chosen disciplinary language.
   
  To apprise you of my view of origins, there is no great need for that. And what would it prove; a small voice amongst a cacophony? Which origins? - This would be the first question. ‘Species’ (as in OOS) are not a great concern, since I focus primarily on the human species. Other scientists can study mammals, birds or reptiles or whatever else, e.g. what ethologists focus on. But human beings, especially how we/they live in groups, communities, families, etc. is another topic entirely.
   
  That said, I therefore don’t have to make a (natural) scientific speculation about *when* life originated, *when* human beings ‘became conscious’ or ‘self-aware’ or ‘created in the imago Dei.’ This suggests a rather different *directional* focus, and temporal understanding than those who start from the beginning (bang) and move forward from there (trying to figure out God’s creation; how God created). This may help to explain why my views may be hard to figure out; I move in different circles of interest than studying only nature or matter. Secularism and secularization are meaningful concepts outside of natural/physical sciences too.
   
  Sociology is concerned with both dynamics and statics. This was part of the conceptualization of the (positive philosopher) scientist who coined the term ‘sociology.’ The topic of ‘degrees’ and ‘stages’ can be discussed without using an evolutionary paradigm, outside of evolution. We are thus left with coming to realize how science and theology can find a collaborative language and purpose, where cooperation, integration and respectful synthesis could exist, instead of a conflict-based model that ensures competition, struggle and disrespectful misunderstanding.
   
  When is it wrong to oppose anti-evolution? Will you, Roger, suggest an answer? Clearly you are not ignorant. It would probably help if you explain places or situations where you feel uncomfortable promoting or putting forth evolutionary logic, on the boundaries of your professional work, where personal questions of origins and processes become intermingled with scientific speculation. The natural theology cum natural philosophy of evolution awaits appropriate self-limiting (situated knowledge – all knowledge comes from somewhere); a drawing-back, so to speak, especially by those theists who insist evolution is a ‘theory of everything.’ I assume you don’t think it is, do you?
   
   
  Warm Sunday regards,
   
  Gregory
   
   
    

"Roger G. Olson" <rogero@saintjoe.edu> wrote:
  
--- Greg wrote: ---

... The NT is *better,* or *more* or *higher* than the OT, for example. It
seems to me that persons with this type of argument or way of thinking
simply ignore or forget the fact that the OT is written *later* in history
than the NT, in order that they may adopt their theological understanding
to the
natural science cum natural philosophy of evolution. ...

Response from Roger:

Greg,

Please excuse my ignorance, but could you explain what you mean by this?
Also, could you apprise us of your origins views? You're one of the few
Listserve contributors I can't figure out.

God's Peace, Roger

~~

Gregory Arago
PhD Candidate
Faculty of Sociology
St. Petersburg State University
Russia
                 
---------------------------------
The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-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 Sun Jul 16 05:53:47 2006