Re: [asa] Opposing Anti-Evolution

Greg,

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't expecting a treatise! Forgive me, but
it appears that I'm not bright enough to comprehend your answer. :-( For
example, I don't see where you answer my question about your assertion
that "... 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 what sense is the OT written *later* than
the NT?

It also seems you're using a too broad definition of "evolution". For me
"evolution" simply means "change over time." In that sense, everything
(modulo the laws of physics) change over time. But cosmic evolution,
chemical evolution (abiogenesis), biological evolution, and cultural
evolution are very different things. That we use the term "evolution" to
describe them doesn't mean they're all equivalent in function or
certainty. They are, of course, all part of a creation process. I *do*
believe in Creation, you know?

Also, in what sense is anyone proposing that "evolution" is a "theory of
everything"? You have totally confused here. What kind of evolution?
Like I said, basically everything changes over time. Are you conflating
"evolution" with "ontological naturalism" or some such thing? I'm
confused...

Cultural evolution doesn't follow the same pattern as biological
evolution. CE is fundamentally Lamarckian in that acquired
characteristics can be passed on to future generations. There's no need or
justification to apply "survival of the fittest" to CE, in fact it's an
ethical and moral mistake.

I don't understand "evolutionary" psychology or sociology. I really have
little idea what those even mean. Perhaps the idea that there are
vestigial behaviours pre-programmed in H. sapiens' brains that from a
theological standpoint conflict with our *imago Dei*? An explanation of
"original sin" perhaps? I dunno.

So, to answer you question, I would NOT "oppose anti-evolution" (too many
negatives!!!) when the scientific concepts of biological evolution is
misapplied to cultural evolution, Spencerian "survival of the fittest",
etc. I also would *tentatively* NOT oppose anti-evolution with respect
to chemical evolution (abiogenesis), simply because the scientific
community knows so little about it. Also (of course!) I would NOT "oppose
anti-evolution" for the concept of ultimate origins (which no kind of
"evolution" addresses anyway.)

I WOULD oppose anti-evolution as applied to consensus science backing
current theories of cosmic and geological evolutions (deep time!) and
biological evolution (common descent with modification).

God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. Just a general note -- I sure wish the ASA Listserve used web forum
software. It would be ever so much easier to edit messages and reply to
portions of messages!

> 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
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.