Roger,
You’re welcome. And thanks for clarifying your question.
In answer to your question, partly it is that I was a bit sloppy with that particular word – ‘later.’ The OT was clearly written *before* the NT – ‘later in history’ may confuse. However, the sloppiness actually may help to further explain the argument. It is an issue of directionality – looking forward or looking backward.
Evolution is one-directional; it does not contain dual-directional logic (except in those cases where evolution is appropriated contemporary theorists to be that way, see relativistic theme below). Darwin’s branching structure, e.g. his tree diagram, reveals the uni-directionality. This is why Mortimer J. Adler and co. mentioned the ‘higher,’ ‘better,’ ‘more’ aspect of evolution, that is, ‘progress.’ The logic of some evolutionists (used here as a neutral term), otoh, is that even the ticking of time is a cause of things evolving. Time ticks; therefore God’s revelation, as viewed in the words of Asa Gray, is liable to ‘evolution’ too.
One of the greatest strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory (outside of mere biology) is that it has become almost all things to all people. It is a progressive theory to some. To others, there is no purpose, no direction and no teleology in evolution. To some it is about struggle, conflict, competition; to others evolutionary theory has now has ‘evolved’ to include cooperation, ‘mutual aid’ (K.F. Kessler, 1879), altruism, etc. To some it focuses on adaptation, variation and differentiation. To others it is about flexibility, similarity and integration. Even my writing on this list can be said to have ‘evolved’ into being (or having become) since the computer page literally ‘changed-over-time.’ In such a perspective, nothing is free from evolution!
"For every scientist who soothingly intones that evolution can coexist peacefully with religion, there is another who openly proclaims its antitheistic implications" - Nancy Pearcey ("We're not in Kansas Anymore: Why Secular Scientists and Media Can't Admit that Darwinism Might be Wrong," 1999)
Please excuse me for saying it, but if it is your settled view that “‘evolution’ simply means ‘change over time’,” then in my opinion, you are contributing to a general misunderstanding. First, evolution is much too nuanced, too diverse to revert to such a simplistic definition (e.g. most dictionaries give at least four or five definitions of evolution). Second, in doing so, you would attribute to evolution a literal monopoly over the concept of ‘change.’ This is unacceptable. ‘Evolution’ is not a perfect synonym of ‘change’ (see ASA thread discussed below) and cannot maintain such a hegemony.
As with you, I also believe in Creation. And I don’t find this to be contrary to accepting biological evolution or evolutionary geology. However, when the issue is elevated (or lowered) to philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, political science, etc. a fundamentally different basis for the conversation is required. That is, a re-education of evolutionary priority. Gladly, you acknowledge this also.
“[C]osmic 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.” – R. Olson
Yes, and this demonstrates why/how the notion of ‘continuing creation’ is still a leading concept in the grammar arsenal of theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists, which apparently includes most members on this discussion list.
Please forgive if I will now express an alternate view. What is really behind most of the resistance to evolutionary biology (i.e. one form of anti-evolution) is that it somehow contributes to a secularization of society, of people in society, of individuals. This is because they feel their faith is challenged when their views of Adam and Eve, the spiritual origin of the human soul/spirit, the immaterial idea of grace and mercy, even salvation itself, etc. are undermined. But no discussion about evolutionary biology, including whether or not biological structures are ‘intelligently designed,’ will ever reveal this dilemma to the general public. Thus, restricting evolution to natural science-only (actually, even pretending evolution is only a natural scientific concept) guarantees that a cloistered discussion amongst natural scientists is the only source of a solution.
Please note that peoples’ faith is undermined not by evolutionary biology, but predominantly by evolutionary philosophy, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary sociology, evolutionary anthropology, etc. Is this palatable, something that can be tasted and grasped? Or should it just be chucked out as irrelevant, that discussion at ASA is only about ‘natural’ science? This is why I previously included the ASA declaration of what constitutes ‘science’ according to ASA’s mission.
Please also excuse the double negative. Where I live, double negatives are the linguistic norm. The idea behind it is that ‘opposing evolution’ is actually what the two most recent RCC Pope’s have done or are doing. They have said certain ‘varieties of evolution’ are indeed opposed to Christian faith; where evolution is considered meaningless, purposeless, or without spiritual origin(s), it is opposed to Christianity. They are thus engaged in opposing anti-evolution, at the same time that they support evolution *in certain spheres*.
By asking when it is wrong to oppose anti-evolution (a tricky triple negative), I wanted to tease apart just where/when theists who might or who do who accept evolution at a biological, geological or botanical level, would finally come to take a stand and say ‘No, this or that type of evolution is unacceptable.’ Doing so would give Christians ground to identify boundaries of evolutionary thought so that it doesn’t ultimately engulf Christian wisdom. For most of those at ASA, however, this is evidently not a problem.
What I have found (not only at ASA) is a regular passing of the buck, so to speak, onto materialism, naturalism, physicalism and sometimes secularism, when the issue of *which evolution* is raised. Thus, the argument goes that there is no clear distinction of when certain ‘varieties of evolution’ are just plain wrong and contrary to Christian faith. Christians speaking of ‘technological evolution’ is a fine example. This is what I have attempted over the past three years to more or less quietly challenge.
This is to question the interdisciplinarity of evolutionary theory, which it seems hasn’t been done before.
Peace be with you,
Arago
p.s. R.O.: Please ask yourself this question: what is the difference between ‘evolved-over-time’ and ‘changed-over-time’? It would be encouraging to hear your philosophical-linguistic response. It may be helpful that we have discussed this at ASA-list already:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200605/0001.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200603/0462.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200604/0062.html
p.p.s. Given the above logic, it would be impossible for the ASA Listserve ‘to evolve’ into a web forum!
"Roger G. Olson" <rogero@saintjoe.edu> wrote: 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!
---------------------------------
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 Mon Jul 17 17:50:11 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 17 2006 - 17:50:11 EDT