Re: [asa] Quoting Evolution [was Darwin] out of context

Hello Bill,
   
  Your point is valid about the nub of the problem being one of meaning and communication. Though I don't share the problem of addressing evangelical audiences in the United States, it does seem that people's definitions of evolution differ quite dramatically. Perhaps this is what Darwin meant when he said "My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts."
   
  You talk about "Christians with a science background" telling 'the truth.' This of course, sounds great. In the United States, apparently you've got a lot of work to do since belief in/ acceptance of evolution is at such low figures, just above Turkey. 'Whose truth' becomes an important question too.
   
  At the same time you educate people about evolutionary theories in biology, geology, zoology, chemistry, and other natural sciences (a legitimate endeavour), what do you do about the prevalence of evolutionary theories in psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, political science and philosophy? Do you just disregard them or say they are illegitimate, that they do not use 'true' definitions of evolution? Or do you contend they are just borrowing a natural scientific concept, making an analogy, and pretend a hierarchy of sciences exists, thus devaluing the usage of evolutionary theories in social sciences? It seems that at least part of the reason why people doubt evolution so commonly in the United States (mostly without knowing scientific theories of evolution) is due to the acceptance of false evolutionary theories, which is what Bill has noted, and many people at ASA have said already/repeatedly.

  G. Arago
   
  
Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
  --- David Campbell
wrote:

> >
> > Several questions arise about the limitations of evolutionary thought. May it be that the concept of 'evolution' can be taken out of context, misquoted so to speak? Is this a possibility that can be further explored at ASA or should it be swept under the carpet due to fears about anti-evolutionism? I ask this because it seems to me that not only those like Dennett and Dawkins abuse the term 'evolution' and over-stretch its uses, but also those theists, even Christians, who tie together or integrate their views of science with their theology to such a degree that evolution has become one of the most important theological concepts in their vocabulary (e.g. de Chardin). Could it be, for example, that process theology is so intimately intertwined with evolutionary thinking that to remove evolutionary thinking would result in a catastrophe for process theology? - G. Arago
 
> It's certainly necessary to specify what one means by evolution. D. Campbell

And here is the nub of the problem. If I, arguing before a fairly typical
evangelical audience, argue that the textbook definition of evolution is simply change in the frequency of the various allelles from generation to generation, I'm likely to be told that that's not the definition of evolution. The "true" definition, should I ask for it, might not be wrong, but you can be sure it will be phrased so as to make most evangelicals see red. We're dealing with Hitler's observation: that if you tell a lie frequently enough, people begin to believe it. The only antidote to that I see is for Christians with a science
background to tell the truth in as many forums as possible. - B. Hamilton

<There's the basic issue of making clear what one is talking about. On <top of that is the antievolutionary use of the word (or related terms <such as macroevolution, Darwinism, etc) as a perjorative. <Conversely, there is the invocation of evolution in the quest for adding <an aura of scientific authority to philosophical views. For example, <assumptions about progressive social evolution are widespread and <typically invoke biological evolution for justification when in fact it provides no support for those views. Examples include Marxism, claiming that a particular theological view found in a passage could not have arisen prior to X time and so the passage has to be dated later than that, ideas that society is progressing, etc. Of course, one can find support for some aspects of claims of these sorts on the basis of historical evidence, definition of moral values, etc.,
> but others are imposed in disregard of the evidence.
> Process theology, as far as I can tell, posits continual change in both God and creation and in that sense is inherently evolutionary, in contrast to, e.g., the cyclic picture with a static ideal seen in Hinduism or Buddhism.
> However, this need not have anything to do with biological evolution.
> Although traditional Christian theology sees God as unchanging, there is a progressive revalation and a sense of direction to history which is more of an evolutionary pattern than the Hindu view. Again, there is some parallel to biological evolution, but the relationship is not necessarily any more > profound than that between Trinitarianism and the use of (inadequate) > scientific metaphors such as water, steam, and ice. - D. Campbell
                                 
---------------------------------
Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 22 09:48:25 2006