Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

*And you "overspeak" yourself all the time in your insistence upon applying
the generic term "evolution" from the specific meanings of cosmic and
chemical and biological evolutions (all very different of course to anyone
who's studied science) to social and cultural phenomena.*

But this is exactly how materialists apply the term, from Dawkins to
Lewontin to Dennett to Wilson. In our somewhat insular discussions on this
list, we like to cabin "evolution" as something very specific involving
biological common descent. But "true" Darwinists apply "evolution" to mind,
spirit and culture as well, whether in the form of sociobiology or
memetics. *We who believe there is such a thing as the image of God in man
are just as ridiculous to true Darwinists as YECs (and for some, ID's) are
to us.* Greg is right about this.

BTW, there's a fascinating and frightening article in the current issue of
Wired on the "new atheism" that reinforces, I think, Greg's point. It's not
online yet, but pick it up on the news stand. All of us who believe there
is something beyond mere matter are held in utter contempt by the
intellectual vanguard of contemporary Darwinism, whether we accept common
descent or not. We should spend more energy on thoughtful, unified
responses to the fallacies of materialism than we do on sniping at other
people of faith who question evolution, however defined.

On 10/19/06, Roger G. Olson <rogero@saintjoe.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > "I have read vast amounts of YEC and ID literature of all sorts. As I
> > unravelled any scientific argument in them (had to be geology as that is
> > my field) I
> > found that they were ALWAYS marked by inaccuracies..." - Michael Roberts
> >
> > 'They,' as the quote makes clear, refers only to YEC or ID arguments
> in
> > geology (with absolutist language any argument, ALWAYS to boot!).
> > Wouldn't it be nice if YEC or ID had to do only with geology...or with
> > natural science only, for that matter? As if it/they had nothing to do
> > information theory or psychology.
>
> Michael is focusing on geology, since that's his area of expertise.
> Within this baliwick, YEC and ID (not sure what this means for geology
> since it's not well-defined generally) come up wanting -- and fatally so.
>
>
> > Please excuse if the 'blinded by one's worldview' brush paints both
> ways,
> > in the sense that TE, ID and YEC all have ideological components - none
> is
> > entirely neutral, i.e. just the facts without hermeneutics.
>
> If you can provide hermeneutical criteria that will outweigh the empirical
> evidence (from God's Creation itself!) then I'm all ears. No
> interpretation is entirely neutral, one making such a claim is intoxicated
> by the puerile, but the empirical evidence points very very clearly
> towards a Giga-anna Cosmos and Earth and common descent of the biosphere.
> Both a non-evolutionary special creation of life forms and a kilo-anna
> Cosmos is laughable -- modulo of course a deceiving evil despot deity who
> will fake the evidence to deceive us poor slobs who dare to study the
> evidence.
>
> >
> > Ifffff a person could make a case against evolution outside of
> Michael's
> > discipline of choice, does anyone think he could get outside of his
> > worldview to openly consider it as even a possibility?
>
> "Iff" means "if and only if". What does "Ifffff" mean? Also, what do you
> mean by "evolution"? Certainly you are not throwing this about as a
> rhetoric term as per hoi poloi?
>
> >
> > Sometimes, it really seems necessary to be defend ID and even YEC
> > against TE's when they over-speak themselves (as rarely as that may be)
> > in support of evolutionary universalism.
> >
> > G.A.
> >
>
> And you "overspeak" yourself all the time in your insistence upon applying
> the generic term "evolution" from the specific meanings of cosmic and
> chemical and biological evolutions (all very different of course to anyone
> who's studied science) to social and cultural phenomena. Of course,
> academe makes puts the latter in separate category -- cultural evolution.
>
> The use of the term "evolution" could also apply to the "evolving" of
> carbon dioxide when baking soda and vinegar are mixed. Perhaps an
> hermeneutic should be applied for this phenomenon as well?
>
> R
> --
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 19 22:14:43 2006