Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

Dave Siemens said: *You are confusing scientism-materialism with
Darwinism-evolution.
*
Roger said: *I sure wish I could see your and Arago's POV, but for the love
of God, I
surely don't. What are you trying to get at anyway?*
**
Dave and Roger, I understand some of your frustration with me and Greg.
Like you, neither of us (I think Greg would agree with me here -- correct if
I'm wrong) think the Dawkins-ites are *right *in conflating common descent
with scientism-materialism; and neither of us (again, Greg, correct if I'm
wrong) are suggesting YECism is acceptable. All of us agree: common
descent doesn't in itself have to imply scientism-materialism, and clearly
false positions such as YECism should be rejected.

But Greg and I, working in social sciences, see that people in our
disciplines overwhelmingly *do *conflate common descent with
scientism-materialism. And not only that, as we study the history and
sociology of science, we see that people in *your* disciplines -- at least
in biology -- do so as well. And further, we see that in the culture at
large, conflating common descent with scientisim-materialism is a huge, huge
problem; I at least would daresay it's a bigger threat to faith than
YECism. This is why I mentioned the Wired article. Turn also to the
"science" column in the Wall Street Journal (today's essentially positivist
column on "why false beliefs persist in the face of contrary evidence" is a
good example), the New York Times, etc., and you will see the same thing:
faith in anything beyond "science" is derided as irrational, and Darwinism
is Exhibit A in the supposed triumph of "science" over "faith."

So what I'm a bit frustrated by, and where I have trouble understanding your
perspective, is that you don't seem to understand how big this problem of
scientism-materialism-positivism is becoming in our culture. On this list,
we can cheerfully affirm that Darwinism doesn't necessarily imply
materialism, and technically, that's true. But out in the "real" world,
Darwinism is exactly used to imply materialism.

And this leads, for me at least, to the problem of teleology and design
arguments. For the love of God, I don't understand what I sense is a deep
hostility to any sort of teleology or design argument in biology among some
(not all) in the TE camp. I do understand caution, since there are some
plainly flawed teleology / design arguments, and many of those are employed
by YECs. But when I read someone like Francis Collins with the one hand
employ teleology / design arguments in cosmology and with the other blithely
dismiss the very same sorts of arguments in biology, I say "huh?" It seems
to me that the brick wall against any design / teleology arguments in
biology lends aid and comfort to those who say Darwinism does imply
scientism-materialsm.

On 10/19/06, Roger G. Olson <rogero@saintjoe.edu> wrote:
>
> > *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.
>
> I really don't care what Dawkins or other ontological naturalists believe
> "evolution" means. Why would you want to use their false hyperbolic
> meanings of this general term to conflate the very different academic
> areas of cosmic, chemical, biological, and cultural evolutions? Dawkins
> and his ideological lot are as ignorant of reality as Henry Morris, Duane
> Gish, and Jon Sarfati.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> I'm all for a thoughtful unified attack on materialism (ontological
> naturalism?), but not at the expense of throwing out *clear* empirical
> evidence of deep time in the rock and cosmic records and common descent of
> the biosphere. How does the latter compromise our Christian faith in any
> way and support the cynics POV?
>
> I sure wish I could see your and Arago's POV, but for the love of God, I
> surely don't. What are you trying to get at anyway?
>
> 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 Fri Oct 20 08:55:19 2006