Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

Please excuse the delayed reply, as my name is still found on the
Cc's and I'd have liked to respond earlier, especially when it became
'geologists against social scientists' a bit earlier on. Big breath...

   “Absolutist language might get under your skin, but it Michael's
statement is a fact nonetheless.” – Charles Carrigan (Geology)

   The issue in this case is not with Michael’s geology (statement of
fact), it is indeed with his language. Yes, it is true, Michael is in
England, his mother tongue is English, and so is the language we are
using here at ASA to communicate. The challenge is *how* English is
used and what is meant.

   The absolutist language of *any* and *always* is tough to agree
with, especially regarding the ‘vast amounts of literature’ that
Michael has read about ID. Personally, I think there are some very
good arguments to be found within ID literature, though I don’t agree
with *all* of it and I’m definitely not an IDist. There’s quite a
difference in the meaning of the word ‘fact,’ which is used above to
defend the statement of a fellow geologist, for example, in defining
a strata of earth than in defining information and complexity or
making an attempt at specifying complexity with an objective or
empirical measure. Geology isn’t much involved in the latter studies,
so I don’t see Michael’s justification for saying *any* and *always*
about ID.

   “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.” – David O. (Jurisprudence, Social Science)

   Yes, this view is correct about my views also and I’m not
suggesting YECism is acceptable, nor agreeing with Richard Dawkins.
Likewise, common descent does not have to imply scientism-
materialism. Hopefully this helps to sort out some of the confusion.

   “Of course, academe makes puts the latter in separate category --
cultural evolution.” – Roger Olson (Geology)

   Who says it’s a separate category? Herbert Spencer, Emile
Durkheim, Julian Huxley, E.O. Wilson, Ken Wilbur? Are any of these
approaches compatible with a Christian understanding of the world? Or
do people just take ‘cultural and social evolution’ for granted? Do
you put your trust in ‘academe’ as (many) sociologists put their
trust/faith/hope in ‘society’?

   “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?
  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?” – Roger
Olson

   Not caring is indeed a pity. It doesn’t seem to me that I’m
conflating. You personally, Roger, may deem Dawkins’ definition a
‘false hyperbolic meaning.’ He is in fact a highly respected
scientist (ethologist) by many and holds the chair of Public
Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His reputation (as in,
how well known he is) quite possibly exceeds yours, and his
definition of evolution, the extended phenotype and memes still have
currency.

   It seems to me such a position displays an underestimation of the
widespread usage of evolutionary theories in human sciences and
doesn’t sort out the essential differences and similarities between
natural sciences and social sciences. It just reinforces a hierarchy
of science around terms such as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ or ‘objective’ and
subjective’ which are convenient dualisms. Btw, what is an
‘ontological naturalist’ – is it your term, Roger, or did it come
from someone who has built an argument around it?

   This is one of the issues I’ve repeated continually here at ASA –
natural scientists don’t seem (to want or be able) to meet me part
way. If Roger thinks I’m conflating cosmic, chemical, biological and
cultural evolutions (I was glad to read the plural form!), then he
should more likely turn attention to those natural scientists who
elevate evolution into a ‘theory of everything.’ Likewise, he should
pay attention to those social scientists and philosophers who have no
qualms in using the analogy of evolution in their fields of study.
The latter is fundamentally not my position.

   “In our somewhat insular discussions on this list, we like to
cabin ‘evolution’ as something very specific involving biological
common descent.” – David O.

   David makes exactly the main point – insular discussions and
cabining ‘evolution’ – while directing all outward attention at
YECism and IDiocy. When I speak of social and cultural evolution, it
does not mean I am promoting them (far from it), but rather simply
identifying that they exist in the literature. Defending or promoting
evolution in geology is quite different than defending or promoting
it in sociology or economics.

   “[L]egal realism is based on a Darwinist-materialist view of human
nature.” – David O.

   Case in point: Can anyone at ASA dialogue with David about this to
get at/open up a view of its roots and processes? Perhaps not *all*
legal realism is Darwinian, but perhaps much of it is and geologists
saying ‘forget about it’ doesn’t change the situation.

   “When I went to college and began to study geology I soon saw that
the YEC geology arguments were flawed. But I still found the YEC
astronomy, biology, mathematical, and theological arguments fairly
convincing. Then I read Howard Van Til's "The Fourth Day" and saw
how the YEC astronomy arguments were flawed. Over the years as I've
read, talked with, or listened to experts in each of these fields
I've come to see flaws in YEC arguments for each discipline.” – Steve
Smith (Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey)

   As above, I am not defending YEC. The earth seems ‘old’ to me.

   “Many people on this list see the flaws in YEC and ID arguments
within their own scientific (or theological) specialty but are
worried about or even convinced by the YEC or ID arguments from
fields outside of their expertise.” – Steve Smith (Geology, U.S.
Geological Survey)

   YEC and ID are, as Steve and many others have noted, not the same
thing. This suggests that outside of geology, ID might have some
interesting arguments; perhaps in cognitive science or studies in
technology and information processing, etc. One of the difficulties
is that the sciences today are fragmented and un-holistic. Scientists
speak with ‘expertise’ within their own discipline and do not
acknowledge the relevance of other views of reality. Evolution is a
prime example of this – people projecting their knowledge of
evolution onto the respectfully different (sovereign) knowledge of
others.

   “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.” – David O.

   It seems that ‘design’ has already been tried and has been
disqualified even if only on the basis of grammar. Why ‘that
particular concept’ or why ‘that particular concept duo’ – because it
is not yet retro enough? Perhaps the teleology issue differs in that
natural science focuses primarily on material and efficient causes. A
reintegration of formal and final causes, e.g. in the case of
ecology, seems a possibility, but probably not in biology?

   “Bull. TEs are concerned enough about clarity to recognize that
teleology is not a scientific term. They recognize that the hand of
God is not evident in empirical studies.” – Dave Siemens

   It seems that Dave is among those David O. mentioned as having
‘deep hostility.’ Yet, from a philosophical viewpoint, he chooses to
define what is ‘scientific’ and what is not ‘scientific,’ ala the
demarcation game. This just yawns us back to the creation vs.
evolution standoff. Is the hand of God evident in miracles? The issue
for Dave is simply ‘why teleology *cannot* be used scientifically?’
What about teleological evolutionists (or evolutionists who think
teleologically) – are they/ can they be scientific?

   “Is an argument for theism / design based on
” – David O.

   Personally, I don’t see theism and design as an appropriate pair.
God does much more than one simple metaphor ‘design’ can express and
God’s Intelligence is beyond what the mere concept of ‘intelligence’
can express. I agree with Jim Armstrong’s point that IDists have
unfortunately misappropriated those two concepts such that any
discussion of ‘design’ and ‘intelligence’ is now almost automatically
associated (drawn into) their terms of engagement of the theme
(wedge, pseudo-scientific revolution, the bridge between science and
theology, cultural renewal, etc).

   “So, based on my skepticism of YEC and (some) ID arguments in
geology and biology, should I also reject ‘design’ arguments in law
as ‘YEC or ID’ arguments? Should I admit that the concept of a moral
basis for law is an illusion? But if I do that, aren't I succumbing
to the reductionist scientism that everyone here seems to agree is an
unwarranted extension of Darwinism? And where does that reduction
end?” – David O.

   David touches upon one of the most important questions I’ve yet
seen expressed here at ASA (though perhaps it is more important to me
than others b/c like him I’m a social scientist). Though his legal
vision, I know not much about, the way he expresses his argument
against the hegemony of materialism or naturalism is quite succinct.
The issue of Darwin’s role, the role of those who follow(ed) Darwin’s
ideas and the title of (neo)-Darwinism can be unpacked for clarity
and to identify ideological leanings, especially since Darwin leaned
so heavily on metaphors *and* empirical data. Probably David’s
position is more suited to counter the contribution of P. Johnson
(and hence the rise of the IDM) than any other on this list; David’s
views request of natural scientists that they carefully distinguish
what is ‘naturalistic’ (in an ideological and not ‘pure scientific’
sense) and what is potentially open to theism in naturalistic views.

   This week I have come personally across those who deny the
relevance of theology in their particular sphere of study/
scholarship. But when challenged on how it is possible to reduce
reality to a singular discipline (e.g. philosophy grounds itself in
itself), the answers to charges of reductionism came up short. Sadly,
the elevation of a politics of conflict (which in my view is
supported by evolutionary social science) took the place of
theological relevance and inquiry. But I am not officially a
philosopher and some of the individual philosophers seemed open to a
cooperation of spheres rather than their exclusion or reduction –
especially helped by a religious studies friend from PA, USA.

   If my responses to those who question me on this list are not
compatible with their views, then please forgive my provocations. If
I am abstract and continental where others are empirical and
analytical then let us respect our differences. In no way do I wish
to diminish the contribution of geology or geological science to the
contemporary academy. But I do wish to include areas of scholarship
that often go undetected (un-included) by natural science discussions
on the theme of science and religion. Social science is just as much
and as little a ‘privileged perspective’ as natural science is.

   Wayne helps to sooth the disharmony: “You ought to at least
consider that there are a number of people here on this list who
sincerely believed the YEC views until they began to question some
things. Even then, they had difficulty coping with the thought that
the people they respected were wrong. Such a bitter lesson must be
hard medicine to take.”

   Yes, this point is well taken and neither David nor I mean to be
insensitive or oppositional just by being social scientists. At least
I can speak for myself in saying that I’ve had my taste of YEC views
at a formative stage in my life also. Like several people at ASA,
I’ve questioned things and studied YEC and found many shortcomings
and even falsities that YEC’s didn’t/don’t appear to want to honestly
confront. Let it be hoped that having experienced bitter medicine
would not make people hard-hearted. They need not go back down that
same road again. However, if a new road were to open that they would
hesitate to travel given their negative experience and lack of trust
(howling pro-evolutionism against any hint of anti-evolutionism or
non-evolutionary views), then it will be all the harder to ever let
go of evolutionary theories for a newer paradigm that a re-generation
may indeed reveal.

   With Warm Regards,

   Gregory Arago (Social science, philosophy)

   p.s. please excuse if I neglected to mention any or errored on the
‘expertise’ of any of the quoted participants in this message

   p.p.s. I would like to recopy the sentiments of David O., to the
effect that: “It seems to me that calling something a ‘YEC or ID’
argument too often becomes a rhetorical device without any content.
Can't someone reject the idea of a 6,000 year old creation, reject a
knee-jerk response against common descent, and yet remain open to
some design arguments, without incurring the ‘YEC or ID’ label?”

   It happens that my sister is a computer programmer, i.e. a person
who ‘designs’ things on a continual basis. Design arguments are not
limited to biology, botany or ecology, just as evolutionary arguments
are not. If anyone out there would like to discuss/argue with me
about whether my sister’s programs can be said to have
‘evolved’ (into being or having become) or whether they are
‘designed,’ then I’d be glad to entertain them publicly or privately.
Iain S. would probably be first on the list, though his familiarity
with social science may not qualify him for the subtlety of the
discourse of human agency and social action.

   p.p.ps. this message was written before reading several posts in
this thread, including the thoughtful reply by Steven Smith to David
O., Charles Carrigans reference, which gave support to David's
thesis, and the posts by George and Wayne, from which I would like
to highlight the following:

   “So the objection I have is not so much that ID folk express a
teleology or design argument, rather, it is that they think that
science can prove their arguments. They're still rock stuck in the
positivist-scientism pit.”

   That August Comte (positive philosophy/science of the third stage)
was a real stinker! Perhaps this is what Dave Siemens is really
railing against, positive scientific teleology seems a misnomer to
him. Yet other TE's instead argue not against teleology, but against
positivism and scientism, thus requiring the help of philosophers to
re-interpret the ideology in a more religiously friendly way.

David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote: However, somewhere
between these statements and rhetoric that comes out elsewhere, this
is what they are insinuating they have in their hand. And so, to
anyone watching such a confrontational style as often comes out, this
sure looks like they are saying "this PROVES".

...the notion that there's some sort of stealthy agenda to claim
"proof" of God is unfair.

                  
---------------------------------
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 Fri Oct 27 01:36:41 2006