Re: [asa] Darwin and Saving for Retirement

'So why do we strive for more?' Maximizing machines, that's what 'we'
are, says R. Trivers (one who is silenced or blocked out by many
Christians). Please note that this 'striving' maxim applies to
scientists/scholars themselves, in addition to politicians and
economists.

   'Struggle to survive' - not only in your life but in your
disciplinary academic field. Is it any wonder that delimiting
evolutionary thought outside of natural science or giving it up
entirely when speaking philosophically (hail the process
philosophers!) appears incredibly daunting to evolutionary theists.
Who wants to undermine (or is capable of doing so) biology's
supremicy in 21st century academia? Entwining theism with
(biological) naturalism seems to be a logical double-sided conundrum.

   Social behaviours like spending and saving? Oh (says the
inflationary naturalist)...that's not *really* science (don't worry,
its the system, not the individual that's to blame). If social
thinkers (philosophers or scientists) use evolutionary language, that
still doesn't mean it has any consequence or effect. Human agency is
subsumed by naturalists under evolutionary theories by such pure
motives as 'protecting' science using demarcationist language.

   Also, this of course has nothing to do with why ID is actually
catching on with an unscientific American public, which (still)
refuses evolutionary ideology (while ironically embracing it non-
naturalistically). ASA shouldn't take sides or promote either
theistic evolutionism (e.g. evolution as a 'theory of everything') or
'intelligent design.' After all, there's nobody here but us
scientific-rationalistic-progressively minded people!

   The rules of the game pit evolutionists against everyone else who
is humanly-unscientific (lizard-like)! Is it any wonder the
conclusion is predetermined?

   Arago

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 01:55:49 2006