RE: [asa] Random and design

Please excuse Alexanian, but how does our understanding 'evolve'? Of course, our understanding 'changes' (over time), this is not in doubt. But why use the term 'evolve' to describe that change? Is understanding a purely biological category? If not, then it would seem suitable to give to biology what is biology's and to keep to non-natural science what is its sovereign right to explore (i.e. applying the notion of 'sphere sovereignty' by Abraham Kuype to the academic realm). Understanding, it seems to me, just doesn't 'fit' with an evolutionary narrative - evolution is just too ideologically invested to provide a fair reading. Not everything evolves; human understanding is one of those things.
   
  Regards,
  Arago

   
  
"Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
                It is best to say that the truth does not evolve but it is our understanding of it that does.
    Moorad

   
      
---------------------------------
  
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5:29 PM
To: Pim van Meurs; Janice Matchett
Cc: David Opderbeck; Richard Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Random and design

   
    Correct me if I'm wrong Pim, but your own biblical philosophy seems to profess that 'everything evolves,' and thus draws no logical limit around the process philosophy of evolution. Kataphatic and apophatic theology aside, the notion of intra-specific competition and struggle for life/existence would seem to suggest an 'expect the worst' strategy also. Wouldn't it?

    g.a.

    
Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:

    If we should expect the worst from eachother, how can anyone consequently take anyone seriously. Even your statement that many people 'mean well' seem to end up undermine your own position.
    I believe that the Bible offers much better philosophies than this.

     
      On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Janice Matchett wrote:

  
  
At 10:04 AM 11/24/2006, David Opderbeck wrote:

  Thanks for the link Janice, it's a good (though a bit critical) summary.
  
@ Yes, it was a bit critical, but I thought it was fair. Many people, including professing Christians, "mean well", but I subscribe to the axiom, "Caveat Emptor". Scriptures teach the total depravity of man, therefore we can hope for the best -- but expect the worst from each other and from the social institutions and "movements", etc. humans devise.

                 
---------------------------------
The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-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 Mon Nov 27 15:32:53 2006