Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

@@ Everyone seems to have their own personal definitions and as long
as that remains the case, people will be talking past each other and
misunderstandings will continue to be the order of the day.

Would it be permissible for me to post that "Why Can't We Discuss
Intelligent Design?" on Free Republic? I thought it was really good
commentary, but I see one must have a subscription at the link.

~ Janice

At 09:13 PM 1/29/2007, Ted Davis wrote:
> >>> Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> 01/29/07 8:48 PM >>>writes:
>
>But I would say that over 90% of "creationists" don't understand
>that there are various theories of evolution and are actually
>thinking that the "science of evolution" is addressing "the origin of
>life on earth" ---- the same as the definition of Darwinism and
>Evolutionism.
>
>They see atheists in the forefront promoting "evolution" so it is a
>logical conclusion for busy people who don't want to take the time to
>look more deeply into things to think that the evolutionary theory
>that is being pushed is incompatible with belief in God . They
>prefer to put their trust in what professing Christians say about it
>because they "know" that they can't trust the opinions of atheists /
>secular humanists / secular progressives when it comes to the matter
>of "origins".
>
>Ted replies:
>Partly right, and partly not, IMO.
>
>Yes, a high percentage of "creationists" don't understand these issues, and
>ditto for many other people for that matter.
>
>But "Darwinism" and "Evolutionism" have several definitions also. That is,
>they are used by various writers to mean somewhat different things, which
>contributes to the confusion at the popular level. I would say (e.g.) that
>"Darwinism" is the belief that there is no ultimate purposeful agency behind
>the story of living things--whether or not that story includes "the origin
>of life on earth," a topic that Darwin scrupulously avoided himself, b/c
>there was no scientific evidence bearing on the origin of life at that time.
> (Whether or not there is now such evidence is contested and I scrupulously
>avoid it here.) For many people who don't know much about science, the
>phrase "origin(s) of life" is synonymous with the notion of common descent.
>In Dover, e.g., the school board voted to read this to biology students:
>"The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual
>students and their families." Believe me, they didn't mean simply any
>reference to the chemical origin of life--they meant to forbid any teaching
>about common descent.
>
>A theory that goes beyond science itself, venturing into
>metaphysics/religion of an atheistic variety, is what I would call
>"evolutionism." Dawkins is an example of this, Dennett another one. This
>either flatly denies any ultimate purpose, or else a close equivalent: that
>we can never know whether there is an ultimate purpose (that is, we can't
>know from science), and therefore we are stupid to talk about any such.
>Religion has no place at the table of knowledge, and ought not be inserted
>into university curricula. This is Dawkins' view, unless I misunderstand
>him, and also that of Pinker at Harvard. It's a form of scientism.
>
>As for various "theories of evolution," most of them to the best of my
>knowledge actually *do* address "the origin(s) of life," if we understand
>that phrase in the Dover sense--that is, they do make claims about common
>descent. And those that do, IMO, are not necessarily equivalent to
>"Darwinism" or "evolutionism." In Phil Johnson's opinion, however, they
>apparently are; that is, accepting common descent in his view is tantamount
>to accepting atheism. Jon Wells, ditto. They (quite understandably) want
>to draw the line on matter & motion at some point short of the soul, so they
>draw it at the level of biological phyla (or lower). Mike Behe, on the
>other hand, accepts common descent, incl humans & primates. He draws the
>line at the level of the complexity of the living cell. Many other TEs
>(Behe is IMO a TE himself) draw it ... well, they don't exactly draw it
>anywhere. Rather, they see a continuity that still produces a kind of
>irreducible complexity. That is, they deny materialistic/philosophical
>reductionism, according to which if we are made entirely of matter & motion
>then there is no such thing as mind & meaning as real phenomena; there are
>only epiphenomena that arise from matter & motion. The TEs, on the other
>hand, affirm the reality of phenomena beyond/above matter & motion, but at
>the same time linked with matter & motion inextricably. That's why I often
>say that this -- the problem of matter & motion, mind & meaning, is the
>fundamental issue in the whole "origins" debate, and why presently it is
>insoluble. No one, flat no one, has a convincing theory of mind.
>
>Ted
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 29 22:17:38 2007