RE: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

The essential definition in all these discussions is what science is and
what science is not. Otherwise, we will indeed talk past each other even
when we think that we are not!

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Janice Matchett
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:17 PM
To: Ted Davis; American Scientific Affiliation; Keith Miller; George
Murphy; Pattle Pun
Subject: 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 Tue Jan 30 10:40:52 2007