Re: [asa] anti-evolutionism and deism

What is wrong with being a naturalist? It does not require that one adopt
metaphysical naturalism, which is materialism. But it does mean that one
is seeking natural explanations for natural events. It is also possible
to seek control of natural forces plus others by means other than
natural. It's known as magic, witchcraft, sorcery. I have encountered
reputable reports that indicate that the occult is not to be messed with.

Coming from the social sciences may produce a special warpage that does
not apply to the natural sciences. The last data I saw indicated that
there were a larger proportion of atheists and agnostics in the
humanities and social science departments than among naturalists. There
seem to be numerous social scientists who are trying to find strict
causality in human affairs, more a mark of materialism than other
attitudes. We just had indication that YEC and ID are more likely to talk
like deists because they are against "naturalism."

I'm a philosopher with enough background in science to have taught it, a
member of AAAS for decades. I was for years in a department half of whom
were sociologists.
Dave

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
When people here at ASA say 'science' it sometimes seems they are
elevating it into something beyond what it really is. Perhaps they should
really say 'academia,' or 'scholarship' rather than 'science.' Does "The
Human Quest," for example, take up the issue of social-humanitarian
science/scholarship?

To David's question, it would perhaps be helpful if someone could
recommed a resource that takes up the question of how a person can be a
natural scientist (which David aspires to be) without at the same time
becoming a 'naturalist'. The ideological linkage of evolution with
naturalism (i.e. naturalistic evolution) that turned off the design
argument of the early 19th century, at least in the eyes of Darwin, and
obviously in the eyes of the last two Popes. It would appear there is a
balancing act that most theistic evolutionists (TE's) and evolutionary
creationists (EC's) have found in themselves that most people in the
general public haven't made.

The issue of anti-evolution looks quite different from a
social-humanitarian point of view. The list of contributors to
evolutionary discourse in social-humanitarian science/scholarship would
be mysterious to natural scientists who claim a pseudo-monopoly over
evolutionary thought. Perhaps we must wait for a philosopher to break the
stalemate!

When politicians, lawyers, economists, accountants, journalists,
communications specialists, etc. speak in evolutionary terms, it doesn't
necessary count a strike against 'pure science' and the discourse of
'science and religion/theology.' On the other hand it does indicate there
are imbalances in the academy and that protesting against naturalistic
evolutionism and secular humanism and offering students ideological
protection from them would serve as a potential remedy.

g.a.

Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
Finally, I recommended his book, "The Human Quest," to David Buller
yesterday. Even though it's long out of print, I continue to think it's
one
of the best overall introductions to science and Christian faith that we
have. And, a great antidote to atheism.

Ted

All new Yahoo! Mail -

Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 21 00:57:45 2007