Re: [asa] Global Anti-Darwinism

With respect to Gregory's remarks below -

1) "Darwinist" and "Darwinian" imply an ideology, not a scientific theory. Nobody calls people who accept, & even work on, special or general relativity "Einsteinists." Even for those who think that those theories have implications that extend beyond physics are not considered adherents of "Einsteinism." There is a Darwinist ideology but you're right - the proportion of Christians who accept evolution who are Darwinists in that sense is quite small. Unfortunately the term is thrown around by (a) Darwinists pretend that people can't "really" accept evolution unless they accept the ideology and (b) the anti-evolutionists who identify everyone who accepts evolution as a Darwinist. This is, for example, the practice of Ms. O'Leary, as evidenced by her wretched UD piece which was discussed here recently.

2) "Evolutionary creation" is a better term than "theistic evolution" but the latter term is better established & thus not likely to be changed. (Think, e.g., of futile attempts to come up with a better term than "big bang.") But how much difference does this really make? Do we really need a specific label for our positions on each of the issues in the theology-science dialogue? Am I a theistic expanding universist? If asked my position on the issue of creation & evolution, I'll state it briefly - I think that evolution is a process through which the Holy Trinity works (thus, en passant, getting past the mere theism of theistic evolution.

3) Scientific theories change of course, & it's likely that in the future many aspects of our current evolutionary theories will be superseded. But there is not the remotest change that the reality of descent with modiffication will be abandoned, & in that sense evolution isn't going to go away. There's about as much chance of that as of new discoveries in geophysics bringing about a resurgence of flat earth theories. (& I say that as an expelled member of the International Flat Earth Research Society!)

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: rjschn39@bellsouth.net ; David Opderbeck ; ASA Discussion Group
  Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Global Anti-Darwinism

  If for only the reason that today while fostering a broad discssion titled, "Global Warming, Ecology, Creation and Evolution" for about sixty students from 9 countries, and on one of the slides I showed "The Creation of Animals" by Tintoretto, which is featured atop the Economist article, let me add a comment or two on this grand-global topic of anti-Darwinism.

  Honestly, how many people at ASA would call themselves a 'Darwinist'? The number must be amazingly small. Why? Because Darwin's theories do not encompass any single discipline in the academy and because it would be ludicrous to equate 'Darwinism' with 'evolutionary biology;' just plain silly! Darwinian theory - fine. Darwin's contribution to science, no problem. But can a scientifically-minded Christian today really be an ideological Darwinist? Doubtful. Let the voices here please mount an objection if they exist.

  Distinguish the 'science' from the 'ideology' and we're getting somewhere: (neo)Darwinian vs. (neo)Darwinism.

  "Those like myself who are evolutionary creationists may have a harder
  time of it in the years ahead. I wonder about the future of science,
  certainly the politics of science, in the foreseeable future." - Bob

  There is no need for you to have a harder time of it in the years ahead. But what it will require is for you to be willing to embrace a paradigm that is not caught up in early-mid 20th century creation vs. evolution discourse, that acknowledges the legitimate 'science' in the 'modern post-Darwinian evolutionary natural science synthesis,' and that welcomes innovations to theory and method that eclipse the out-dated paradigm of 19th century evolution in non-natural science scholarship and academia. If you are stuck on the idea that 'evolution is only discussed in natural sciences - the only place it is really relevant,' then it seems you may indeed have a hard time of it. Since you acknowledge the 'politics of science' and thus perhaps the impact of the hermeneutic/cultural turn on 'science' this may help to situate the contribution of science to society in comparison to other values and meanings of human knowledge.

  Even the term 'evolutionary creationist' (though I sincerely appreciate the contribution of D. Lamoureux, the first Chair of a program in Religion and Science in Canada, who, it seems, coined the concept duo - 'evolutionary creationist,' please correct me if I'm wrong) is a vestige of yesteryear rather than a glimpse of the future. The same problem confronts those who live in a 'post-modern' reality, whereas they/we have not yet found/coined a positive replacement for that which is merely 'after,' i.e. 'post' something else. It is plain that being 'post-Darwinian' is not necessarily consistent with being anti-Darwin-ISM, as this thread indicates. Nevertheless, distinguishing the ideology from the 'science' seems much more difficult to do for natural scientists than for philosophers, social scientists or theologians.

  I submit that David O's suggestion of 'theistic evolution' or 'evolutionary creation' as a 'robust third way' is unlikely. A responsible Christian searching through the evidence (from their situated, partial academic background) is, however, to be acknowledged and applauded as suitable action during a time of transition. Nobody ever confuses P. Johnson with being a biologist or botanist! The fact that the awaiting non-evolutionary (though still likely 'process' relevant) paradigm has not yet arrived on scene does not negate the possibility that our science will inevitably move beyond evolutionary theory. To admit this possibility is to throw doubt on both TE and EC ideologies, which are quite obviously, given the marrying of their two concepts, not limited to either science or theology.
     
  Let me add that this past week I met, in a Department of Evolutionary Biology, with the organizer of the 'secular science' promotion in response to the trial in St. Petersburg, Russiamentioned by the Economist article. Our discussion was quite different, please be assured, than it would have been in America with America's peculiar/specific history of court cases and where 'creation vs. evolution' leftovers are still alive in people's vocabulary in a similar way to how 'cold war' attitudes remain on both sides among those who grew up and were educated/indoctrinated in that generation. A New Day Shall Come.

  G. Arago

  rjschn39@bellsouth.net wrote:
    The indefatigable Harun Yahya, the Turkish creationists, has long been supported by the ICR folks in California. So now the DI folks are working with him? What I've read of his works makes me shudder. The lecture I gave to the Association of Islamic Scholors of bosnia & Herzegovina in Sarajevo in Dec., 2004, was partly a response to Yahya's publications, which had begun to make inroads there. My talk was well received, and a Bosnian translation was published in a popular journal for teachers. But given the over-all weak state of science education in Islamic countries, I see a real problem with this Islamic form of creationism.

    I find all of this news in the Economist op ed piece discouraging. I read a report of the pope's statements on evolution. They seemed nuanced but made me uneasy, as ithey might be easily parsed in their favor by those who wish to read their anti-evolutionist views into it.

    Those like myself who are evolutionary creationists may have a harder time of it in the years ahead. I wonder about the future of science, certainly the politics of science, in the foreseeable future.

    Bob
>
> From: "David Opderbeck"
> Date: 2007/04/21 Sat PM 02:15:09 EDT
> To: "ASA Discussion Group"
> Subject: [asa] Global Anti-Darwinism
>
> Interesting article in this week's Economist on global efforts to discredit
> Darwinism: http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9036706
> Very interesting mention of large-scale Muslim creationism efforts, and some reasonably balanced discussion of tensions in Roman Catholicism.

    Unfortunately, the article seems to exclude the middle -- no mention of anyone like Alister McGrath or Francis Collins or Polkinghorne, etc. I wonder if ASA and CIS might want to do a joint letter to the editor
    (Economist is a Brit publication) just noting that there is indeed a robust third way.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  All new Yahoo! Mail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

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 20:00:03 2007