Re: [asa] Global Anti-Darwinism

Gregory,

We've been over this before. I, and I think most biologists, would
just disagree with you here. Darwinism is not necessarily an
ideology. You're putting way too much stock in the "-ism" suffix.
I've admitted that it can be an ideology, and I've admitted that it
may be useful to have different words to describe the ideology from
the scientific theory, but common parlance resists such.
Consequently, I may call myself a Darwinist and be referring only to
the scientific theory. In truth I think that Darwinism (as a
scientific theory) is inadequate--I think that there are many non-
Darwinian mechanisms at work in the evolutionary process.

For what it's worth, I don't really think Denis coined the term
evolutionary creationist. While he's been an active promoter of the
term and a key spokesman for it in the past decade, he's a relative
newcomer. I'm sure Denis will find my pointing this out somewhat
amusing.

TG

On Apr 21, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Gregory Arago wrote:

> 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.

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 22 00:55:39 2007