Re: [asa] Global Anti-Darwinism

When I posted about the Economist article, I actually hesitated on what
title to use. There's a very real sense in which I think Greg is right.
Whether we like it or not, Darwin*ism *does easily becom an ideology, and it
most certainly has leaked into disciplines other than biology. Even in
biology, it often seems that Darwin*ism *supersedes the particular study of
life and how it arose. And Darwin*ism* as an overarching worldview isn't
compatible with Christianity, IMHO.

I really should have said something like, "Global Opposition to Gradualist
Theories of Biological Development" or "Global Opposition to Common
Descent." That would have made the concern more specific to particular
concepts in biology.

I also think Greg has a point about my view of what constitutes a "third
way" between Darwin*ism *and Fundamentalism -- which, I think, is the core
of the problem. TE -- whatever exactly that means -- may not necessarily be
"the answer."

All I meant to suggest was that the Economist article ignores the
reasonable, careful, more scholarly voices and focuses on the warfare
between Darwinism and Fundamentalism. I'd like to see ASA and CIS remind
the Economist's readers that not all thoughtful, serious religious people
accept that warfare model.

On 4/22/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Terry – Yes, we've been over this before, yet it wasn't resolved and I
> found no flexibility or willingness to see outside of computer scientific,
> biological or theological perspectives on your behalf. You admit that
> "common parlance resists" having different words "to describe the ideology
> from the scientific theory." I should stop there and let this upfront and
> rather telling admission sink in: why is that?! This is the communicative
> crux of the argument!
>
> You (read: Biologists) seem unwilling to recognize that the 'ideology' of
> evolution is even in any way different from the 'science' of evolution. Why
> are biologists seemingly incapable of distinguishing – are they
> communicatively inept or uncreative!? It might just be that *biologists
> simply don't understand ideology*, blinded by their insistence that they
> are doing 'pure science,' that they are successfully 'being entirely
> objective' (cf. un-hermeneutical) while still trapped/ensouled in their
> subjective human bodies. Terry is putting far too little stock in the 'ism'
> suffix – 'Darwinism', at the cost of obscuring communication about
> 'Darwinian' science – elevating it far beyond its merits and meanings.
>
> Would it make sense, Terry, to say that you accept certain features of
> Darwinian theory (i.e. the theory/theories that can be attributed to
> Darwin) in biology (as well as geology, botany and other natural sciences),
> but that you *do not accept *the ideology of Darwinism, which is the
> over-extending of Darwinian theory into a worldview, beyond the confines of
> biology into the realms of philosophy, social thought and theology? Or do
> you deny that the latter phenomenon ever happens? Likely you would consent
> to admitting 'social Darwinism' is almost thoroughly ideological (e.g.
> eugenics), yet you seem to want to discount the ideology when removing the
> qualifier 'social' from 'Darwinism.' This is an affront (see also,
> condescension or insult) to social theorists because it assumes social
> thought is mainly ideological while biological thought is not.
>
> With regard to George's first point, I personally do not concur with the
> view that "'Darwinist' and 'Darwinian' [both] imply an ideology, not a
> scientific theory." How can 'Darwinian theory' be considered as
> un-scientific? I don't see why Darwin's theory is not a scientific one!
> Isn't the label 'Darwinian' consistent with 'the theory that Darwin put
> forth'? To me Darwin's general theory, based on a vast collection of
> evidence and innovative logic, was a scientific one.
>
> I have said: "Distinguish the 'science' from the 'ideology' and we're
> getting somewhere: (neo)Darwinian vs. (neo)Darwinism." Yet there seems no
> willingness by biologists on a grammatical level to accept this (i.e.
> exactly Terry's admission above). Sure, some proper names fit better than
> others with 'ian/ean' and 'ism' prefixes, while others involve no
> ideological components at all. But let us almost all agree: *the term
> 'Darwinism' (as distinguished from 'Darwinian') is semantically ideological.
> *
>
> I am fully in agreement with both Terry and George that D. O'Leary is
> basically numb, as are many IDists, to the distinction between
> (neo)Darwinian evolution and Darwinism. The fact that her blog is called
> 'post-Darwinist,' yet when asked cannot specify what 'post-Darwinist' means
> in her own words, shows the ideological, propagandist position she has
> adopted. After all she is not a scientist, but a journalist (granted: ASA
> with its TE tendencies does not generate *anywhere near* the amount of
> public curiosity that the IDM has). The recent conference on 'Design vs.
> Darwin' is yet another obvious example. Why such polemics? Is it in
> keeping with the American tradition of 'evolution vs. creation'? Do they
> honestly not realize that evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin's
> time in the 19th century? Do they find no merits in Darwin's contribution to
> scientific knowledge, especially given that many IDists are also accepting
> evolution, even they are also 'evolutionists' to one degree or another?
>
> Terry writes: "I may call myself a Darwinist and be referring only to the
> scientific theory."
>
> No, this makes no sense at all! In fact, this is rubbish! Being a
> 'Darwinist' actually means something more than just accepting 'Darwinian
> scientific theory.' It inescapably implies ideology. Boo on the biologists
> who protest otherwise – their voices are peanuts in a greater academic
> arena, which has the right and the might to subdue them! Could this be why
> you hesitate, Terry, to actually call yourself a Darwinist outright (i.e.
> using the words 'may call myself a Darwinist')? I am not suggesting to you
> anything dramatic other than to carefully consider the appearance of the
> labels you 'might' take when confronted with the imposition of ideology upon
> and underneath science.
>
> When you write: "I think that there are many non-Darwinian mechanisms at
> work in the evolutionary process," then we are in agreement, though, I am
> not a strictly mechanistic thinker. ASA would likely benefit from hearing
> (again) the non-Darwinian mechanisms in your broader neo-evolutionary
> perspective. When people equate 'Darwinism' with 'evolutionary biology' they
> betray such a possibility as you here suggest. On the other hand, it seems
> that biologists often appear unable to 'get outside' of their situated
> knowledge(s) to recognize that 'evolution' is a concept that goes beyond
> their small field of study!
>
> 'Get with the program,' would be my advice. Accept the diversity of
> contemporary scholarship and recognize the inter-disciplinary usage of
> 'evolution' (e.g. anthropology, economics, sociology, psychology,
> political science, culturology, philosophy, etc.) rather than being
> biology-centric. Recognition of diversity and interdisciplinary marks an
> important first step to dis-locating evolution from its pretence to being a
> 'universal concept' (e.g. GUT ala Dennett/Dawkins). This is what I am
> primarily arguing against in my apparently (though not in all aspects)
> anti-evolutionary position!
>
> "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." – George
>
> I'm a bit confused by this statement, as I read it backwards. Does it mean
> you are suggesting that Christians or other religious thinkers might accept
> evolution, but no longer accept the Darwinian theory of evolution in its
> entirely? Does it mean that you agree that the number of people who call
> themselves 'Darwinists' at ASA must be 'amazingly small'? I would guess only
> PvM is a Darwinist; even Terry is not a Darwinist, nor is Michael Roberts,
> even if they have all due respect for Darwin's contribution to natural
> science and psychology.
>
> 'Evolutionism' imo is a much broader ideology than Darwinism. The concept
> of 'evolution' predates Darwin and is used in fields of study far beyond
> where Darwin applied it (e.g. reading recently A. Comte's usage of
> 'evolution' in 1824). Darwin's (co-coined concept duo) 'natural selection'
> was admittedly ambiguous in regard to agency and causality; in
> social-humanitarian realms it makes more sense to speak of 'human selection'
> than 'natural selection.' That is, unless all persons are inevitably
> naturalists; assuming that natural explanations account for all there is in
> our universe. But it seems obvious that neither Terry nor George would
> accept the label of 'naturalist' according to such a reading. This is what
> returns me again and again to wondering how a Christian natural scientist
> can accept the label of 'naturalist' without at the same time contradicting
> their theistic beliefs. Ironically, this is where the i+d argument is also
> met, and where it doesn't seem to me that a balance has yet been reached in
> the American science and religion discourse.
>
> People can accept evolutionary theory without being Darwinists, da,
> perhaps. But can people accept Darwinian theory without being evolutionists?
> This is imo the more important question.
>
> George writes: "I think that evolution is a process through which the Holy
> Trinity works (thus, en passant, getting past the mere theism of theistic
> evolution."
>
> Well, I'd love to play chess one day with George! The above quote is an
> open admission of what seems to be a kind of 'evolutionary theology.' As for
> my tastes, I have rejected the philosophical inversion made by A.N.
> Whitehead, who is the main figure behind process-oriented thought in
> America (please someone do tell of who is more significant to
> process-thought than Whitehead!). It is all too focused on what changes
> rather than on what stays the same for my liking. But it is indeed a
> contemporary position to be a 'process theorist,' i.e. evolutionarily
> adjusted, so I applaud George's contemporaneous thinking.
>
> George also writes: "there is not the remotest chan[c]e that the reality
> of descent with modification will be abandoned, & in that sense evolution
> isn't going to go away."
>
> Here we are in agreement, and it seems this is a topos where Ted, Michael,
> David, Dave, George, Terry, Randy, myself and others can all come to.
> Thankfully they will no longer be scolding me or wrinkling their brows at me
> on this issue. :-) 'Descent with modification' need not be abandoned, though
> evolution can be SHRUNK from its current ideological mantle of universal (
> i.e. including social-cultural) evolution, the likes of which drive the
> Dennett's, Dawkins' & de Chardin's of the worlds' rhetoric. Tuck evolution
> into its legitimate tiny corner of scholastic relevance and you will find no
> problem from the plethora of other disciplines that have been contaminated
> and even plagued by the process-oriented ideology of evolutionary
> social-humanitarian thought.
>
> Just as a question of history and creativity: does anyone know you coined
> the concept duo 'evolutionary creationist' if it was not D. Lamoureux? It is
> doubtful that the word simply 'evolved' into existed without human
> agency/selection being involved.
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
> G. Arago
>
>
> *"Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>* wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
> boot with the *All-new Yahoo! Mail *<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40705/*http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca>
>
>

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 13:10:53 2007