At this moment when it seems there is at least minimal agreement with my approach to this topic, let me take the opportunity to go one step further and raise the possibility of where/how a consensus might be found. This step is taken because I return home to Canada, via Finland and England starting next week, and will likely have less access to the internet during the transition. It is time to check if ASA’s science can really distinguish itself from ideology.
“Darwinism as an overarching worldview isn't compatible with Christianity, IMHO.” – David O.
“I think though that ‘Darwinism’ does usually suggest an ideological component – at least in science-religion discussions.” – George
I do not doubt the faith of people on this list in terms of science and religion discourse; when it comes back to basics, the priority returns inevitably to their religious views ahead of or above, or underneath their science. Why? “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7).
People on this list are striving for better scientific knowledge in cooperation or collaboration with their religious views. There is no room for a warfare model amongst scientists who are also ‘practising’ religious persons at the same time. The warfare model is simply not wise, a leftover of Euro-Enlightenment idealism which has turned out to have less-than-ideal consequences.
“Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.” (Prov. 4:7)
It must be imagined, therefore, that it is not the case that scientists who are religious love evolutionary theory. It must instead be true that scientists who are Christians and who accept evolution think it is the best explanation for the ‘facts’ that they see, hear, observe. And therefore, IF they were confronted with a new paradigm, a new conceptual, perceptual, theoretical and/or methodological principle that gives a ‘better explanation’ for certain facts than evolution currently does, it would be quite reasonable for them to drop evolution in favour of the ‘new’ paradigm. Can this be agreed? It need not be anti-Darwinian, though it may be non-evolutionary. Most scientists here would accept this possibility, following the logic of Popper and Kuhn and given the provisionality of scientific knowledge, unless they love the ideology of evolutionism more than the natural science of evolution.
“TE -- whatever exactly that means -- may not necessarily be ‘the answer’.” – David O.
Personally, I see TE as a patch-work solution made during a time of transition from an old paradigm to a new one. It is a temporary default position for religious people who accept evolutionary science as the best explanation for certain exclusively natural patterns. That is not to slight the thinkers who first coined the concept-duos ‘theistic evolution’ or ‘evolutionary creation,’ but rather to identify them as having brought together what were previously thought to be ideas in opposition in a courageous way. TE and EC, as ideological positions, depend imo way too much on the MN/PN distinction (cf. American pragmatic philosophy), which does not provide forward thinking. Instead it protects Christian naturalists from facing the contradictory (or paradoxical) position that naturalism and theism are to some degree opposites. Let me tip hat to Dave S. for coming at this topic recently in another thread.
If evolution were superseded by a philosophically attractive alternative, this could have repercussions in natural science as well as the inevitable influence on social-humanitarian thought. Let’s speculatively call this alternative for the sake of simplicity, methodology X. Methodology X supersedes evolution because it goes further than evolution toward understanding the effects of change and the origins of change, in contra-distinction to focussing mainly on processes of change and the causes of change; effects and origins rather than causes and processes. This follows from the conclusion reached several months ago at ASA that evolution and change are not synonymous, but rather that evolution is a type of change and not vice versa. Change is not a type of evolution; change has a larger range of meanings than evolution.
Methodology X, as we imagine it, does not necessarily argue against ‘descent with modification,’ it does not call into question the issue of an ‘old’ age of the Earth (i.e. billions, not thousands of years), it does not dispute ‘common descent’ (though perhaps it brings greater focus upon the topic with multi-disciplinary relevance, rather than being biology-centric), it does not attempt to overthrow gradualist logic with super-natural intervention-type arguments. Methodology X simply gives a better explanation than evolution to origins and effects of change, to not-just-environmental explanations, but also to agency-related changes in animal and human existence.
Acceptance of methodology X thus would provide a type of global post-Darwinism because it would remove the ideological baggage from neo-Darwinian Theory and leave behind only the natural science of evolution. The highly ideologized term ‘natural selection’ would be confronted with an equally ideologized ‘human selection’ and/or perhaps ‘divine action (at a spooky distance)’ so as to recognize when ideology poses as science and vice versa. In other words, by opening up space for dialogue that respects science, philosophy and theology, rather than privileging one or another of them, which is painfully obvious what happened in ‘creation vs. evolution’ discussions of the 20th century, a more integrative and responsible possibility for understanding and explaining our human condition, both spiritual and material, can be created.
“He [Darwin] is demonized and spat upon by many anti-evolutionists and (partly in reaction) apotheosized by those who accept his theory & even more by those who accept the ideology that has become associated with that theory.” – George
In what sense should this methodology X be discovered? It must not demonize or spit upon Darwin because Darwin is rightfully a part of the history of natural science. Rather, when the ideology is clearly separated from the science (a helpful contribution of the science/non-science demarcation project), then Darwin’s position in the history and philosophy of science inevitably MUST SHRINK back from it’s currently hegemony. If Terry is even willing, mistakably so, to call himself a ‘Darwinist,’ this shows and we must admit that biologists, perhaps in the effort to elevate the influence of their discipline, have over-elevated the relevance of Darwin. Why choose to be associated with a biological theory that over-focuses on the biography of one person? This is point it seems George was making with his emphasis that Einsteinianism is not consistent with general or special relativity. Relativism, however, is another topic altogether.
“I agree with your 1st sentence [i.e. ‘Evolutionism’ imo is a much broader ideology than Darwinism.]. However, "Darwinism" seems to be the term of choice nowadays for both as a weapons for anti-evolutionists and for most adherents of an evolutionary ideology.” – George
There appears to be a great need for peoples’ ‘terms of choice’ to face the reality of their linguistic biases in a diverse academy. People should not say ‘Darwinism’ when they really mean ‘evolutionary biology.’ It just confuses communication. As for ‘weapons for anti-evolutionists,’ there is great nuance on this topic, which should not be restricted to natural science. Anthony Giddens and Pyotr Sztompka, the leading U.K. sociologist and the president of the International Sociological Association, respectively, are both in certain ways ‘anti-evolutionists.’ This does not mean, in the slightest, that they are anti-science or that they are not progressive social-humanitarian thinkers.
If ‘evolutionary ideology’ is equated with ‘Darwinism,’ then I believe IDists and even D. O’Leary’s flippancy against Darwinism is partly justified. After all, the best denuding of R. Dawkin’s I’ve yet read or heard is not by scientist-theologian A. McGrath, but by an Irish newspaper reporter on religion and culture, who simply wouldn’t let Dawkins off the hook on questions of agency, free will, the uniqueness of human choice and decision making. The high-priest of Darwinism is also an ardent ideological evolutionist, which confuses the Christian community by requiring it/us to take sides on whether we wish to be seen as scientifically (in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, read: naturalistically) up-to-date or rather given to hypothetical dismissals of Dawkins-Darwinism-evolutionism all in the same bag. This is a serious problem since it is better not to be divided.
As a social theorist, someone who studies science and religion discourse from a sociological perspective, it has become blatantly obvious to me that the costs of the ideology of evolution far exceed the scientific/scholarly benefits of using the concept/percept of evolution in social-humanitarian thought. If anyone on this list wishes to challenge that claim, then please feel welcome to do so and invite your friends to join you. I have gathered much evidence and written several papers about it, so please call into question the threat of evolution to social-humanitarian thought with care. From the impressions I’ve gathered, a greater threat is posed by process philosophy encroaching on social-humanitarian thought than by the condescending/all-embracing attitude of evolutionary natural science.
For example, George writes: “God has indeed become part of the evolutionary process.”
Though he claims not to be a process theologian, I find it difficult to imagine how God could ‘become’ part of ‘the’ evolutionary process. To me, this is a confusing mixture of metaphors that verges on ideologizing. Let me be clear that I do not discount process philosophy or process theology entirely (or think they come from the devil, as George pointed out is some peoples’ view). However, I cannot help but realize the power of process-oriented thought/thinking in contrast to the outright dismissal of talk about origins and effects, especially in regard to human life and consciousness.
To my pov, the issue of consciousness is already on its way to exceeding the obsolete conversation about evolution; whether evolution is the right-proper ‘concept/percept’ to discuss natural history or not. The issue of consciousness is for future innovators to unravel, discover, insightfully appeal; it has relevance for natural sciences as well as social sciences, humanities, cultures, and personal and community religious beliefs.
This issue will far surpass the expectation of the backward looking suggestions that ‘freedom evolves’ or that ‘memes-determine’ that the anti-theists of our day are mounting against us, in defence of their (right to) disbelief.
G. Arago
p.s. yes, George, please do privately re-send your final post on the nature/naturalism discussion from January, so that I may respond to it in due time; I meant to respond before, but ran out of candle-light/electricity.
p.p.s. If de Chardin had been willing to back away from his 'universalistic evolutionism' (e.g. “Evolution is a light illuminating all facts,” 1940), he likely would not have faced such sanctions from the RCC. In the case of universalistic evolutionism he does, unfortunately, share something in common with Dawkins and Dennett.
---------------------------------
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 Tue Apr 24 06:04:14 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 24 2007 - 06:04:14 EDT