Re: [asa] Altruism and ID

On 6/11/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Please reveal to me, Jack: how it can be that "ideas, philosophies, and
> spiritual experiences (that) do not arise from biological evolution?"
>
> After a couple of comments in this thread, it is not altogether clear that
> outright biologistic reductionism isn't being applied, supposedly in the
> name of TE. I see outright contradiction in the last two messages you've
> posted on this thread and see no way to reconcile them. I'd be happy for you
> to clear it up for me.
>
> For example, you write: "Altruism has evolved through biological evolution.
> That is to say through random variation and natural selection. What you
> don't understand is that yes, the gene is the focus of evolution. If a gene
> improves survivability it gets passed on..."

Well stated.

> This is why I asked Pim plainly, directly, openly and clearly, two, what was
> it three times: "Please give me some evidence that a concept is a biological
> entity. If a concept is not a biological entity, then I will be pleased for
> you to just admit that, instead of dodging once again."
>
> Notice please that he simply WILL NOT answer this question. Please explain
> to me why!?

Duh...

> Concepts are not biological entites!!! Biology (or biologiacl approaches)
> simply doesn't apply and you thereby must invite other scholars into
> dialogue who can speak with knowledge that you simply don't have! This has
> gotten to a point of utter frustration with the ASA list; a seeming
> inability to get outside of 'normal science' boxes that are contraining
> views that go beyond mere natural science!

Shame on those who invite scholars to speak about knowledge that one
may not have, or to supplement it... I can imagine the level of
frustration of some on the ASA list, having to deal with these facts

> It is simply wrong, your suggestion that "altruism has evolved through
> biological evolution." If you want to speak about 'behaviours'

An unsupported assertion which in fact seems to go against the evidence.

> evolving, then we are on somewhat different ground, in the realm of physical
> sciences, and somewhere that
> socio-biologists/evolutionary psychologists have preferred
> to tread and where scientifically-minded Christians don't seem to spend much
> time.

> I note however, that you just wanted to talk about 'biological evolution'
> and not about the variety of other types of evolution. I refused these
> conditions for discussion. Please excuse that I am not educated in
> the bounded territory of biological science. Leave the experts, E.O. Wilson,
> Robert Trivers, J.M. Smith, R. Dawkins and other ethnologists, rather
> un-Christian academics, to guide you if you choose to continue this line -
> 'altruism evolves through biological evolution'.

Yes, science has uncovered some great ideas here.

> Let's watch, ASA, how often PvM quotes articles from the newly
> discovered Edge site (http://www.edge.org/), Third Culture ("rendering
> visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are."),
> home of those great opponents of almost everything ASA stands for, in his
> attempt to justify universal evolutionism (throw in that ID has almost
> NOTHING positive involved with it) and the biological hegemony of all
> knowledge!

Scientific knowledge knows no boundaries of faith. Shame on you for
claiming that I attempt to justify universal evolutionism, but I
understand your need for ad hominems and other logical fallacies here.

If you want to make up more fancy strawmen, feel free to do so, or you
may attempt, to address the issues raised by several. They may be
uncomfortable issues, but as Christians we cannot shy away from that
which we may believe to be uncomfortable scientific facts.

>
> God help Us!

Indeed.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 12 00:42:24 2007