Re: [asa] New foray by the DiscoverY Institute

One thing often forgotten by natural scientists in dialogues between sciences, philosophies and theologies (a trilogy, rather than a warfare-model duality between science and religion) is the danger of ‘biologism’ – when biology is elevated into an ideology it destroys balance and equity amongst scholars. Biologism is an affront to the wisdom tradition that cautions against excesses; e.g. privileging ‘biological evolution’ ahead of and better than all ‘other’ forms of evolutionary theories. This is imo one of the greatest failures of the IDM to date: not being able to engage social-humanitarian thinkers in their understanding of human change, including both processes and origins, insisting that their concept of 'design' is primarily about biology.
   
  Just how much of our identity, our (human) source(s) of meaning and belief is determined by our biological make-up? I may say ‘a little,’ you may say ‘a lot.’ But who is the authoritative voice on the topic – biologists or sociologists…? Let us unroll and discuss our maps of knowledge and compare what is what and how it is known in order to discover how much people’s views depend on their educational backgrounds.
   
  ‘Situated knowledge’ – a concept duo outside of sight and mind for most natural scientists. Why don’t they acknowledge the linguistic-hermeneutic turn?
   
  This is where I appreciate the position of A. Moorad and liken it to the current status of the nation-state of England (a.k.a. Great Britain or the U.K.); which is not a Kingdom anymore. Physics (Moorad’s home base) is no longer the ‘king’ field in the academy (much to the chagrin of some physicists, though even the existence of nuclear weapons attests to the significance of 20th century physics). Moorad recognizes, it seems to me, the limitations of physics and seeks to investigate the importance of historical investigations which cannot be reproduced by any kind of experimentation. The over-investment of some thinkers in biological sciences, a sovereign though also ultimately LIMITED field of human knowledge, creates a great source of misunderstanding. Too much focus on biology (wherein ‘evolution’ is equated with ‘history,’ the greatest pillar of modern historicism) is damaging to the health of a person interested in understanding ‘evolution’ as a comprehensive (or
 fragmented) worldview.
   
  As for me, I do not envy the 93 or so percent (according to I. Lakatos) of biologists who actually contribute little to their field other than conducting experiments drawn up by and under the authority of others. It is the 7% that I prefer to focus on, e.g. those who come up with new theories and methodologies or who can synthesize the theories and methodologies of others, like Theodosius Dobzhansky did. IDists have gone further than others in trying to make a place for themselves as iconoclastic (e.g. Wells’ “Icons of eVo”) toward the anti-design position of modernist science (the reigning paradigm being ‘Darwinian’ or ‘neo-Darwinian’ evolution). Though it seems they have not succeeded in crossing the boundaries that they so wished to cross, they have upset the comfort zones of so many scientists and theists alike that one cannot help affording them some kind of credit.
   
  As I’ve said before, ID (what I call i+d or small intelligent design as a theory/hypothesis) has done more to encourage dialogue about science, philosophy and theology (by implication), than ASA has done by taking a pseudo-neutral position and secretly coveting a theistic evolution position that actually allows ‘evolution’ to become a universalistic term ‘used by God,’ rather than the limited theory that it was, and still in reality is, destined to become. If ASA naturalists would acknowledge that ‘natural’ evolution is not the ‘only kind of evolution,’ they would then open themselves to the self-limitation of their perspectives, something they appear unready or unwilling to do. If the social-humanitarian dimension of evolution were recognized and discussed, the naturalistic excesses would be much easier to speak about and the realities of ‘evolutionary biology’ that are as reliable as special relativity would be easier for the average American to swallow.
   
  As it is, America is not moderate but is obviously hyper on this issue. This is one reason Michael Roberts yawns – he just can’t feel the reality, he just doesn’t understand the social importance of the issue. He thinks it’s just about geology and the ‘proven’ age of the Earth! The reality is much more involved and humanitarian than that.
   
  “Come outside of your naturalistic boxes and play with agency, meaning, purpose and teleology,” said the social-humanitarian thinker to the natural scientists.
   
  “No thanks,” replied the mini-throng of (Anglo-Saxon) naturalistic Christian scientists, “we are comfortable balancing paradox as we do. 'Evolution' is a good enough explanation for us; nothing more is needed or wanted. Our theologies are satisfied (read: saturated) with it.”

       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 23 09:41:31 2007