Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

Hi Greg,

First, a correction--my background is not biology
(actually, that's my weakest scientific
discipline)--my B.S. is in geology, I have a minor in
geography, and I have an M.S. in Environmental
Management. :)

Second, you perhaps attribute to me far more academic
background than I deserve by referencing Wilson and
Trivers--I am relatively new to the faith-science
scene (at least, new to the depth of the discussion);
I've merely heard of Wilson and have not a clue who
Trivers is...it was only last year I discovered C. S.
Lewis, and right now I'm enjoying my first reading of
a work by N. T. Wright--so you'll have to excuse my
ignorance/youth when it comes to the references you
speak of :)

To the point however...I think the phrase "advanced
ants" is really too simplistic a description of what I
am saying. I am not arguing that we are equal to
animals in status (as many "New Age" philosophies
would say) or that our uniqueness as humans should be
undermined. On the contrary--Being designated by God
as stewards of creation--essentially being delegated
lordship of the earth--and then being biologically
equipped for that task through advancement, clearly
sets us apart from the rest of His creatures--it is
not merely that we've evolved a new (or advanced)
capability, like being able to fly or mutating a gene
to produce a new hair color. It is nothing less than a
gift from God--it is a bestowing of God's grace upon
us, and in that sense, it transforms us--we are not
different, but yet we are. It is, if you will,
analogous to the Incarnation--Christ was 100% human,
yet He was more than man--He was literally God.
Likewise, we are 100% animal, yet we are more than
animal--we are in a sense, (lower case) god--made in
(upper case) God's image. Come to think of it, perhaps
it would be more accurate to say that just as Christ
was simultaneously both different in degree (more
"advanced" human in the sense that He represented the
best we could ever be) and in kind from us (He was
also God), so it is with our relationship with
animals. We represent the fullness of the innate
potential which does manifest itself (to one degree or
another) in all animals to be rational, ethical, and
emotional beings; but yet, the new function that God
bestowed upon us set us forever apart from them...

Anyway, all must be held in tension--in the
appropriate balance--for one to understand the reality
of our status. And I think it would not be wrong to
think that part of the reason God made us in this way,
is so that we could better comprehend our relationship
with Him and so that we could be better stewards of
creation, seeing as we do from both sides of the
coin--the creaturely side and the side of lordship.

Anyway, this took way longer to try and articulate
than I intended, so back to work with me!
In Christ,
Christine

--- Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Burgy seeks an 'OBJECTIVE' "attribute of humanity,"
> yet all the while without, it seems, realising the
> importance of the 'SUBJECTIVE' in this case. Just
> the facts!? The degree/kind distinction between
> human beings and other animals is problematic when
> only natural scientists are allowed to pronounce on
> it. When reflexive (social-humanitarian) science are
> given room to interpret alongside of positive
> (natural-physical) science, which is what Burgy
> seems to ask for in terms of 'objectivity,' then a
> welcome balance of views can be achieved.
>
> Desmond Morris recently confirmed during a BBC
> interview that 'human beings are only animals,
> nothing more,' but that they (actually 'we' - but he
> only speaks about us 'objectively') are the most
> extraordinary animal in existence. He is of course
> speaking as a zoologist when he says this, and not
> as a human person! If he were to include his human
> person (a multi-dimensional existence) into the
> conversation, then questions of spirit (IoG) and
> kind-difference would be forthcoming (the
> philosophers would require it!). Such seems to be
> the situation with Christine and Burgy denying
> differences in 'kind' (oh, that awful word - just
> like 'mutations'!) also.
>
> Let's step back and take an 'objective' view of
> who is speaking here. Christine and Burgy are both
> 'natural' scientists (biology, physics). David and I
> are both human-social scientists or scholars (law,
> sociology). By acknowleging a supra-natural (not
> 'super') dimension into the discourse of human
> beings, it becomes rather obvious (elephants writing
> Shakespeare - what a hoot like Horton, David! -)
> that enough of a 'difference' is present that it
> doesn't really matter if you say 'kind' or 'degree.'
> We could just as easily focus on the 'uniqueness' or
> the 'special' character of (note: I DID NOT WRITE
> 'nature of') human beings. 'One of these things is
> NOT like the other ones' (as they used to say on
> Sesame Street)! The bid to make same what is not
> same seems curious to me.
>
> Just to add one thing, perhaps to fuel the fire,
> though it has almost gone out. IFF, human beings
> were to lose their/our uniqueness in the bid for
> continuity and karmic sensibility, as eVo psych's,
> sociobiologists and anti-religious zoologists would
> prefer, then the entire REALM of human-social
> science, at least in its classical formulation,
> would be compromised. Human-social thought is
> predicated on the belief that human beings are
> 'unique,' 'special' different in 'kind' and not
> 'degree' than other animals. It was one of the great
> (meaning big, not necessarily good) contributions of
> Darwinian thought, perpetuated in the mainly
> agnostic or atheist (exceptions: Dobzhansky, Fisher,
> T. de Chardin) 'modern synthesis' a.k.a.
> neo-Darwinism (which was the original topic of this
> thread), that human beings could be considered
> somehow 'alike' with every other entity in
> existence. See S. Fuller's The New Sociological
> Imagination re: this S. Pinkerian perspective.
>
> Yes, Christine, I agree, stewardship/lordship and
> not 'mastery' or 'control of nature.' I am glad you
> agree with a 'functional' difference in 'kind.' But
> let us not consider ourselves as created in the
> image of God being simply equivalent to 'advanced
> (you used the word) ants,' as E.O. Wilson (and
> further, Trivers) does. Do you not recognise the
> danger and compromise in that?
>
> Regards,
> Gregory
>
>
>
> Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> If I might interject...I largely concur with Burgy
> in
> that I see differences in morality, emotions,
> rationality, etc. between us and animals in terms of
> degree, not kind...by that I mean that
> fundamentally,
> the root of animals' and humans' "intangible"
> qualities are the same i.e. they are of the same
> kind,
> and that animals are simply less advanced in these
> areas than humans are i.e. they're are differences
> in
> degree.
>
> To your point/question regarding why animals don't
> produce great writings, works of art, etc. A couple
> of
> thoughts--one, to remind you of what you yourself
> wrote, how do we know what is in an animals' mind?
> In
> truth, our assumptions are nothing more or less than
> guesses. Who knows---when a bird sings a song, who
> says that there isn't more to it than just
> attracting
> a mate? If apes were biologically capable of
> writing,
> maybe they would write poetry? Since we are not a
> bird
> or an ape, we will never know for sure. I say this,
> not because I actually believe that birds and apes
> are
> talking about the meaning of life when they sing a
> song or grunt, but only to point out that your
> critique goes both ways--we can't assume that they
> experience life in the same depth that we do, but
> then
> again, we can't assume they don't. Secondly, as has
> been pointed out in other threads, infants and
> mentally disabled individuals also cannot write
> poetry
> or talk about the meaning of life or fall in love in
> the same way normal adult speak of these
> things--would
> you also say that because of these biological
> incapabilities, they also are different in kind, and
> not just degree, from other humans?
>
> I think the bottom line difference here between
> myself
> (and Burgy?) and you is our understanding of what it
> means to be created in the image of God? As I
> recall,
> it is the same Hebrew word for "breath of life" that
> God breathed into both humans and animals--thus, the
> ONLY distinction between us and animals is this
> "image" and what that means...from my point of view,
> this image refers to our ability, like God's, to
> claim
> lordship...God has delegated to us lordship
> (stewardship) of creation--we have been tasked by
> God
> within certain parameters, to rule the world and the
> creatures in it. We have a functional role in
> creation
> that is different *in kind*, not just *degree* than
> animals--both Genesis 1 & 2 testify to this
> function.
> To be equipped for that task, we had to possess a
> higher *degree* of advancement in emotional,
> ethical,
> and rational capabilities than other animals do, and
> so we evolved in a way that brought these abilities
> out from within us--in fact, I'd argue that having
> evolved along with and from the rest of God's
> creatures, it would be a better guess to assume that
> they have the same (potential) innate emotions,
> ethical nature, and rational capacities that we do,
> than to guess that they don't. It has just been
> according to God's plan and purpose that we were
> designated for this special function, and equipped
> accordingly.
>
> Anyway, I guess that's all for now--you're right
> though--fun conversation :)
>
> In Christ,
> Christine
>
> --- David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> > Ok -- but I thought it was a fun conversation.
> It'd
> > be nice to hear more
> > clearly what you're thinking.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM, j burg
> > wrote:
>
> > On 2/21/08, David Opderbeck
> > wrote:
> > > > Burgy said: What I seek, and so far the search
> > has come up empty, is
> > > some
> > > > OBJECTIVE attribute of humanity that would
> > distinguish this IOG. For
> > > > me, this has to be a difference of kind, not a
> > difference of degree.
> > > >
> > > > Why is a capacity for understanding of notions
> > of "good" and "evil" not
> > > > "objective?" Why is a capacity for producing
> > sustained ethical
> > > reflection,
> > > > ala Aristotle, etc., not "objective?" Why is a
> > capacity for producing a
> > > > literary tradition on themes of "the good,"
> > "justice," and "evil," ala
> > > > Shakespeare, etc., not "objective?" If that
> > isn't "objective," what is?
> > > > How is that fact that elephants have
> graveyards
>
=== message truncated ===

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 22 15:51:44 2008