Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution

"To which I will only reply, do you have any doubts about the claim that Julius Caesar was assasinated in Rome in 44 B.C? Or about the existence of the Indus Valley civilization?" - George Murphy
   
  To which it is equally easy to reply by asking about the relevance of theoretical physics to everyday human life or the complexities of academic theology to the layperson's daily needs? The 'truth' is obfuscated (cf. 'communicative competency') by such fields too! Your tack is like arguing that track and field is boring because it is just people running around and around an oval surface or because people 'chase' after a round ball, trying to put it into a hole. You don't seem to understand or want to give respect to the significance of the field/sport that you are critiquing. You miss the context.
   
  Why won't you answer the question - Windelband, Dilthey, Rickert - have you read them? Saying no is not to lower yourself, but to put your contribution to knowledge in perspective. Ideographic and Nomothetic, any thoughts?
   
  It makes no sense to allow two natural scientists, representing physics and geology, both theologians, to hold a monopoly over meanings of 'history' and 'truth'! Surely on this you agree (and of course, you are not explicitly trying to hold a monopoly anyway, though to some ears it may indeed sound that way!).
   
  Sure I believe 'evolution happened' (like y'know, things change-over-time - kryptonite definition), but to some people's ears, this just means 'there IS such a thing as (natural or physical) history.' And that doesn't really MEAN much. It would take an idiotic to deny that change is a partial reality in the world!
   
  On the one hand, Moorad is wrong to ask George and Michael if, in their perspective, "life came out of the purely physical and that all is physical, including human consciousness and rationality." This is because George and Michael and not naturalistic evolutionists (NE), but theistic evolutionists (TE) or evolutionary creationists (EC). They leave space for an intervening, hidden but active-in-natural-processes, kenotic Creator. One has to distinguish between 'biological evolution' and 'spiritual evolution,' the latter which cannot fit easily into the box of physical evolutionary processes.
   
  George and Michael are not 'physical evolutionists,' though they believe in physical evolution. They are not 'Darwinian evolutionists,' though they believe in (some, but not all) of Darwin's contribution to scientific knowledge. The 'evolution happened' moniker is frankly absurd, because it is just a linguistic tautology; not to accept it is something like to reject active verbs!! It is better, it seems to me, using their current language, to think 'creation is evolving,' than to think about evolution in the past tense. Time ticks, processes process, change changes, evolution happened and happens. And so...? The question I add (read: am adding) to the table is: 'what doesn't evolve - what are things that don't evolve?' If a person replies 'nothing,' or 'nothing except God, the Creator,' then he or she and I will have a disagreement that can perhaps one day be resolved in the future.
   
  Unrepeatable historical events cannot be 'duplicated,' 'repeated' or 'experimented' upon by natural scientists. What's so controversial about it? It seems to me just a ploy to gather unto natural science all of the uniqueness and strengths of what it doesn't possess that gets natural scientists' feathers all ruffled. This is really scientism (which both George and Michael would deny). Coming from a different scientific tradition, Moorad instinctually isn't bothered by the divide, but rather thinks more philosophically (Windelband, Dilthey, Rickert) about it than the average anglo-Saxon scientist and thinker.

   
  Arago
   
   
  From a recent ASA post: "it seems to me that we're projecting our Western, enlightenment way of telling and reading "historical" stories not only on scripture, but also on the literature that forms the backdrop of scripture. In fact, if anything, I would think they would have been far more open to writing "cosmic" history that isn't supposed to be "literal" in a simple sense." - D.O.
  

----- Original Message -----
      From: Gregory Arago
  To: Michael Roberts ; George Murphy ; ASA list
  Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution
  

  Michael and George, please answer this question: have you read W. Windelband, W. Dilthey or H. Rickert? Have you come across the distinction between 'ideographic' and 'nomothetic' judgments before? If not, then please let's temper the discussion.
   
  Noteworthy is the fact that Moorad comes from a different cultural-scientific background than the two of you, i.e. not being influenced by the biases and benefits of western, anglo-saxon science in his early education. Since I am currently engaged in the realm of German-Russian thought, which differs from the Anglo-Saxon tradition (e.g. philosophy of science and science of science - science studies - naukovedeniye), it seems suitable to defend Moorad's position and to send caution that your way is not the 'only way.' Historicity and repeatability are indeed real issues, significant ones when discussing 'evolution' (e.g. when Karl Popper calls evolution the greatest example of 'historicism').
   
  George's hesitation to embrace any 'hard and fast' fashion is considered and careful. But Moorad's point is not just 'obfuscation' or 'improper'. There is a tradition that appears to be outside of your respective radars - this doesn't mean the discussion is meaningless or even peripheral! Michael, please refrain from words such as 'silly.' They are unbecoming of polite dialogue. You were doing so well for a time by refraining! -)

  'What science IS' to a geologist, surely does not encompass all that 'science is'! So, for the benefit of the doubt that anyone could possiby speak for 'all of what science is,' it is probably best to err on the side of caution in accusing others of 'ignorance.'
   
  In hope of promoting multilogue communicative competence (Habermas),
  Gregory
   
   
  
Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
    Moorad

I would second George and I get extremely irritated by your silly comments on historical science. They exhibit a gross ignorance and misunderstanding of what science is which includes both the historical and the experimental. I would suggest that you complete your scientific education and find out just how scientific and sound historical sciences like geology are.

I may add that I have questions against Keller (from the descriptions) but I laud what he is trying to do

Michael

  ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy"
To: "ASA list"
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution

> Moorad -
>
> This distinction has been debated a good deal here (& in other venues), &
> as I think you know, I think it's a mistake to make it in any hard & fast
> fashion. But let's grant your point for the sake of argument. What does
> it have to do with the truth of the statement about evolution. The claim
> that Julius Caesar was assasinated in Rome in 44 B.C. is then not
> scientific but historical. Do you doubt that it's true? Perhaps you
> would argue that in this case we have "historical records" - i.e., written
> accounts - about the event. But what then about the information that
> archaeologists get from sites where we don't have written records, or at
> least records we can read, like the Indus Valley civilization?
>
> Making proper distinctions is certainly critical but sometimes the
> distinctions aren't proper & are just obfuscation.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad"
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:45 AM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Keller on Evolution
>
>
> One must keep always in mind that statements like "evolution has happened" or "evolution is a (historical) fact" are actually historical and not scientific statements. Herein lies the whole issue of evolution as historical science rather than an experimental science.
>
>
> Moorad
    
---------------------------------
  Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

       
---------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 27 05:26:41 2008