[asa] Ken Miller and Philosophical Naturalism

Gregory,

You have spoken often about how ASA (at least this list, which isn't
necessarily representative of the ASA in general) doesn't deal substantially
with the influence of evolutionary philosophy in areas of the social
sciences. You seem (if I'm not mistaken) to be willing to accept the
evidence for biological evolution, but you are concerned about the pervasive
use of evolutionary (and by inference, atheistic) philosophy to explain
human social development in non-theistic terms. I have expressed before
that I think you have some valid concerns in this area, but that these ideas
need to be fleshed out in positive ways that contribute to the discussion
and dissemination of Christian response to atheism.

I'm curious if you have read Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God". After
spending several chapters defending and explaining the biological aspect of
evolution, he spends a long chapter (ch 6) dealing with the over-extension
of evolution to support atheism and philosophical naturalism in areas beyond
the scope of biological science. He talks about the anti-religious use that
some scientists (Dawkins, Dennett, Wilson) make of evolution, to extend it
into social and philosophical ideas, including socialism, economics,
psychology, sociology, criminology, even religion, and other areas.

He says, "All of these writers have gone well beyond any reasonable
scientific conclusions that might emerge from evolutionary biology. Without
saying so directly, they have embraced a brand of materials that excludes
from serious consideration any source of knowledge other than science." (p.
185) He then questions the conclusion that science can rigorously define
and predict everything in the material world, using quantum principles to
show that nature itself is inherently incapable of being constrained to
mechanistic explanations.

Miller gives the example of Clarrence Darrow, prior to the Scopes trial,
arguing against the death penalty based on deterministic forces acting on
the criminal defendant, making him a victim of genetics and blind nature (p.
188-189). I'm wondering, as I've wondered in this list before, whether you
might be able to contribute some positive dialog to this kind of discussion
from within the disciplines you have studied. For instance, rather than
challenging us whether we have read Barth or Popper or others that may not
be on my personal top 100 reading list, could you (or someone) do something
like the following:

- Pick a topic, such as the influence of evolutionary philosophy on criminal
justice, economics, or sociology in the 19th and 20th centuries.

- Show in some detail how evolutionary paradigms were misappropriated for
use in the social sciences, as I tried to do in just one small aspect
yesterday related to memes.

- Illustrate the damaging social outcomes of such incorrect assumptions, and
how a more Christian or theistic paradigm, or even non-theistic but
non-evolutionary paradigm makes more sense.

- Provide some suggestions for how Christians in the social sciences could
help make a rational effort to influence a paradigm-shift in the current
disciplines away from flawed evolutionary paradigms and toward a more
reasonable paradigm.

I'm sure such articles have been attempted in the PSCF, although since I
haven't been reading for any great length of time (and wouldn't myself be
the best judge of how successful such articles were). But I believe this is
the sort of thing that ASA, and you personally, if so inclined, could
contribute toward a positive influence for Christian thought. It would also
help educate and enlighten other (particularly natural scientist) Christians
to the problems unique to the social sciences, quite outside of the
biological realm.

Jon Tandy

(ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 7 08:30:35 2008