Re: [asa] Biologic Institute

Gregory,

I'm sure you've spent enough time on this list to realize that
proponents of TE (I include myself in that category) see biological
evolution as providing a means for understanding natural history.
This also entails our accepting its "truth" in a mechanistic sense.
The apparatus of mutation and natural selection has worked upon living
creatures to produce new species, as the fossil and genetic evidence
ably demonstrates. It is the "how" of history. It need not be a
question of demarcation -- call it anything you like -- but it clearly
is a different question than "why".

The "why" of history is answered by TEs in the same way it is answered
by Christians the world over: "I believe in God the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.." TEs believe that God guided history,
natural and salvation, in ways that might be detectable but are no
less worthy of praise should they be undetectable. I won't deny that
holding these views can produce noetic tension, and much of the
super-evolutionary explanations of Teilhard etc are attributable to
this. Maybe you don't like the term "evolution" to over-reach, but
would you accept that its overuse in this manner by TEs is largely due
to an honest grappling with "how" and "why"?

Proponents of ID are not satisfied with the TEs "why", even though it
is the clearest statement of design language imaginable. Far from
answering questions the TEs have not contemplated, IDers have not even
come to grips with the "how". Perhaps once they have a "how", they
will be in a position to correct our "why". But not until then. In my
opinion, the IDM conflates the two questions in a way that would be
anathema to the early church. When Paul was asked by the Corinthians
for more explicit detail about how God would give us new, resurrected
bodies, he provided analogy but wisely refused to suppose upon that
which he did not know. One gets the impression that Johnson et al
would call Paul an accommodationist on this issue.

Chris

> As to the first part, it's likewise not a far cry to say that theistic
> evolution(ism) has 'perverted the language' of evolution. I say this (blunt
> point) because it appears that Rich is taking the position that TE/EC is the
> 'one true perspective' and that even the 'soft' variants of intelligent
> design (not Intelligent Design) that David O. highlights are unacceptable
> because of some kind of 'highjacking' of design terminology/apologetics.
> I've written a master's thesis partly on the IDM, so I would please ask Rich
> to back up his spurious evaluation of the IDM's language by facts rather
> than condescending hearsay. Randy made an appeal for more balance at the
> beginning of this thread - it would be nice if Rich could refrain from the
> smear tactics (i.e. 'perversion' is a strong accusation).
>
> One reality is that TE's are just as guilty of 'highjacking' evolution
> terminology to suit their ideological purposes. The grammar of Total
> Evolution (ASA education site - "In theistic evolution, usually "evolution"
> means a Total Evolution of everything" - C.R.) involves a 'theft' of sorts
> from biological evolution (though originally the term 'evolution' was
> imported into biology from outside) to a larger (higher order) realm. I
> partly blame Teilhard de Chardin and T. Dobzhansky for this in speaking
> outside of their areas of direct knowledge. TEs seem to use evolutionary
> biology to justify their (domestic) 'accommodation' to the 'science' of the
> day (mainly, it seems, in order to calm the Anglo-Saxon 'warfare
> mentality'). What is commonly missing, however, is the necessary
> connection/relation with 'philosophical evolutionism' (yes, I'll get to this
> Jon), which is where TE/ECs all too conveniently tend to hide behind the
> rather sophomoric (post-modern) distinction of MN/PN, as if it is
> philosophically sufficient and exhaustive. Unfortunately for them, it's not.
>
> If you really are not against 'teleology,' Rich, then why not confront the
> reality that the majority of evolutionary biological scientists are in fact
> a-teleological in their approaches? Why try to spin the facts to suit your
> ideology? Darwin was a-teleological just as Dawkins is, just as are M. and
> S. Harris, D. Dennett, J. Diamond, S. Blackmore and countless others - none
> of them see any (higher) 'purpose' in biological (processes of) change.
> Those biological evolutionists who pretend to appease teleological thinking
> are amateur philosophically, easy to see through, and rather innocuous using
> concepts such as 'fitness' and 'directed' without any identifiable 'agency.'
> This is why sociobiologists, evolutionary psychologists and ethologists
> sometimes (is it even regularly?) attribute the term 'social' to plants and
> non-human animals, i.e. 'as if' they possess teleological thought.
>
> Just because TE/EC's propose to 'allow' some kind of mysterious and
> non-empirically verified 'guidance' (guided evolution) in the door (tack-on)
> does nothing to positively implicate 'teleology' in the rigorous
> (naturalistic) science of evolution. This is precisely why I contend that
> TE/EC is a tack-on accommodation and an unfortunate holdover of 20th century
> evolution-creation debates in America, though I am much softer in saying
> this than Phillip Johnson and the IDM. In the obvious 'ideology of
> evolution,' otoh (and TE/ECs don't like to admit there is ANY ideology in
> their view, just the science please!), it is quite clear that 'teleology' is
> banned from making any appearance. This is precisely why RC Pope Benedict
> XVI motioned against 'chance evolution' in his first public message.
>
> Taking the discussion onto a more level playing field, the IDM (according to
> Dembski) is in part trying to re-legitimize (Aristotelian) formal and final
> causality in the scientific process. This is something more than TE has yet
> wrapped its head around! "Just the material and the efficient causes
> please!" they insist, along with the Darwinists. Then when one is outside of
> the science laboratory or library one can speak about formal and final
> causality according to their values and worldview. But that is simply 'not
> science' (and by implication, according to neo-Darwinists, somehow
> 'lesser.') Such is a fragmented view of things, unintegrative, unholistic,
> incomplete. And if nothing else, some in the IDM are trying to change this
> outdated perspective, an unfortunate legacy of the mixture of
> neo-Enlightenment Science and Protestant Christian Faith.
>
> Let's why not see what the Biologic Institute has to offer in the coming
> weeks and months before debunking them based on predispositions? Besides,
> if, as the post David O. just added says, the IDM is promoting the idea that
> "information is undeniably the stuff of science. It is also the stuff of
> technology… which is the stuff of design," it seems you natural scientific
> folks are going to need to speak the language of 'cybernetics' much more
> fluently than I've yet seen displayed on the ASA list in the past two+
> years. Please direct me to the discussions and speak of their updating on
> this topic(e.g. Prigogine and Stengers) if available.
>
>
> G. Arago
>
>
>
> Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 12, 2008, at 5:19 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>
> Now, to the extent this man would try to make some specific argument about
> the complexity of the eye, many of us here could probably debunk it and show
> all sorts of transitional eyes. But regardless, it seems to me that this
> man's moment of intuition was something real, and I have little doubt that
> it was part of the Holy Spirit's prompting of him to faith. Whether or not
> there's an evolutionary pathway for eyes, our aesthetic intuition that eyes
> (and DNA) are the marvelous work of a creator has validity at some level --
> just as we agree with the Psalmist that we are "fearfully and wonderfully
> made" even if we can mostly explain the gradual, natural process of fetal
> development. If we lose that in the zeal to debunk bad ID arguments, I
> think we really lose something important.
>
>
>
>
>
> I totally agree with the sentiment. You have been saying that our
> interpretation of Scripture needs to be updated and I respond that a
> forteriori so does our Natural Theology. You may have missed this but
> Alister McGrath is leading up a conference at Oxford this Summer entitled
> Beyond Paley. http://www.naturaltheology.org
>
>
> While I pick on ID it's only because it is the viewpoint that is more
> patently busted. But in my opinion all arguments for design based on
> complexity are busted. Arguments for design based on order or beauty are
> both sounder and more Scriptural (c.v. 1 Cor. 14). Now I am not so zealous
> as to destroy the faith of your parent's friend but what happens -- and it
> does happen -- when he finds out about how the mammalian eye evolved? If we
> don't make progress with our natural theology your parents' friend's faith
> could be in jeopardy.
>
>
> In summary, the irrational opposition to evolution within the ID community
> is not only as Ken Miller puts it a "science stopper" it is also a "Natural
> Theology stopper". Why did it take two centuries to update Paley? The IDM
> has also so perverted the language that when I said I opposed them you
> wrongly interpreted that I was against teleology and was out to strip people
> of their faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, my
> opposition to ID stems from the same concern for people's souls that you
> have.
>
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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 Tue May 13 12:54:39 2008