Re: [asa] Biologic Institute

Chris,
I agree with you, but would elaborate the situation a little differently.
Organic evolution is a scientific construct that excludes teleology.
However, teleological language slips in, as for example the declaration
that the purpose of thalassemia/sickle cell anemia is to protect against
malaria. But such are not properly descriptive, in the mode of scientific
discourse. Since science says nothing about ends, one may slip it into
either a materialistic or a theistic philosophy. It does not support
materialism, as some claim, but it is compatible. On the other hand, it
is not incompatible with theism, provided one does not insist on
accommodating the science to certain limited views, whether YEC time or
ID teleology within evolution.

When one attempts to describe the evolution of society from primitive
hunter-gatherers to the current complex mix of interacting groups, many
more factors have to be included. Then one can ask what the purpose of a
certain individual or group's research is. And we can ask whether we
think the investigation is worth supporting.
Dave (ASA)

On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:53:39 -0300 "Chris Barden"
<chris.barden@gmail.com> writes:
> 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
> , 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.
>
>

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 15:00:15 2008