Re: [asa] Biologic Institute

Chris,
  Great post! Thanks for engaging my concerns! I agree with much of what you said, with a few exceptions.
  Yes, biological evolution and natural history. Not cultural history, NOT social history, NOT technological history, NOT political history, NOT linguistic history; but ‘natural history-only.’ With this I would wholeheartedly agree!! Not to partition, but to discern.
  I am not much interested in ‘truth in a mechanistic sense.’ This comes from reading Vladimir Solovyov and also from watching Star Wars IV as a child. Do you remember the opening scene when Darth Vader enters the spaceship (hear his breath!) – scary enough for a young boy or girl indeed!?! ORGA-MECHA...
  The ‘how’ and ‘why’ difference is blurrier than you seem to make it out as. How = history, why = philosophy/theology? Such is a rather simplistic view of things. Not that you hold to it, Chris, but that it obscures as much as it enlightens.
  You say “the ‘why’ of history is answered by TEs in the say way it is answered by Christians the world over.” Yet many Christians don’t accept the ‘process philosophy’ contra ‘origins’ that is endemic in TE/EC. Later you say “Proponents of ID are not satisfied with the TEs ‘why,’ even though it is the clearest statement of design language imaginable.” Many IDists are Christians, so they fundamentally agree with the ‘why’ in your first example. Now your point is confused. Somehow then, they are apparently ‘driven out’ of the Christian fold according to your criteria! This is heresy on their behalf (i.e. bad theology), isn’t it?
   
  This leads to an accurate and careful question of yours: “Maybe you don't like the term ‘evolution’ to over-reach," you ask me. "[B]ut would you accept that its overuse in this manner by TEs is largely due to an honest grappling with ‘how’ and ‘why’?” Yes, I would accept that its overuse is due to an honest grappling with ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. Hopefully TE/ECs will reciprocate with honesty to try to involve the human-social sphere instead of some fantasy 'objectivity.' Let it not be thought I am without respect for my opponents.
   
  This brings me on the same page with TE/ECs, though I continue to challenge them now and will in the future challenge them to step outside of the neo-Darwinian paradigm that has obscured certain truths, mainly in social-humanitarian thought, from gaining legitimacy. Since they are predominantly NOT human-social thinkers, I would expect a measure of respect in uncovering this challenge to their universalistic position.
   
  You write: “IDers have not even come to grips with the ‘how’.”
   
  This is a tough one to swallow and depends highly on what one knows of and means by ‘IDers.’ I have dialogued with (and even met!) IDers who fully accept neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories. They are evolutionary-IDists. The ‘how’ is not a problem for them, though it often does not involve any non-material, e.g. spiritual dimension, which is a sticking point for TE/ECs. IDM leaders take various positions, some accepting the main ‘how’ answers according to the Modern Synthesis, while others are even YECs or who just avoid age of earth and humans questions entirely! So the variety needs to be respected instead of lumped together haphazardly.
  You wrote: “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 think you would find agreement with many IDers on this point, that ‘God guided history’ and still guides it! The grammar of ‘detectability’ is not mine to promote, so I won’t do so here. Nevertheless, I think you’d also find ‘them’ accepting the ‘worthy of praise’ phrase for the Creator that you likewise acknowledge.
  This notion of “questions the TEs have not contemplated” I find fascinating. What questions might those be?
   
  - Gregory

Chris Barden <chris.barden@gmail.com> wrote: 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

       
---------------------------------
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 Wed May 14 05:59:45 2008