Interspersed reply with David C.’s comments and thoughts.
In regard to a) and b) the notions of ‘function’ and ‘detection’ are additions to what I said to Rich. They may be part of one's vocabulary of approaching his dilemma. From a human-social scientific perspective they are imo not needed to make the crucial points.
“Knowing me is how you detect the purpose in the event.” – David C.
Yes, this is EXACTLY one of the main issues.
“the claim that science provides moral direction is itself not a scientific statement-you are making philosophical assumptions in order to reach any philosophcial conclusions.” – D.C.
Let us embrace trying to understand the ‘philosophical assumptions’ instead of simply tossing them out as merely something ‘other’ than Science! Yes, friends, there is a dire need for this at ASA. I didn’t say that “science provides moral direction” but am familiar with how this argument goes in your respective place/landscape.
“the claimed use of animal examples is rarely honest.” – D.C.
Here we are agreed David. It is probably then a common contribution of TE/EC thought that it on a regular basis challenges ethology and evolutionary psychology for their dishonest “use of animal examples”? If not, then why not? Is it rather pigeon-holed and timid? It might be the same as R. Dawkins' position (relative silence) wrt the animal rights movement.
“Study of biological change indeed does not reveal any higher purpose...If you want higher purpose, you need to look elsewhere. Note that this refutes all attempts to make biological evolution the justification for a social agenda...There is no evolutionary interest in bettering the human race.” – D.C.
The ‘elsewhere’ needs to be recognized and supported as just as important or, in fact, even as MORE important than (natural) science in regard to discovering higher purpose in/for human life. This is partly acknowledged in David's saying that a social agenda is not justified by biology and that ‘bettering the human race’ is not part of evolutionary interest. I agree, though note that many secular humanists have linked evolutionary thought with ethics and a social agenda, whether or not these things would do a banana-skin pirouette and collapse upon deeper investigation often escapes everyday public scrutiny. Silence on these things at ASA (i.e. evolutionary ethics), when it happens (as I've experienced) passively supports (perhaps unknowingly or unintentionally) the aggressive anti-theistic agenda.
“History is not obviously working towards any particular goal. Good doesn't always win...Expectation to find a clear directionality merely by examination of physically observable patterns is misplaced...” - D.C.
No, I can’t agree with the first claim because it simply avoids eschatology. The goal may be unknown, but it exists. If one disqualifies eschatology then direction and teleology are easier to dismiss. Such a view (history = no goal) is not a representative Christian view and having a ‘calling’ or ‘vocation’ would seem amiss in such a perspective.
Finding a “clear directionality merely by examination of physically observable patterns” may indeed be misplaced. But what it involves is accepting MORE than ‘mere science,’ but rather all the while living as a ‘complete person’ who is human inside the science laboratory and also outside of it, wherein the philosophical and theological realms are accorded dignity and value. When people denigrate accommodation it seems they are often doing it from one direction-only; they don’t see that both ‘sides’ must accommodate each other.
“social implies having significant interaction between individuals, and does not entail ultimate goals.” – D.C.
No, this is insufficient. If you speak of ‘social’ in terms of plants that way, then “interaction between individuals,” soul-less yes. But once you enter the realm of (the Lady of the Wood) human-social thought, just the fact that WE are human beings, made in the image of our Creator, there are inevitably ‘ultimate goals’ involved, no matter how difficult (or hidden) to (scientifically) discern they might be. Don't you feel it? This is one example of where human-social science is volumes, leaps and bounds more complicated and complex than any natural science is or ever will be because it involves human thought, feeling, emotion, free will, consciousness, etc. which are beyond (i.e. transcend) ‘mere physicality’ yet also possesses a physical component as well.
“Properly, evolution is the empirically observed physical pattern tacked onto the theological presupposition that God is at work in all events, whether they occur via ordinary physical patterns or not.” – David C.
Yes, bingo, Amen! Let the Theistic Evolutionists and Evolutionary Creationists please listen, hear and acknowledge this! Tacking evolution on and attempting to integrate it into one’s theology – indeed, these are inescapable traits of that TE/EC trade.
“the semantic question-what does the word "science" mean? In practice, in modern English it typically refers to physical study of the physical world.” – D.C.
What the word ‘science’ means is much more than a ‘mere’ semantic question (though semantics are also not excused). ‘Meaning’ is a human-social construct. The “study of the physical world” may indeed only be ‘part’ of science. Can you imagine this!?! Certainly there are scientific techniques that can be applied to non-physical things, thus integrating ‘science’ with the non-physical. The implication of ‘information’ indeed challenges the entrenched idea of ‘science’ in the modern sense; a likely perspective since we have already entered a post-modern age. Doubters beware! Please don’t plead to deny my existence by denying the post-modern age (Bethany and Dennis, glad to see you here as well) in which I grew up!!
“Why worry about whether 'social sciences' are considered to be real sciences or not unless being 'science' is perceived as prestigious in some way?” – D.C.
Yes, indeed! This is precisely one reason I’ve faced a hard time at ASA, where there are mainly physical scientists and few human-social ones (David O. being a wonderful exception!). The former really do seem to generally consider the latter as less-prestigious (softer, more relative, subjective, etc.), while the latter often consider the former as lacking meaning (specialized, narrow, dogmatically-insulating, naturalistic) on the human-level. Speaking only for myself, I see no need to be considered ‘scientific’ in the naturalistic sense of the word. I study human-social things, not ‘mere’ nature (as opposed to what the nature vs. ONLY supernature-ists might suggest). However, applying scientific methods (which are widely done in human-social thought) is an important part of academic rigour and for legitimizing one’s contribution to knowledge and learning.
“physical study of things simply isn't good at dealing with formal and final causality.” – D.C.
Yes, this brings us to the ‘time warp’ in which we all seem to be engaging. The ‘old science’ may have been unable to deal with formal and final causality. But the ‘new science’ need not be constrained by the same rules. If you believe science can ‘evolve’ into something it was not previously (e.g. the Kuhnian paradigm shift), then you simply MUST be open to the possibility that formal and final causality CAN become part of science (once again). It is what both I and the IDM are impressing, yet I am doing it in a parallel way to their biology-first (sometimes scientistic) approach.
“According to people like Dawkins, etc. "not science" implies inferior. According to creation science and ID, "not science" implies inferior, otherwise, why waste so much energy for such poor "scientific" support for your claims? Why such efforts to have claims designated as "science"? Why not just admit that the scientific data don't support the view, but you think other evidence does? Individuals who favor a neo-darwinistic view of biological evolution could have any number of philosophical positions and may or may not consider science superior to others.” – D.C.
Yes, and this is why I have higher expectations for the ASA! (Look please to non-American philosophy!) What might this ‘other evidence’ be? It is surely true that many TE/ECs also feel that ‘not science’ implies inferior, yet they do it within the protective-combative zone of ‘science and religion’ discourse. From the Dutch reformed perspective, I find the trilogy of ‘science, philosophy and religion’ a good cure for the ‘science and religion’ dialectic, which serves to allow people like George M. to all-but-ignore the human-social realm with its legitimate contribution (i.e. why he simply flat-out refused to acknowledge the various meanings of ‘human evolution’ when I politely asked him to do so – he was actually speaking only about the ‘biological evolution of humans’ and NOT about ‘human evolution’ as a whole, which involves many more aspects than ‘mere’ biology) at the cost of weaker communication with the everyday life of people who are neither scientists nor
theologians. All persons have a philosophical thread running through them! This is what the HPSS Survey thread revealed – participants at ASA could due with a dose of knowledge that involves perspectives they rarely consider as valid!
Yes, indeed, favourers of a neo-darwinistic view of biological evolution COULD (thanks for your careful clarity of language, David!) hold any number of philosophical positions. A representative survey would likely reveal the vast minority who are both theists and evolutionists (TE/ECs, Dennis and Dennis in Canada please don’t be offended by the statistics!), while a majority are atheist or agnostic about spirituality. Most biologists are not renowned for their philosophies (while Paul Nelson is not a biologist but a philosopher of biology), which is why Dawkins has made such waves in expounding his in some ways more holistic doctrine of agnosticism-atheism to a public that was already prepared for the message. (His message and mine will most certainly clash when I return to America next month.)
One could just as easily as saying that intelligent design should have come up with a positive research program already in the past ten years of generation, also say that TE/EC should have come up with a philosophically convincing counter-argument to agnostic evolutionism for ‘everyday’ human life. Nobody sees 'evolutions' in their life, but sure, changes happen - so what? Yes, I think a new direction or a new paradigm is called for and in fact waiting just around the corner!
To back this up, let me draw your attention to something that most natural scientists on this list will likely warmly receive and accept – Big History, done in a scientifically-naturalistically, evolutionarily acceptable way: “How Big History Works: Energy Flows and the Rise and Demise of Complexity” – By Fred Spier (UVA, pdf, 2004).
‘Til the next day,
Gregory A.
---------------------------------
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 May 14 14:11:42 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 14 2008 - 14:11:42 EDT