Hi Greg,
I'd like your comments on something which I've been trying to clarify
for some time: you have on repeated occasions urged for the drawing of a
clear distinction between biological evolution and other forms of
evolution. And yet, if I understand your position on "other forms of
evolution" it is precisely that "evolution" is a very poor model for
understanding - perhaps even that one should not use "evolution" in such
contexts.
For example, you suggest in the below that "evolving theology" is a
misnomer and that what is really meant is something like "theology
changes". I can understand this if I take into account your previous
posts in which - it seems to me - you advance the view that some form of
ID model "maps" human cultural achievements (like theology and even
scientific theory) far better than an evolutionary model.
Now, you may wish to comment on whether this is a fair reflection of
your position, and if I have misunderstood then the following will
perhaps be misdirected, but on the assumption that I have understood
correctly, let me ask the following;
Why do you urge the qualification of the term "evolution" when it seems
that you are of the view that the only valid application of the term is
in the biological arena? Or, to put it another way, if "theological
evolution", "social evolution" and other such terms are meaningless
except by way of metaphor does it not follow that "evolution" on its own
obviously refers to "biological evolution"?
I can only resolve my confusion on this by the observation that you seem
to think that to hold to an evolutionary theory of biological origins
necessitates turning evolution into a grand metanarrative which covers
not only biology, but all other disciplines as well. I could understand
this if you were discussing the works of a social darwinist like E.O.
Wilson, but if anybody on this list is advocating such social darwinist
views, I'm not aware of it. Consequently, it leaves me feeling that your
remarks on such matters are to some extent misdirected.
Of course, I have most likely misconstrued your position, and would
therefore welcome your clarification. Perhaps a good start would be for
you to respond to the three questions which most often occur to me in
respects of your postings;
(1) Do you believe that physical scientists generally hold to
evolutionary theory as a grand metanarrative covering all disciplines?
And if so, what do you make of protestations to the contrary?
(2) Are you advocating the adoption with respect to human cultural,
social, and academic achievements of some form of ID approach (with "ID"
being very broadly understood) whilst allowing for the (potential?)
viability of evolutionary theories of biological development?
(3) Do you hold to some form of perspectivalism with respect to theories
of biological evolution? Or, what is perhaps the same question put
differently, do you think that HPSS perspectives trump the actual
practice of science in the sense that (say) neo-Darwinism is not to be
taken as primarily an attempt to describe reality, but rather as
primarily an expression of cultural and social prejudices?
I can't speak for others, but I personally would find clarification on
the above most helpful.
Kindest Regards,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
Gregory Arago wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Yes, I'm prepared to engage the conversation, since it is 'evolution'
> that you are speaking about. I wonder however, which evolution and whose
> evolution you are addressing? This is rather important to declare up front!
>
> First, could you please clarify why in the "introductory post" the terms
> 'biological evolution' and 'evolutionary science' (in other places you
> call it 'the science of evolution') appear to be synonymous. Are they
> meant to be the same thing or does your blog openly recognize the wide
> variety of ways 'evolution' is used theoretically outside-of-biology,
> outside of natural science? Is biology in your opinion 'the most
> important science'? (For example, you speak of "evolving theology," but
> I'm pretty sure you just mean that "theology changes" and not
> that theology is a 'biologically evolving' thing.) This is rather
> important for defending (e.g. Dawkins) or rejecting (Ted Davis, George
> Murphy, David Campbell, et al. at ASA) the 'warfare thesis,' the latter
> which it seems is really the primary point of your blog to object to.
> Evolutionary theories are conveniently used as a kind of buffer
> (especially for natural scientists) for the anti-warfare perspective, in
> the sense that many who promote them tend to ignore the human-social
> realm almost entirely.
>
> Would this be accurate of your position - human-social science doesn't
> matter to evolution at all? Are you a natural scientist, Steve Martin?
>
> Second, connected with the first, why have you not invited anyone who
> studies evolutionary psychology, evolutionary economics or evolutionary
> sociology, which constitute a significant part of the contemporary
> academy, to your 'team'? Doesn't this guarantee a partial view of
> evolution, denying the possibility of comprehensiveness? Is evangelism
> profitted by stacking the odds?
>
> Douglas Hayworth: evolutionary biologist (Washington University),
> Stephen Matheson: biology (Calvin College), Keith Miller: geology
> (Kansas U.), Dennis Venema: biology (TWU), Ted Davis: HPS (Messiah
> College). It seems to me this biology-first, geology-second approach
> is almost as confused, perhaps even moreso than the IDM, which is in
> 'insisting' that 'ID begin in biology' (Dembski). Ted Davis' HPS could
> help to balance things, but his is admittedly more history than
> philosophy of science. The absence of a social-humanitarian thinker is
> abundantly TELLING.
>
> In your blog you write: "this type of investigation requires
> specialization in biology, geology, genetics, biochemistry,
> paleontology, anthropology, theology, history, history of science,
> philosophy, philosophy of science, and biblical studies to name but a
> few of the disciplines." Those disciplines you haven't named have voices
> too! What do the human-social sciences have to say about evolution??
>
> Why not invite a real challenge for evangelicals and get-outside of a
> biology-first and geology-second defense of evolutionism, promotion of
> evangelicalism? I suggest you will achieve little of significance if you
> deny voices that are far more important in this discourse than those
> defending 'pure' natural science. Otherwise it must be a 'small world
> after all' to defend evolution these days in America (even as a Canadian!).
>
> Thanks for responding and clarifying,
>
> Gregory
>
> "It’s still unclear whether mainstream evangelicalism will ever accept
> the possibility that TE proponents can even legitimately use the label
> Evangelical...The current relationship between evolution and
> evangelicalism can best be characterized as warfare." - Steve Martin
>
> Yet another -ism..., which may sometimes seem quite ideologically
> un-Christian?
>
>
> */Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
>
> Oops .. it would be helpful if I spelled the title correctly, that
> is /Academics /not /Academica
> /
> On 5/18/08, *Steve Martin* <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com
> <mailto:steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> First, I should note that I was inadvertently expelled from the
> ASA list for the last 6 weeks – none of my posts made it
> through. But this was simply a technical glitch in the software
> implemented at Calvin College for our mailing list. I'm hoping
> this is now fixed (Thanks Terry!). Disclaimer: I do work for
> one of the world's largest software companies, so my complaints
> about perceived software quality are probably considered
> hypocritical in the extreme.
>
> Two months ago I invited list members to contribute a post
> <http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200803/0193.html> for my blog
> series on "Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics". The series
> kicked off today (here is for the introductory post
> <http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.html>)
> and will include contributions from 5 list members (Keith
> Miller, Dennis Venema, Stephen Matheson, Douglas Hayworth, and
> Ted Davis) as well as authors Richard Colling and Gordon
> Glover. You are welcome to join the conversation.
>
> thanks,
>
> Steve Martin (CSCA)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for the perfect gift?* Give the gift of Flickr!*
> <http://www.flickr.com/gift/>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 18 19:33:52 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 18 2008 - 19:33:52 EDT