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.
Thank you for your thoughtful post and questions, Murray. Since this week is a crazy one, let me just respond quickly (remembering that I owe Jon Tandy a response also). I’d shy away from saying that ‘evolution’ “is a very poor model of understanding” to instead suggest that it is necessarily limited and partisan in its own way. It can be suitable in some places, while in other places it makes little sense and simply should not be used. Universal evolution or, as the ASA education link (Craig Rusbalt) calls it Total Evolution is my main target.
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.
Not sure if I’ve advocated “some form of ID model that ‘maps’ human cultural achievements” but I find that language quite intriguing. The field of human geography is especially interesting for me, after meeting David Livingstone in Vancouver while taking a course from one of his Geography friends at UBC. They do a great job of ‘mapping’ the schools of thought, paradigms, traditions, with the trilogy of ‘space, place, landscape,’ which is quite helpful for ‘putting science in its place’ (Livingstone 2005). In my case, I am putting the ‘science of evolution’ in its place and not allowing it to over-reach itself into ‘outside’ domains. I’m not an IDist, but of course admit, as do all human-social scientists, that ‘human design’ is a legitimate category (e.g. costume design, set design, graphic design, interior design, etc.).
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;
You’re definitely in the ball park, on the cricket pitch!
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"?
Let’s broaden the use of evolutionary theory (ies) to a limit or boundary. Not just-biology, but everything ‘natural.’ This is why I have challenged the natural/supernatural dichotomy; there are other things that are not-natural, that are also not-supernatural. Human beings are not just-natural, likewise we are more than just-biological! However, getting into study of human beings as created in the image of God, we have a dilemma, which I think V. Solovyov’s category of god-manhood (bogochilovechestvo) fruitfully addresses. However, since probably few people on this list are privy to knowledge about Solovyov (or Russian religious philosophy in general) and since I am by no means an expert on bogochilovechestvo (except as an en-souled human person) we’ll have to leave that one aside for now.
To your second question, I’ve learned on this ASA list that for the most part when a person speaks of ‘evolution’ they really just mean ‘biological evolution,’ but that they often IMPLY much more than that. (This is where I had problems with George’s stubborn refusal to write ‘biological evolution of humans’ [thanks to Don Nield for the wording] instead of ‘human evolution,’ which obviously involves/implies more than just-biology.) It may be they feel licensed to do so because T. Dobzhansky did it or because T. De Chardin did it and they were a biologist (Russian Orthodox) and palaeontologist/Catholic Priest. I can challenge their license because I am challenging the ‘universal evolution/Total Evolution’ perspective too. I’d prefer you to interpret my position as one that acknowledges when ‘natural scientists’ use the term ‘evolution’ they are obviously referring to ‘the evolution of natural things’ or, to put it another way, ‘naturalistic evolution.’ Since I haven’t
found anyone at ASA with a satisfactory challenge to ‘naturalism’ (as you know, I’ve questioned the ‘sophomoric’ dichotomy of MN/PN, a dichotomy about the same ‘age’ as the concept duo ‘intelligent design’), some may be pleased that I include biology as a natural science in which evolution is (appears to be from the outside) an accepted theory for natural history. So, Murray, I think I accept your view of my view with the above nuances.
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.
First, I don’t comprehend what an "evolutionary theory of biological origins" means. Just because Darwin wrote ‘origin’ in his book title, doesn’t mean evolutionary theory (then or now) is a theory of origins (biological or otherwise). Here I prefer to speak of ‘origins’ and ‘processes,’ with evolutionary theories focussing on the latter. A.N. Whitehead is very important here. Thus, I don’t think it “necessitates turning evolution into a grand metanarrative,” but this does seem to commonly happen (said as a sociologist of science), including the apparent views of TE (total evolution) supporters (this Total Evolution [TE] – Theistic Evolution [TE] will undoubtedly come back to bite some folks at ASA!).
Few people still advocate social Darwinism, even in the human-social sciences, yet some things are repackaged into today’s grammars that are not far afoul of social Darwinian thought (e.g. bioprospecting and bioliberalism). When I speak with ASA natural scientists, the ‘metanarrative’ (your term) that is problematic is ‘total evolution’ as an all-encompassing viewpoint, which is intertwined with people’s theologies TE/EC to the degree that admitting of ‘things that don’t evolve’ is quite a difficult task. David Campbell has been one of the few refreshingly candid exceptions admitting of ‘things that don’t evolve.’ Obviously this message, the one you’re currently reading, is NOT something that can be said to ‘have evolved’ into existence (origins). There is a process of typing it and editing, but that’s something different.
Of course, I have most likely misconstrued your position, and would therefore welcome your clarification.
Murray, I don’t think you’re far off at all. Thanks for your insightful, pointed questions!
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?
Tough question! A survey would need to be done to confirm this anyway. My belief, well, let’s just say that I believe ‘evolution’ is one of, if not the most, interdisciplinary concepts/paradigms in today’s academy. It is used in virtually every discipline (e.g. if it just means change-over-time, then what doesn’t change?), in natural, applied, human-social sciences and humanities. Music is said to evolve, medicine is said to evolve, golf is said to evolve – pick your favourite topic, scientific or everyday life, and someone has probably written about it ‘evolving’! I like that you’ve used the term ‘physical scientists’ because it creates an avenue OUT of the natural/supernatural dichotomy.
Sure, I’ll agree I think that many physical scientists are offering a covering theory with ‘evolution’ dressed as a ‘metanarrative.’ So, for a human-social scientist to pipe up and say, “Hold on here, you physical scientists! What authority do you have to tell me and my colleagues that we MUST follow YOUR model, your scientific picture of the world?” might seem rather presumptuous. It is rather aimed at defending the sovereignty of academic thought from the infringement of other disciplines.
(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?
Again you pose a difficult challenge! Like I said, I am not an IDist. My perspectives do not come from the IDM as a source of valid (or even common) human-social thought. Yes, I have no problem with accepting “evolutionary theories of biological development” if that is the language that biologists, geologists, botanists, ecologists, etc. prefer to use. They are the experts in their field, not me. What I do insist on is allowing “cultural, social and academic achievements” their own space for dialogue. (This dialogue of course already happens, but not at ASA, which is heavy in the ‘natural science’ quarter.) Indeed there are unwelcome hegemonies in the academy when one assumes one’s ideas SHOULD transfer into ‘other’ realms, whereas in those ‘other’ realms they are unwanted.
In sociology at one time, evolutionary theories were wanted, even solicited, and they are still wanted and solicited by some today (cf. recent pushes to reconnect with biological evolution/total evolution as a standard of knowledge) as a means of legitimating ‘sociology as a science.’ Yet imho the time has come (post-Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, et al.) to distinguish what is scientific from what is ideological and even metaphysical or metanarrative, as you call it. The French post-modernists have pressed us enough! Here a comprehensive rejection of neo-Darwinism in human-social thought would contribute a significant blow to TE/TE (and also to atheistic evolution) because it would divide their/its forces.
(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?
First, not sure what perspectivalism you have in mind, but I wouldn’t currently call myself a ‘perspectivalist.’ No, I don’t think HPSS (thanks for using this acronym) is a way of ‘trumping’ “the actual practice of science.” SoS watches scientists and demythologizes (in a neo-Enlightenment or post-Enlightenment sense) their work. It opens-up the notion of ‘what science means to society, to people.’ To the second question, I would say that yes neo-Darwinism is highly culturally and socially prejudiced (or should we say informed) by Anglo-Saxon thought. T. Malthus and H. Spencer play HUGE roles in our current understanding of neo-Darwinism (as ideology), not to mention the turning of A.R. Wallace away from certain aspects of Darwinian Theory.
In Australia, Denton and Davies have their own contributions to the discourse, among others. So I can say yes, I would promote the involvement of HPSS in helping societies, including natural scientists and theologians, to understand the ‘social and individual meaning’ of ‘evolutionary theories,’ including but not exclusive to neo-Darwinism. Without HPSS, one merely gets scientists often telling how great their science is, whereas in reality it might not be so great or as transferable to Total Reality as they in their insulated specialist worlds might suppose.
Hope this helps to clarify my position a little and why I responded to Steve in that way.
Warm regards,
G. Arago
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
---------------------------------
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 Mon May 19 04:30:12 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 19 2008 - 04:30:12 EDT