Hi Greg,
Wow. There's a lot in here to think about. But important things first: How can a Canadian in Russia possibly ignore the catastrophe of our 5-4 loss in the World Hockey championships today? Where is the sack-cloth-and-ashes? You have to get your priorities straight :-).
Tail between legs, indeed! To top it off, they had a local T.V. crew in my apartment with friends, filming the reactions and interviewing the glorious victors! I was ready to phone home jubilant at 4-2 after two periods. "-)
Re: definitions of evolution. Yes the scope of the discussion on my blog is almost exclusively biological evolution. I believe that is clear most of the time; maybe I should be more careful not to use "evolve" as a synonym for "change" (eg. when talking about the change in theology over time). Maybe offline you could point to those occasions in my posts where I should substitute "change" for "evolve" so as not to confuse the reader. But, one of the points of Harvey's definitions, is that evolve really is used as a synonym for change (his E1 definition), and in these cases, it has absolutely nothing to do with biology or metaphysical narratives.
A quick note: yes, Harvey’s definitions, which I’ve read, says that “evolve really is used as a synonym for change.” This is the definition I’m challenging, following in the footsteps of other sociologists, e.g. A. Giddens and P. Sztompka (both renowned and not minor players, one in England, advisor to Tony Blair, the other was President of the ISA). Harvey says E1 is “clearly no problem.” I’m saying he’s missing the bigger picture. Thus, Harvey’s definition needs to be updated; evolution is not and should not be (whoa, naturalistic fallacy) claimed synonymous with ‘change.’ He is wrong to perpetuate the total evolutionistic (TE) fallacy.
Re: voices outside of biology. Yes, I agree that other voices need to be heard. I do hope to address that (somewhat) in the future, and I have a contributor with expertise in social psychology that will be posting in a future series on my blog. But even here, I believe his comments will be primarily on biological evolution. I'm not saying that "human-social science doesn't matter to evolution at all", but surely biologists (and other natural scientists) can make some (a lot of) claims in biology without reference to human-social sciences, just as chemists can make a lot of claims about chemistry without reference to biology.
Re: your future contributor - great! I’d suggest involving a culltural or linguistic anthropologist for balance too. Why they always want to speak about ‘biological evolution’ on such an interdisciplinary topic shows the biology-heavy reality of today’s academy. One can say that biology has replaced physics as the ‘sexiest’ discipline in contemporary natural science! But what is the cost?
Re: Harvey's definitions for evolution (see: his essay at http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/Chapter5.pdf ), I think these are very helpful. The only criticism I might have is that E6 seems to be "a big bucket for things TE / ECs don't like". So, maybe we should break that out more. But (and this is the key point): Do you have issues with how Harvey has defined E2, E3, E4, and E5? (Lets forget about E1 as that's just a semantic issue). Aren't these useful in themselves? Can natural scientists not study aspects of these types of evolution without making any claims one way or the other regarding some of the metaphysical aspects or even human / social aspects that might go into E6? Maybe your point is (as Murray mentions) simply that we need to be careful not to extrapolate what we know from biological evolution to other areas of study. If that is your concern, then I might agree (I probably don't know enough to comment one way or the other). But I would
disagree that "gaps in evolution" outside of biology (eg. social sciences) should make us reconsider our biological evolutionary theories.
Yes, but helpful for whom? Why not discuss E2-E5 with natural scientists AND human-social scientists? E2 specifically has bearing on human-social thought. E1 is NOT, NOT, NOT (merely) ‘a semantic issue’! All of Harvey’s definitions are compromised by his incompleteness in E1 and his ‘big bucket’ in E6. In my experience, natural scientists are not aware of the ‘new revolution’ handed to human knowledge by the hermeneutic, linguistic and cultural turns of the 20th century. They are blinded by physics or biology, unknowing of the significance of these other developments.
‘Evolution’ (16th c.) is a term older than ‘biology’ (Lamarck), yet the biology-centric possession of evolution is astonishing, a truly contemporary situation! Harvey's E6, by the way, appears to support the position that ‘if its not science, then its something lesser.’ Though I don’t think he means this, since of course he values theology if not also philosophy, his language (‘not science, masquerades as science, not science’) is still old-school and not up to date with how to balance the playing field. Just my quick 2cents on it.
Regards while still reeling in Russia, G.A.
Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Greg,
Wow. There's a lot in here to think about. But important things first: How can a Canadian in Russia possibly ignore the catastrophe of our 5-4 loss in the World Hockey championships today? Where is the sack-cloth-and-ashes? You have to get your priorities straight :-).
Re: definitions of evolution. Yes the scope of the discussion on my blog is almost exclusively biological evolution. I believe that is clear most of the time; maybe I should be more careful not to use "evolve" as a synonym for "change" (eg. when talking about the change in theology over time). Maybe offline you could point to those occasions in my posts where I should substitute "change" for "evolve" so as not to confuse the reader. But, one of the points of Harvey's definitions, is that evolve really is used as a synonym for change (his E1 definition), and in these cases, it has absolutely nothing to do with biology or metaphysical narratives.
Re: voices outside of biology. Yes, I agree that other voices need to be heard. I do hope to address that (somewhat) in the future, and I have a contributor with expertise in social psychology that will be posting in a future series on my blog. But even here, I believe his comments will be primarily on biological evolution. I'm not saying that "human-social science doesn't matter to evolution at all", but surely biologists (and other natural scientists) can make some (a lot of) claims in biology without reference to human-social sciences, just as chemists can make a lot of claims about chemistry without reference to biology.
Re: Harvey's definitions for evolution (see: his essay at http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/Chapter5.pdf ), I think these are very helpful. The only criticism I might have is that E6 seems to be "a big bucket for things TE / ECs don't like". So, maybe we should break that out more. But (and this is the key point): Do you have issues with how Harvey has defined E2, E3, E4, and E5? (Lets forget about E1 as that's just a semantic issue). Aren't these useful in themselves? Can natural scientists not study aspects of these types of evolution without making any claims one way or the other regarding some of the metaphysical aspects or even human / social aspects that might go into E6? Maybe your point is (as Murray mentions) simply that we need to be careful not to extrapolate what we know from biological evolution to other areas of study. If that is your concern, then I might agree (I probably don't know enough to comment one way or the other). But I would
disagree that "gaps in evolution" outside of biology (eg. social sciences) should make us reconsider our biological evolutionary theories.
thanks,
On 5/18/08, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote: 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.
--
Steve Martin (CSCA)
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
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 07:57:44 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 19 2008 - 07:57:44 EDT