Re: [asa] On the semantics of "evolution" (long)

Hi Rich,

I respond VERY hesitantly to this because I just KNOW it has the
potential to generate more heat than light.

I'll begin by acknowledging that you have disavowed adherence to total
evolution - just so the record's straight!

That said, I think there is a critical semantic matter to be resolved
and your introduction of Allan's E1-6 nomenclature is helpful in this
regard.

Let me return to one the definition of "total evolution" as found on
ASA's own website and cited in my post (and, to be very clear, I don't
intend the sophomoric argument that because somebody defined it this way
on ASA's web-site that it therefore speaks for everybody associated with
ASA);

<quote>
In theistic evolution, usually "evolution" means a Total Evolution of
everything — with astronomical evolution (to form galaxies and solar
systems) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus
chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution
(for the development of life) — but it can mean only biological evolution.
(http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/origins/te-cr.htm)
</quote>

The problem I see with this (and it is the remarks in your post which
have prompted a rethink) is that it can be taken two ways depending upon
where one puts the emphasis;

If one emphasies Total Evolution
_OF EVERTHING_ then clearly Total Evolution is as near as can be
identical with Allan's E-6. In such a case, the mention of specific
"types" of evolution would be seen as examples of a broader principle.
In such a view, the author of the above could well have added "social
evolution" (or even "memetics"!) to the definition without doing
violence to the point at hand.

I take it that it is precisely this understanding which list members
utterly reject.

HOWEVER

If one sees the four "types" of evolution: astronomical, geological,
chemical, and biological, as intended to delimit what is meant by
"everything" then it seems clear that "everything" means something like
"all physical processes" (or something of that nature) whilst
"evolution" is a reference to "change over time according to physical
laws". In which case Total Evolution doesn't really fall under the scope
of Allan's E-6. Indeed, I don't know WHERE it falls in Allan's schemata
if we take "total evolution" as simply a broad rubric covering the
change over time of physical phenomena.

Does it not seem from this that "Total Evolution" is an unfortunate
turn-of-phrase the scope of which is certainly not made sufficiently
clear on the ASA site? I must say that this seems to be the case to me
and I would therefore suggest that the semantic argument needs further
discussion in order to rectify this rather unfortunate ambiguity.

So, I acknowledge your disavowal of Total Evolution, and your disavowal
of E-6, my difficulty is that I'm not sure that Total Evolution must
fall under the E-6 rubric, and I'm not sure the use of the term on the
ASA site is as clear as it might be.

Kindest Regards,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

>
> And many, many times we have carefully explained that we deny total
evolution. E-6 has much in common with so-called total evolution.
Gregory complains that E-6 is rejected because it is not science --
which is true. However, we reject E-6 because it is not Christian and
clearly not so. Evolution is a much abused term and concept. That being
said it is always good to remember:
>
> /Abusus non tollit usum--

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 22:09:23 2008