Re: [asa] public response

On May 20, 2008, at 6:14 AM, Gregory Arago wrote:

> Does this mean that 'theistic evolution' is likewise not a
> 'scientific conclusion,' but rather philosophy and theology?

Yes. The theistic part is not science.

> In your opinion is theistic evolution a mix of science, theology and
> philosophy, whose main purpose is to combat the (American-Western)
> 'warfare model' of 'science and religion' and/or to make sense of
> the truth(s) of human and world history?

I don't know if you can give a purpose here. There are as many
purposes as people. If you read Keith's book -- which I highly
recommend -- you will see that. But speaking in broad brushes this is
mostly true but with the subtle difference that there is warfare that
is with the atheism part of atheistic evolution and not the evolution
part. TE is not anti-warfare per se but anti-warring on the wrong
parties. The evolution part of AE is much, much stronger than the
atheistic part and is where our critique should be focused.

> What would then happen if 'evolutionary philosophy' is (shown to be)
> fundamentally contradictory to theism, even anti-theistic - would
> this undermine the theistic evolution perspective?

Yes if evolutionary philosophy = evolutionary science. In my mind and
most TE's minds these are not the same. TE already opposes so-called
evolutionary philosophy if what you mean by this term is ontological
naturalism or atheism.

> Why isn't it called theistic-philosophical evolution or
> philosophical-theistic evolution if it really does involve philosophy?

Keith and I prefer to go by the term Evolutionary Creationists but
since most people already use the TE term so we just accept it.
Creationism is a philosophical/theological construct and not a
scientific one. I don't know why it isn't obvious that there is a
huge philosophical component to TE/EC. Eugenie Scott accurately sees
the fundamental difference between TE and AE is philosophy and I don't
know why you haven't figured it out yet. Everybody agrees the
difference is not science. When we get to the whole demarcation
question everybody seems to throw a hissy fit if you say something is
not science. I guess it is because science is viewed as either the
exclusive or superior way to achieve knowledge. Many TEs believe
neither. So, when you see us say don't teach ID in a science class it
is not some sort of superiority game because TE is in the same boat as
ID here. The T part of TE is clearly not science (and so is the A part
of AE) and no TE that I know of claims it is. If ID was just as honest
here much of the current unpleasantness could go away.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 20 08:48:07 2008