Re: [asa] Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics Introduction now available

I consider this thread finished as far as my point about asking 'Which Evolution?' and 'Whose Evolution?' is concerned. Steve Martin, who started the thread admitted that "the scope of the discussion on my blog is almost exclusively biological evolution." This was what I asked and Steve answered directly, though he didn't explain why he has "not invited anyone who studies evolutionary psychology, evolutionary economics or evolutionary sociology, which constitute a significant part of the contemporary academy, to [his] 'team'?" I'm curious to hear his answer to the question of how 'Evangelicals, Evolution and Academics' can address more than say 1/5 of the meaning of evolution if it does not involve these other fields. Surely by sticking to 'just biological evolution' one is narrowing their focus at the cost of comprehensiveness?
   
  The thread then took a turn so that now Dave and Bill are promoting 'technological evolution' or 'evolutionary programming,' with which I strongly disagree *on theoretical grounds*. Dave has given multiple examples 'for' the analogy of biology and technology, but has not addressed the 'theory' behind his claims. Combined, their position is as controversial as promoting 'intelligent design,' yet it seems that perhaps in their field, the meaning of evolution can be taken for granted and anyone (obviosuly an outsider) would have to be a dummy to question it! Ironically, both positions ('techno eVo' and 'intelligent design') are using an approach that 'comes from the wrong end' of the spectrum to the arguments they are trying to proove. IDists commonly wants to 'start' in biology, yet 'design' is a concept that makes sense first and foremost in a human-social sense, in engineering, in programming, in applied sciences, etc. 'Techno eVo' or 'eVo programming' uses an analogy
 that does not privilege human choice, meaning, purpose and teleology, yet programming a computer is precisely all of those things! It just doesn't make sense theoretically to confuse things this way, i.e. to use grammar that quite obviously doesn't fit.
  
"If I decided to solve a problem...Such a process could be carried out with no human intelligence involved." - Bill
   
  How can you 'decide' to solve a problem without intelligence? Isn't the decision a reflection of your intelligence to begin with?? I simply don't understand such dehumanising logic! I used even stronger language with Dave, 'turning humans into ZEROS' - he made no comment!!
   
  "The point is that the inventors seldom foresee all the possible applications of their inventions." - Bill
   
  With this I have no problem and have not argued against it. I agree with you, Bill. Did I give the impression that I wanted to contend such a point? If so, then please excuse the belaboured misunderstanding.
   
  In this conversation I see no need to entertain an "observer from an alternative universe."

       
---------------------------------
Instant message from any web browser! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 26 13:09:21 2008