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

Hi Craig,

I'm somewhat embarrassed - it didn't even occur to me to draw your
attention to that particular discussion - I should have, and believe I
owe you an apology for not doing so earlier. So, I apologize.

Further to that, I appreciate your constructive response to my remarks.

On that score, I believe that your amendments greatly improves the
clarity of the piece - it does seem to me now that a careful reader
should not miss the point that the four areas of evolution you mention
(astronomical, geological, chemical, and biological) are intended to
delineate the scope of "Complete Formational Evolution" (CFE) rather
than being a limited list of some potential examples.

And that you make specific comment in your appendix to what is or what
isn't included under the rubric of Theistic Evolution is very helpful. I
especially like that you have acknowledged the difficulties which
surround the use of evolutionary concepts in respects of the
"individual" (physical, mental, emotional, ethical, spiritual) and the
"social" (culture, technology) aspects of human beings. That these are
indeed contentious areas amongst Theistic Evolutionists is a needed caveat.

Of course, this doesn't resolve the sociology of science interest in
"evolution" in all its various guises. But the piece now acknowledges
the existence of such a perspective, and makes clear that it isn't
intended to engage with it, is very helpful. On the one hand, it makes
clear that "evolution" is not necessarily to be used as a single
organizing schemata for everything that exists. On the other hand, it
opens the door to further discussions from the SoS perspective.

All-in-all very nicely done, and apologies again for my oversight in not
copying you in on the original discussion.

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

Craig Rusbult wrote:
> Recently a friend told me about a discussion, on this list, of a
> web-page I wrote. I read criticisms by Murray Hogg (responding to
> criticisms by Gregory Arago) and Murray persuaded me that what I had
> written was not clear, so I've revised it.
> One change (replacing "Total Evolution" with "Complete Formational
> Evolution") is at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-cr.htm#te
> and you can see an added section by clicking the end-of-section link asking
> "What is and isn't included in theistic evolution?"
>
> My original ideas were OK (I think) but they were expressed in a way
> that allowed (or even encouraged) unwarranted extrapolations beyond what I
> wrote. In writing, a constant challenge is balancing brevity and clarity;
> for maximum clarity, everything should be included in every paragraph. (or
> every sentence or every phrase?) But few people are patient enough to read
> this kind of writing. In the parts Murray didn't like, I erred on the side
> of insufficient clarity. And I didn't anticipate the ways that (by
> ignoring what I wrote in the rest of the page) "total evolution" could be
> over-extrapolated and misunderstood.
>
> I agree that terms are important, and a writer shouldn't expect a reader
> to read everything, that each chunk (section, paragraph, sentence, phrase,
> or even term) should "stand on its own" as much as this is possible.
> Another page, which has terms (and the ideas they imply) as its main
> theme, is http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/naturalism.htm#i which
> ends (in the appendix) with "five terms we should avoid."
>
> Craig Rusbult
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 30 18:38:47 2008