RE: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

But are not freedom and determinism not merely a conflict but rise to
the level of contradiction?
Necessity is determinism in a universe of only matter and energy.

At 08:55 AM 6/2/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Colin, you wrote:
>
> >Mayr's toleration of a paradox as something to be appreciated is
> one of my favorites:
>* Many authors seem to have a problem in comprehending the virtually
>simultaneous
>* actions of two seemingly opposing causations, chance and necessity.
>* But this is precisely the power of the Darwinian process.<
>
>I think you may be viewing as a dichotomy what is actually
>complementary. What shapes us, heredity or environment? It's
>both. We learn that in Psych 101. Same thing with biological
>evolution. Random chance doesn't do everything, environmental
>factors come into play. But let's say we want to factor in divine
>intervention and put that in nature's kit bag of tricks. Now try to
>do a scientific experiment not knowing whether on not some
>capricious deity may be playing in your Petri dish. Thank God He
>chooses to stay out of it.
>
>Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
>Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
><http://www.historicalgenesis.com>www.historicalgenesis.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>On Behalf Of Collin R Brendemuehl
>Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 7:49 AM
>To: PvM; asa
>Subject: Re: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution
>
>
>Naturalism's philosophical failures are many.
>Mayr's toleration of a paradox as something to be appreciated is one
>of my favorites:
>* Many authors seem to have a problem in comprehending the virtually
>simultaneous
>* actions of two seemingly opposing causations, chance and necessity.
>* But this is precisely the power of the Darwinian process.
>
>Rosenhouse's "lawlike" certainty is another favorite.
>
>And I pointed out two of the similar problems in Chrisitian theology.
>
>A good return question is: What is "science"? Hence my early post.
>If you include the Received View along with falsifiability then you add a
>great deal of metaphysical baggage -- as much as any religious view.
>Does that make it "non-science" because it is no longer physicalism?
>It raises some serious questions. Or if you want to include the
>theoretical sciences, even within natural studies, you've got a great
>deal of non-physical testing and reporting going on, and much of it
>merely mathematical (e.g., tachyons and quantum theory) and not
>at all physical-world testable.
>What is "science" at this point should not reject external causality.
>If it does, then to be consistent it must return to the old physicalism.
>
>
>At 01:22 AM 6/2/2008, PvM wrote:
>
>
>
>How could ID or special creation be proven false as it lies outside
>the realm of science? I do not see naturalism as having a horrible
>grasp of reality, certainly as Christians we can believe in God, but
>that does not give us a privileged position over those who hold to
>naturalism.
>
> > philosophical difficulties which some tolerate are often quite humorous.)
>
>Such philisophical difficulties however are not unique to naturalism
>and include Christianity as well.
>
> > We have the same problem in theology. Some of the
> > persuasion known as "Arminian" make the mistake of becoming quite Pelagian.
> > And some Calvinists end up as Determinists. Not all theorists/theologians
> > are consistent or "orthodox".
>
> > WRT Brayton's material, I will grant the clarification regarding
> > percentages, but not the proposed witch hunt.
>
>The 'with hunt' is merely a call to identify those who are violating
>their duties as educators as well as the constitution of this country
>and give them a choice. Why should we allow creationism to be taught
>as if it were science? I for one fully support the effort to keep
>creationism out of the classrooms and if, as the data show, quite a
>few teachers violate the trust relationship by teaching creationism,
>then something needs to happen.
>
>
>
>On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Collin Brendemuehl
><collinb@brendemuehl.net> wrote:
> > Murray,
> >
>
> > What's your opinion on evolutionary development of all of human agencys wrt
> > the scope of the claim.
> > More specifically ...
> > If all of the positives are attributable to evolutionary development, are
> > not also the evils?
>
>It's hard to speak of good and evil and claim that evolutionary
>development only involves positives. This is illogical as evolutionary
>development has nothing to say about positive or negative, which
>relies more on a moral judgement on our parts. So yes, depending on
>one's views on morality, positives and evils can be part of
>'evolutionary development'. Of course, evolutionary theory and
>evolution do not really 'care' about good or evil as it is an
>unrelated topic. Good and evil are best left to realm of morality and
>in the case of Christianity to God and our faith. As such, good and
>evil do become problematic issues but that's what happens in
>philosophical positions.
>
> > --Any idea why there would be a tendency to avoid claiming the evil things
> > that have evolved?
>
>I see no tendency. In fact, one wonders why ID insists that the
>flagellum which likely relates to the Type III secretory system, is
>designed when it causes so much evil. That I find a much more
>problematic position. As a scientist, we can interpret things as
>'good' or 'evil' but nature has no judgment.
>
>
> > Have you observed, among evolutionists, a regular appeal to a
> Kantian source
> > for morality?
>
>Evolutionists I assume have a large variety of resources they can
>appeal to for morality. From Christian morality, to evolved morality
>these concepts all tend to be found amongst evolutionists. In fact,
>since evolution is such a well supported fact and theory, I find your
>question somewhat puzzling.
>
>No, evolution is not going to help us decide what is 'good' and what
>is 'evil' although evolution can help us explain how altruism and
>reciprocal altruism evolved and played a role in establishing
>morality, where morality is in most cases a very subjective and local
>set of rules based on nature and nurture.
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Collin Brendemuehl
>http://www.brendemuehl.net
>
>"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"
> -- Jim Elliott

Sincerely,

Collin Brendemuehl
http://www.brendemuehl.net

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"
                                                 -- Jim Elliott

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 2 09:01:33 2008