RE: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that most of us would agree that
there are changes over time that may be correctly described by
evolutionary thoughts. What is the real bone of contention is the
question of the initial state upon which changes began to occur, that is
to say, the fundamental question of origins.

Moorad

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 8:56 AM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

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

www.historicalgenesis.com <http://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

<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 10:52:05 2008