Re: [asa] The word "evolution"

> Can we agree that natural sciences categorically DO NOT include 'intelligent
> agency'? It seems to me we can. Can we further agree that human-social
> sciences DO include 'intelligent agency.' It seems to me we can. As a
> result, the exclusion of 'intelligent agency' in natural sciences and the
> inclusion of 'intelligent agency' should ring some sort of bell for people
> who wish to discuss 'evolution' AS IF it does not exclude 'intelligent
> agency.'

Probably not. I think that some types of
archaeology/paleoanthropology could be classified as a natural
science, as could some aspects of considerations relating to the
possibility of intelligent extraterrestrials. Of course, trying to
force human-social sciences into a natural science mold, as if
intelligent agency is excluded, is a flaw of extreme sociobiology and
various other approaches.

As with the example of the Venter-made germ, the problem in
identifying intelligent agency scientifically is that we must have a
good idea of what the intelligent agency would or would not do, as
well as of what phenomena can be produced without intelligent agency
(of that particular type, ignoring the issue of God's ordinary
providence). One early cause for skepticism about Piltdown Man was
the fact that one accompanying "artefact" looked more like a cricket
bat carved from a mammoth bone than like something plausibly useful to
a stone-age human. (Maybe an American football would have seemed less
out of place.) Pulsars were initially dubbed LGM, for Little Green
Men, until a plausible explanation was developed; however, the LGM
designation was probably not too serious, either, as the usefulness to
some spacefaring race is not too evident, either.

> By acknowledging the RELEVANCE of human social thought and de-privileging physical sciences as arbiters of what counts as 'most important knowledges' in science and religion/theology/faith discourse, a more level playing field can be achieved. It is this possibility that I believe is being stunted by those who would ignore the supra-physical categories that 'human evolution' implies when they could simply use more precise language and help to avoid confusion.<

The average topic on the list probably gives a misleading impression
of what is considered "most important knowledge". Physical science is
(a) a major field of contention at present, with a lot of erroneous
claims being vigorously promoted as Christian (b) often presented as
the most important issue, whether by those who are determined to
attack evolution, old earth, etc. no matter what the facts may be or
by those who want to claim that the physical is all there is, so
anything else can be ignored as unimportant (c) the main expertise of
several people on the list. Therefore, it gets talked about a lot. I
certainly think that theology is the most important factor, and
human/social issues much more important in the science-religion
interface than biological evolution, even of mollusks.

Also, insisting that aspects of theology or of human/social science
are outside the realm of natural sciences, of biological evolution,
etc. can be misinterpreted as implying that the latter are inferior.
Of course, that is the interpretation that some would put on it, but I
am trying to claim that the natural sciences are quite limited in what
they can do, and purported moral implications based on biological
evolution are no more justified than claiming that the law of gravity
morally obligates me to knock stuff off shelves.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.