RE: [asa] Saving Darwin -- On the "Fall"

Hello Steam Doc,
 
After travelling approx 4200 miles (6700 kms) to now write you from Kingston, Ontario, let me make a short remark. This is in response to your noting my initials in your post to confirm that you were speaking ONLY about biological evolution and not the vast number of 'other' types of evolution.
 
First, I share your concerns with promoting good education for people who have questions on these topics. Yes, I agree that 'countering misconceptions' is an important role for the ASA. On the other hand, it is also important to present a 'positive' perspective in response, not just a negative position towards others. It surely appears to me, as a non-ASA member, at least on the listserve, that TE and/or EC is the preferred perspective which (pre)tends to be positive. I'm not really sure it is as positive as it may appear, but you are likely somewhat familiar with my position already.
 
Second, Darwin surely needs to be 'saved' as do we all. Some of the attacks on him are legitimate and respectable - Darwin was neither the genius nor the scientist to end all geniuses or scientists. His philosophy was indeed woefully confused (he himself admitted this!). I doubt that anyone on the ASA listserve would wish to defend Charles R. Darwin's philosophical position, much less his theological views, especially in his later years. Darwin may be buried in Westminster Abbey (which I briefly saw last week), but his views were certainly not Orthodox Christian. Neither, it appears, are Ken Miller's. So there is space provided for TE/ECs to distance themselves from certain aspects of Darwin's views, should they so choose to do so (which they probably have done, yet still need to repeat and repeat and repeat because it sometimes isn't obvious).
 
Third, the felt need to REDUCE evolution to MERELY biology is saddening. Just last week I was at a seminar and conference with good people discussing anti-reductionism, i.e. speaking toward a holism that is often absent on the ASA list. Do you not think, Allan, that speaking holistically rather than reductionistically is a helpful thing? This suggests why taking a position of "this conversation is about biological evolution" is actually in some ways counter-productive, though it may seem to have fruits when restricting oneself to a SINGLE academic field. The felt need to do this is a mystery! Why not 'go holistic'?
 
Since I will be meeting Bill Dembski next month, I can ask him why he persists in the 'culture war' mentality. I doubt it would serve either 'camp' well that IDs and TE/ECs would go after each other aggressively. But then again, I'm not an American citizen, so I can't claim to really understand this competitive, conflict-based ideology of one-ups-personship either.
 
To Bernie, probably it would do well to just dip his finger into human-social thought. This may provide an alternative reason to 'resist evolution' which he hasn't yet imagined or crossed paths with in terms of literature and ideas. The (perceived) threat of evolution to theology is almost certainly NOT a myth, which is why TE/ECs have found it so difficult to present their message successfully to those Americans who really and truly do believe in the Word of God. The idea of 'in the beginning was evolution' is always already incomplete.
 
Glad to see you acknowledged the Fall, Allan, as it is sometimes (conveniently) relativized by TEs as if it is irrelevant (or less important compared with the hyper-focus of YECs) to our current state of existence. How could there have been a 'Fall' if there were no flesh-and-blood person to (choose to) 'fall'?

Regards,
 
Gregory (in and out of America)

Bernie D. wrote:
---------
"Why does anyone resist evolution? Because of the threat to their
theology (I don't think there's any other reason)."
-------

I think it is very important to amend Bernie's statement to "Because of the PERCEIVED threat to their theology."

Often this perception is a knee-jerk reaction with little basis in reality, just because somebody in their church (or some extremist like Richard Dawkins or Ken Ham or Bill Dembski) has told them that evolution (if G.A. is reading, this conversation is about biological evolution) is an enemy of Christian faith. 
 
 
 
 
 
If we can work through a few important concepts (like not asking Scripture questions it isn't trying to answer, not making the "God of the Gaps" error of making natural explanations and God's action mutually exclusive), in many cases people can be helped to see that the perceived threat is phony, or maybe limited to a smaller set of scientific and/or theological issues (such as human origins and traditional understandings of the Fall), or maybe at most an area of minor tension and mystery rather than a fatal threat.  Or maybe that some aspect of their theology has not been thought through and/or is not Biblic ally sound and needs to be modified.

I think countering such misperceptions is one of the most important things the ASA can do, both as an organization and as individuals as we interact in our churches, workplaces, etc.  At this point I will put in a plug for the book "Origins" by Deborah and Loren Haarsma that I just finished reading, which I think does an excellent job of this, and is at a good level to be given to a college student who might be wrestling with these issues for the first time.

Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, CO (ASA Member)
(usual disclaimers here)

Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!

      __________________________________________________________________
Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 17 15:30:24 2008