Re: [asa] O'Leary's nonsense

Yes, I think you're right on being fair, David. Steve's non-Darwinism, however, is still quite mysterious, at least to me. Why? Well, he's a biologist at Calvin College. Don't biologists at Calvin College accept the scientific contribution of Charles Darwin to biology and other natural sciences? If so, then doesn't it make he and them at least in some significant ways, Darwinians? If not, then could you or he please spell out what a non-Darwinian position in biology looks like (or may look like) in the contemporary academy?
 
Let me include a reflexive component for the purpose of adding context. Personally, I don't accept every part of Max Weber's sociological contribution. Some things, yes, other things no. If you want to discuss this, then I should be ready to explain myself, including what I don't accept in the Weberian canon. Yet, I have little problem calling myself a Weberian sociologist or sociologist in the Weberian tradition. In other words, I am Weberian before I am Durkheimian or Marxist (sometimes a field has multiple founders or key figures).
 
In the referred thread (there are actually 2 threads at UD referenced)
"The problem is, that TEs use the language of teleology (purposeful evolution) while arguing on behalf of non-teleology (Darwinian evolution)." - Thomas Cudworth
 
"For my part as a Christian evolutionist, I’ll gladly make the statement you call for: Darwin was indeed “partly wrong” about the “mechanism of evolution,” because he insisted on ateleology, with neither scientific nor metaphysical justification." - Steve Matheson
 
Steve admits that Darwin was 'partly wrong,' specifically wrt ateleology. I suspect that Thomas' challenge, which I share, is for the positive side to take effect; showing how Darwin's wrong-ness was/is improved upon today! Where is the teleological evololution to be found in the field of contemporary biology? Who speaks up for it in order to overthrow the ateleological evolution of Darwin and many others? Some at ASA have suggested trying to make 'teleological evolution' a mainstream pov, but their efforts seem (to this outsider) to have made little to no impact; biologists actually have not imported teleological language. Please proove me wrong here if possible! Perhaps Steve is helping to insist on (the relevance of) teleology in natural science? Surely the PoS's would write about it.
 
Let's clarify a key difference then between TE and Darwinism, if there indeed is one. Survey question: Does anyone at ASA who would claim to be a TE, likewise reject the label 'Darwinist'? If so, in what sense and to what extent? It should actually be easy to clear the air for those attracted to features of 'intelligent design' theory to understand that TE does not equal Darwinist! Or do TEs prefer not to make such a distinction, but just to silently assent to the Darwinian implication (biologist or evolutionist inevitably equals Darwinist)? Now that Steve has visited and argued calmly there, perhaps one or some from UD would come to ASA to discuss this stuff here...
 
It should be amply clear to everyone that Darwinists who are non-theists (e.g. agnostics or atheists) are usually not shy to express their non-theistic or even anti-theistic perspectives. Why not the other way around too? It's more than a language game, though all 'camps' are heavily invested (perhaps especially IDists today) in some concepts or proper names rather than others. This, after all, has a communicative purpose!
 
G. Arago
 

--- On Mon, 6/30/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] O'Leary's nonsense
Received: Monday, June 30, 2008, 9:59 PM

Greg, in fairness to Steve M., I think he did address that on UD.  He said a couple of times that if "Darwinism" means "metaphysically a-teleological," then he's not a "Darwinist," because he's a "pretty good Calvinist."  But most of the responders didn't seem to want to take Steve at his word, and insisted that "TE" must mean "Darwinist" which must mean "metaphysically a-teleological."  It's just a silly language game these folks wanted to play with Steve, IMHO -- either that or they think he's just lying, waiting for the opportunity to throw of the cloak of Calvinism and admit he believes in Gaia rather than God.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:

 
The label 'Christian Darwinist' seems legitimate (and paradoxical) also, yet Stephen Matheson seems not to have discussed it there. Most TEs and ECs here likely would prefer not to carry such a label, even if not prepared or willing to say exactly how they are non-Darwinian. This was a significant point contra TE in the UD thread. It is the tendency to universalise (e.g. to idolise, like ultra-Darwinists do) evolution (into evolutionism) that I oppose in my field. When TE is not theistic evolution-ism, it seems much easier to defend.
 
 
 
Gregory
  __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 30 16:03:09 2008