Re: [asa] How theistic evolution was explained to kids in 1964

Greg,

Having mistakenly accused you of something because I didn't read it properly
and replied in haste, here is my considered response.

Greg, I decline to answer your questions, for the following reasons, in
order of increasing severity:

(1) You are criticizing a phrase "Evolution shows certain things happened",
that is taken from a CHILDREN'S book and expecting it to be as rigorous and
full of academic disclaimers as a learned scientific paper. This is plainly
unreasonable. Take a look at the title I gave the thread before you start
picking things to bits. To any 10 year old with a bit of common sense it is
obvious what the writer meant. Not to you, apparently.

(2) You continue to twist and distort what I say and then use it to suit
your own rhetorical purposes. For example you say:

The evidence for the flagellum's current existence is, as you say, 'very
strong.'

You know and I know and everyone who read it on the list knows that I said
nothing of the sort. It was obvious I meant that the evidence for evolution
was very strong. I said nothing whatever about the evidence that the
bacterial flagellum had evolved. I find this a most dishonest way of
arguing, and hence it does not merit an answer.

(3) I find it deeply offensive that you seem to suggest that TE's are
somehow failing to distinguish an "ideology" from "science". Evolution as
discussed on this list is SCIENCE. It has NOTHING to do with ideology.
It's to do with going with the theory that has the best evidential support.
Nothing more. Not philosophy, not ideology, just science.

For these reasons, I decline to answer your questions.

In fact unless you can come up in short order with an explanation as to why
you continue to abuse us and argue in such a dishonest manner, I shall not
be answering any emails from you at all, because I shall add you to my email
filter that deletes emails on receipt. There are two members on this list
of mine at present, one of which has since been chucked off the list for
time wasting. You are headed there, my friend, because I find your approach
most irritating, and it is better to ignore completely than to burn with
anger.

Iain

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>wrote:

> For the record, Iain, I also cringed at that one sentence of yours. It
> seems to confuse the meaning of natural history from a theory about how
> natural history happens/happened. Are you sure you're clear on the
> difference between them?
>
>
>
> For example, you write: "evolution shows that certain things happened. The
> evidence for it is very strong. Therefore if it is God who is running the
> show, then the strong evidence is that this is His method of running it."
>
>
>
> Though this is common fare for TE/EC perspectives, it is rather flimsy when
> philosophically analysed. 'Evolution' does not 'show' things - in the way
> Moorad is referring to it (please correct if I'm wrong A.M.), it is
> describing and attempting to explain things. So, to choose the now-famous
> bacterial flagellum example, evolutionary theories talk about HOW the
> flagellum 'evolved' with mutation, adaptation, variation, differentiation,
> etc. under the pressure of natural selection, how it excercised 'fitness' to
> survive via what pathways up to now. The evidence for the flagellum's
> current existence is, as you say, 'very strong.' But HOW it happened to
> arrive at now is uncertain, or at least there is still debate about it (e.g.
> Behe) and the concept of 'irreducibility' is provocative philosophically for
> biologists to contend with. I asked Behe if he knew about S. Wolfram's
> 'irreducible computation' and he went quiet.
>
>
>
> But to say 'evolution is God's method of creation' is a very strong
> statement, which I still contend is an example of tying one's theology up
> too tightly with evolutionary theory. Cringe at my saying that if you like,
> but TE simply hasn't, in the many pieces I've read, done an adequate job of
> distinguishing the ideology from the 'science,' from the 'religion' and from
> the 'philosophy' of evolution - it is indeed 'meshed' together, though
> sometimes it looks mashed haphazardly, rather than meshed coherently. Yet,
> perhaps I am mistaken now in writing this because you didn't write
> 'evolution is God's theory of creation,' but that it is God's METHOD of
> creation.
>
>
>
> So, let me ask you this Iain. Is evolution a METHOD? Or is evolution a
> theory or a fact of natural history? I can accept two of the three above
> things, noting that clearly 'evolution' is a misnomer in social-cultural
> history, which I find rather important alongside of discussions about purely
> natural history. Human nature is actually not a concept studied in 'natural
> sciences' as they are now done, so hopefully you'll cut me some slack in
> taking a different view of 'theistic evolution' than you (i.e. taking into
> accout theology's close neighbourly disciplines in anthropology, pscyhology
> and sociology) and asking you to clarify your language for our communicative
> improvement.
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Gregory
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 7/30/08, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] How theistic evolution was explained to kids in 1964
> To: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> Cc: "Stephen Matheson" <smatheso@calvin.edu>, "ASA List" <
> asa@lists.calvin.edu>
> Received: Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 9:36 PM
>
> Once again, you are plucking a sentence out of the middle of the quote
> and nit-picking with it instead of considering what it says in the context
> of the whole of it. Please READ WHAT IT SAYS. A couple of sentences back
> it says "The theory of evolution says certain things happened".
>
> So in the context OF COURSE the sentence is going to presuppose the truth
> of the theory. The whole purpose of the paragraph is to answer religious
> peoples' objections to the theory of evolution. It is trying to say there
> is nothing inconsistent in believing God to be creator, and that evolution
> is true.
>
> Please stop the cherry-picking and use your English comprehension skills on
> the WHOLE PASSAGE.
>
> Iain
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>>
>>
>> The answer to both questions is certainly no.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, the statement, "I*f God made the world and runs the world, then
>> evolution _is_ God's plan," *presupposes the truthfulness or correctness
>> of evolution, whatever the word evolution means.
>>
>>
>>
>> The one-way implication, "if A, then B" presupposes that both A and B are
>> true otherwise the statement is meaningless, which is what I have been
>> saying.
>>
>>
>>
>> Moorad
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :* Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
> your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.