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

I'm not 'twisting' what you said, Iain. I'm simply repeating it and asking you to explain what you meant. There's nothing 'tricksey' about it, as your Tolkien might say. You've already admitted in this thread that you misread (i.e. your assumption), not I.
 
You want to explain my 'behaviour'? I'm engaging in dialogue/multi-logue on the internet, on a forum list-serve, just as I've been doing for a couple of years at ASA. Exactly the same as you. Are you suggesting I can't disagree with you? - Obviously not.

 
As it appears, you've got yourself in more than a bit of a hole with your evolution is "God's method of creation" gambit. Is evolution a method, Iain? So let's see if you've got anything in your arsenal, in your cache of arguments or answers to explain yourself.

 
As it is, Iain, I don't think you do. You can take that as a friendly challenge if you like. It would be wrong to feel insulted. The facts are openly on the table and I am asking with respect for my dialogue partner. It's just that I don't think too highly of the 'philosophy' of theistic evolution, which you seem intent to defend, given your particular knowledges. Sure, I can accept biological evolution, as the biologists (diverse across their discipline) have come to accept it. Sure I think a person can be a theist, a believer, and also accept evolutionary biology. But there is SO MUCH MORE to 'evolutionary theories' than biology-alone and the term 'theistic evolution' is ambiguous, as David Campbell recently acknowledged too.
 
Biology holds no monopoly; it may dictate to no one outside its respective realm with any meaningful sense of authority about evolution. So the persons I'm really arguing against, Iain, is not you, but those who twist the meaning of 'evolution' into 'outside' spheres, who expect non-natural scientists and scholars to tow-the-line of biologism, scientism and naturalism (to the exclusion of theology), and on occasion, who are in some ways protected from criticism by the strategies of theistic evolutionists who indeed have apparently blindly and wilfully (choosing to do so) swallowed ideological components of evolution together with their 'science' and with their 'theology.'
 
It would simply take you to tell what ideological components of evolution(-ism) you haven't 'swallowed,' i.e. that you openly reject, Iain, to make a reasonable case that you are ideology-free!
 
You suggest this DOES NOT HAPPEN, especially not at ASA. You even seem to suggest you have no ideology! Well, I do and in my view everyone does; to one degree or another, of one kind or another. I differ from you in noting that ideology is a critical aspect of theistic evolution (a concept duo quite obviously hard to pin down - even George Murphy won't defend it!), and I do so from a philosophical perspective. What perspective do you speak from or for?
 
Regards,
Gregory
 

--- On Fri, 8/1/08, 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: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca
Received: Friday, August 1, 2008, 10:43 PM

It's not because it's a "sensitive topic" that I threatened to expel you.

It's your manner I'm objecting to, and your twisting of what I said, and your assumption that I'm somehow buying into an "ideology", which is absolute nonsense.

I am still waiting for a more reasonable explanation of your behaviour.  Till then, your question does not merit my going to the trouble of making an answer, since I see no evidence that you're not going to twist it round again.

Iain

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Iain,

Is evolution, in your opinion, a METHOD? Or is evolution a theory or a fact of natural history...?

You called 'evolution' (in your words, not from a children's book): "God's method of creation." Should we take you at your word or will you step back from it?

This is obviously a sensitive topic as you've threatened to 'expel' me from your constellation of voices over it!

To me it is still astonishing that you view computer programs as 'evolving,' especially since you are a programmer and actively 'program' computers. Dave Wallace showed me the nuanced meaning of 'computer evolution,' though regress in that realm ALWAYS returns to human choice and action.

My vocabulary is already re-configured so that I require 'evolution' only rarely when speaking about purely biological or natural things. Yet in the places you are using it, the meaning of the word 'evolution' is already over-used and often abused, and imo outdated, obsolete (while people echo it out of force of habit).

Evolution: METHOD or something else?

May the peace be with you,

G.A. __________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Aug 1 23:45:59 2008