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

It seems to me you both are in agreement, or am I missing something. [I
haven't finished my coffee, so I am not 110%.]

David, you stated, "If evolution explains the working of Nature, why invoke
God? That is what a Darwinist would say." Agreed, but I am curious how you,
or others, think Darwin himself would have responded. [I suspect he would
be comfortable including God as the evolutionary Designer.]

Coope

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 8:39 AM
To: David Campbell; ASA List
Subject: RE: [asa] How theistic evolution was explained to kids in 1964

David you were answering my question and so here is my reply to your post.
One has to be clear what the subject matter one is dealing with is. If one
is dealing with the purely physical aspect of reality, then science may
suffice. However, if one is dealing with the whole of reality, then
certainly science is not sufficient since I believe there is a nonphysical
and, even, spiritual aspect of the whole of reality. Evolutionary theory has
no clear demarcation and so it is treated as all-inclusive. This is the case
of Marxism, which goes beyond being a mere theory in economics. The
fundamental question is what is the subject matter of evolutionary theory?
At times, I think people think they can explain the whole of reality with
evolutionary theory, which is nonsense.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Campbell
Sent: Fri 8/1/2008 7:25 PM
To: ASA List
Subject: Re: [asa] How theistic evolution was explained to kids in 1964

> Are we dealing with science when we invoke evolution? If evolution
explains the working of Nature, why invoke God? That is what a Darwinist
would say.

"Darwinist" is especially problematic because it is popular as an
anti-evolutionary perjorative. As a result it tends to be used for
views that Darwin did not hold (e.g., atheism, though he certainly
wasn't a strong theist either) and also ignores the many changes made
in evolutionary thinking since his work.

However, the more fundamental question is whether Occam's razor can
legitimately eliminate God as an unnecessary addition when natural
laws provide good physical descriptions. There are at least three
reasons why it doesn't. First, there are the occasional instances
when natural laws don't work so well, e.g. Christ's resurrection.
Secondly, theological considerations become very important in dealing
with non-science topics. Dawkins et al. try to evade this by grossly
naieve circular reasoning-science is everything, therefore non-science
is irrelevant. As science does not provide its own philosophical
justification, scientism shouldn't be taken seriously as a viable
philosophical model. Finally, science does not truly seek to have a
minimum of things in the way this argument requires. Science searches
for broader, more encompassing explanations as well as trying to pare
away unnecessary components to models. As God explains everything, He
provides a valuable addition to a model, just as a grand unified
theory is desirable in physics even though we have good models for the
individual forces separately. Adding God to a scientific model does
not generally affect the scientific expectations so much as it affects
the ethics of the scientist.

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