Re: [asa] M-Genesis

A few problems with the logic here. First of all evolution does not
depend on the validity of the Big Bang, although there is significant
supporting evidence for this concept. I am not sure what alternatives
there exist to 'science' in between. And finally, evolution... Well,
it seems straightforward from the vast amounts of evidences that
evolution did happen. It's all about the evidence really.

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> If one supposes the Big Bang, the fact that we are now discussing issues, and nothing but "science" happened in-between, then "evolution" did happen. Of course, these are big ifs. However, if all the terms used are properly defined, then the real discussion is all about these supposed ifs.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Sun 8/10/2008 1:29 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis
>
>
>
> Gregory Arago said:
> "Now, even if a small minority of voices would claim that 'God creates using evolution' or 'evolution is God's method,' doesn't do (hasn't seemed to do) anything much to change the perception INSIDE the field of biology that there is no plan, no guidance, no teleology, and no purpose in biological change-over-time."
>
>
>
> I think there's the big picture: we can be sure (beyond a reasonable doubt) that biological evolution happened (from apelike creature to human) because of the DNA evidence (pseudogenes and fused human chromosome #2). How it happened, or why it happened, is largely irrelevant. Once you accept it actually happened, then you can accept evolution in all parts of life (astrological, chemical, geological, etc.). Accepting evolution for apelike creature to man is a watershed event. Once a Christian accepts the evidence for human evolution, and believes in God, the logical conclusion is that God used evolution as his means for design (contrary to a YEC or OEC interpretation of the Bible).
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory Arago
> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:54 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; George Cooper
> Subject: Re: [asa] M-Genesis
>
>
>
> Howdy George,
>
> Are you a cosmologist? I haven't met many actual (practising) cosmologists, but many people who are interested in cosmology, mostly as amateurs. Actually, I read somewhere recently that cosmology is all but lost in today's Academy, that most people are taught little about it. A bit sad if it would be true.
>
> Just to clarify once again my position, I am against biology-centrism and elevating the meaning of biology too high for society's own good. Hopefully you can understand the reason for feeling this way, which are easier to understand if you've followed the story of socio-biology and now evolutionary psychology as 'academic' disciplines. The term 'mutations,' though you freely apply it to cosmology ('supernova blasts'), I should express to you great hesitation in using it about human beings and changes in things not part of 'natural sciences.'
>
> A couple of questions: By 'advance' or 'advanced' do you imply 'better'? You use the words 'for the good,' without mentioning how this value-term may be defined. For me, each star being "different than another" is hardly evidence for 'the good.' Are you using 'advanced change' in cosmology to mean that 'the universe' is somehow 'getting better'? You didn't use the words 'simple' or 'complex' or 'heterogeneous' and 'homogeneous' (the latter representing Spencerian evolution, rather than Darwinian), but perhaps that is behind your cosmological evaluation of 'the good'?
>
> We quite probably see the subjective/objective dichotomy differently. Bringing Rene Descartes into play seems worthwhile in a discourse commonly dominated by reference to Sir Charles Darwin. Do you view natural philosophy as relevant to this conversation, given that what is today called 'science' was once considered as 'natural philosophy'? Some people consider Aristotle an 'evolutionist,' yet there are many features of Aristotelian thought that are inconsistent with 'evolutionism.' Philosophy is lively important here as a bridge-crossing activity.
>
> You write: "I am using evolution as a general term for advanced change, and not restricting it to biology. I am suggesting it is a wonderful and natural process that was planned from the beginning."
>
> On what basis do you justify stretching the meaning of 'evolution' in this way? Why do you 'transfer' the concept 'evolution' outside of biology? Why not restrict 'evolution' to biology or to 'natural' things only? This would perhaps help to protect from the penetration of ideology into your 'science.' Again, just as it was with Iain Strachan, I don't mean this to accuse you of 'ideological science' simply because you accept certain aspects of evolutionary theories. It is a simple thing to do to distance oneself from ideology, by openly rejecting those aspects of Darwin's theory or of any other type of evolutionary theory that are not scientific, not theological, but rather ideological. I wonder why theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists seem hesitant to do so - but since I live outside of the American milieu, perhaps it is because people don't want to be misquoted or called a 'creationist' just by rejecting anything 'evolutionary,' even the quite obvious 'evo
 l!
>
> utionary ideology.'
>
> Perhaps you have seen arguments that 'evolution' is not synonymous with 'change'. For most biologists, as far as my understanding of the community of scientists who are called (who call themselves) 'biologists,' there simply isn't any change 'planned from the beginning.' This is simply a fact of the field's held views. Yet you say 'Yes, there is a plan' as if it could have some authority.
>
> Now, even if a small minority of voices would claim that 'God creates using evolution' or 'evolution is God's method,' doesn't do (hasn't seemed to do) anything much to change the perception INSIDE the field of biology that there is no plan, no guidance, no teleology, and no purpose in biological change-over-time. The effort to influence the grammar of biologists to include such concepts may be commendable, yet little fruit seems to have come of it. I'd be glad to hear some counter-evidence to this claim if you can provide it.
>
> And it may turn out that our cosmologies are more similar to each other's than the contrasting ways we view change, development, variation, differentiation, flux, adaptation and other such concepts that are not exclusive to being perceived ONLY within an evolutionary paradigm. Evolution is simply not a King or Queen theory in my books.
>
> Regards,
>
> G. Arago
>
>
>
> btw, M-Genesis, do you have a good paper or on-line link about this?
>
> --- On Fri, 8/8/08, George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: [asa] M-Genesis
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Received: Friday, August 8, 2008, 6:12 PM
>
> Howdy Greg,
>
> There is an evolutionary process found in cosmology. For instance, the
> nebulae "species" will evolve into the stellar "species"
> given the
> occurrence of adequate "mutations" (eg supernova blasts). Each star,
> using
> this example, will be different than another. Also, these differences play
> an important roll in subsequent events. Originally, there were no metals
> (elements > helium) to speak of that are necessary for any bio evolution.
> This analogy to biology is limited, but the point is how things do change
> and, more importantly, they change for "the good". The paramaters of
> the
> universe must be just right to allow these changes to bring about more
> advance things. If you want sentient beings to emerge through natural
> processes, be sure to design your universe like this one. :)
>
> This view includes a Designer. The fine tuning aspects of the universe
> infers a Designer, but it doesn't demand one. The objective arguments only
> allow a subjective claim for a Creator. Thus, it isn't science since it is
> not testable nor observeable. [Multiverse ideas offer one alternative,
> especially for those who would object to such an inference as God the
> Creator. Indeed, it is why I think some are quick to call them theories
> when they are not. The more legitimate they look, the more God appears
> removed from the event. ]
>
> Greg wrote: Above you wrote methodology, now you write method. Most people
> speak of evolutionary 'theory' or of evolution as a 'fact of
> natural
> history.' Yet you seem to be elevating it into something more significant,
> into a method(ology). Is this your intention?
>
> [BTW, I am now using Outlook, but when I do a reply I am not allowed any
> font control. Any ideas?]
>
> Yes, I am using evolution as a general term for advanced change, and not
> restricting it to biology. I am suggesting it is a wonderful and natural
> process that was planned from the beginning. These processes are integral,
> to some extent, to other processes. For instance, aren't gamma rays (or
> their atmospheric products) one contributor to mutations? Black holes,
> supernova, hypernova, GRB's, etc. may be important to such biological
> events
> and the processes that form these are integral, along with other physical
> parameters, to biological evolution.
>
> M-Genesis does not address such ideas in any detail, but only considers what
> a human observer might have seen and recorded. Evolution gives us an
> explanation of the natural processes that took place that eventually led to
> the observations that were seen and recorded on the day of each observing
> event, though millions or billions of years would have transpired. [Again,
> the six days are only six days taken from the days of Moses.]
>
> Coope
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
> boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to
> New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
>
>
>
> 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.
Received on Sun Aug 10 22:44:26 2008