Re: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong

Good point -- I didn't notice the use of the word "infinite" there.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:31 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>wrote:

> I agree that among terrestrial species "human beings are unique in a
> mysterious way." Campolo, however, overstates the matter when he says
> "there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly
> developed ape and each and every human being." The phrase "infinite
> qualitative difference" is the way Kierkegaard (and following him, Barth)
> spoke of the distinction between God and the world. Using the same phrase
> to distinguish humans from other species is highly problematic, suggesting
> some sort of gnostic idea of the human soul being a spark of the divine. We
> are not part of God or a lost bit of God struggling to find our way back
> home. & any such idea would challenge not only "Darwinism" but *any* idea
> of human evolution.
>
> It may be that Campolo doesn't know the history of the phrase "infinite
> qualitative difference" & its significance in the theological tradition. In
> any case somebody ought to clue him in.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:58 AM
> *Subject:* Fwd: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong
>
> I essentially agree with campolo's conclusion, even if some may quibble
> with some aspects of his views of darwin per se. Human beings are unique in
> a mysterious way, whatever physical processes underlie our development., and
> no theory of biological origins justifies racism. Why should these
> propositions be controversial for us?
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong
> To: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>
>
> I essentially agree with campolo's conclusion, even if some may quibble
> with some aspects of his views of darwin per se. Human beings are unique in
> a mysterious way, whatever physical processes underlie our development., and
> no theory of biological origins justifies racism. Why should these
> propositions be controversial for us?
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Michael Roberts"
> *Date*: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:42:06 -0000
> *To*: <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Subject*: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong
> Something from Christian Today. .
>
> It seems Campolo does not understand Darwin at all
>
> What’s wrong with Darwinism? by Tony Campolo
> Posted: Friday, February 27, 2009, 12:45 (GMT)
> Font Scale:A A A
> [image: What’s wrong with Darwinism?]
> [image: Enlarge this picture] Enlarge this picture
> Tony Campolo
>
> Many supporters of the principle of separation of church and state say that
> the Intelligent Design Theory of creation ought not to be taught in public
> schools because that it contains a religious bias.
>
> They say that Intelligent Design proponents suggest that the evolutionary
> development of life was not the result of natural selection, as Charles
> Darwin suggested, but was somehow given purposeful direction and, by
> implication, was guided by God.
>
> Arguing in favour of what they believe is a non-prejudicial science, they
> contend that children in public schools ought to be taught Darwin’s
> explanation of how the human race evolved, which they claim is value-free
> and dependent solely on scientific evidence. *Nothing could be further
> from the truth!*
>
> In reality, Darwin’s writings, when actually read, express the prevalent
> racism of the nineteenth century, and endorse an extreme laissez faire
> political ideology that legitimates the neglect of the suffering poor by the
> ruling elite.
>
> Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in
> public schools seldom have taken the time to read what he had to say. If
> they even knew the full title of his book, which is *On the Origin of
> Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races
> in the Struggle for Life*, they might have gained some inkling of the
> racism propagated by this controversial theorist.
>
> Then, if they had gone on to read his second book, *The Descent of Man*,
> it is likely that they would be shocked to learn that among Darwin’s
> scientifically based proposals was the elimination of “the negro and
> Australian peoples,” which he considered to be savage races whose continued
> survival was hindering the progress of civilisation.
>
> In *The Descent of Man *(1871), Darwin went so far as to rank races in
> terms of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas. He
> further proposed the extermination of those races which he “scientifically”
> defined as inferior. To not do so, he claimed, would result in those races,
> which have much higher birth rates than his designated superior races,
> exhausting the resources needed for the survival of better people, and
> eventually dragging down all of civilization.
>
> Darwin even argued against advanced societies wasting time and money on
> caring for those who are insane, or suffer from birth defects. To him, these
> unfit members of our species ought not to survive.
>
> In case you think that Darwin sounds like a Nazi, you are not far from the
> truth. Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who provided much of the propaganda for
> the Nazi party, made Darwin’s theories the basis for his polemics. The
> Pulitzer Prize winner, Marilynne Robinson, in her insightful essay on
> Darwin, points out that the German nationalist writer, Heinrich von
> Treitschke, and the biologist, Ernst Haeckel, also drew on Darwin’s writings
> as they helped Hitler develop those racist ideas that led to the Holocaust.
>
> Those creationists who fear Darwin because his theories contradict their
> literal Biblical belief that creation occurred in six 24-hour days, do not
> get at the real dangers of Darwinism. They do not realise that an
> explanation of the development of biological organisms over eons of time
> really does not pose the great threat to the dignity of our humanity that
> they suppose. Instead, they, along with the rest of us, should really fear
> the ethical implications of Darwinism.
>
> I hope that in school our children will be taught that it is up to science
> to study the processes that gave birth to the human race. But, as postmodern
> as it may be, I also want them to learn that whatever science discovers
> about our biological origins, there is, nevertheless, a mystical quality in
> human beings that makes each of us sacred and of infinite worth.
>
> Personally, I hold to the belief that, regardless of how we got here, we
> should recognise that there is an infinite qualitative difference between
> the most highly developed ape and each and every human being. Darwin never
> recognised this disjuncture. And that is why his theories are dangerous.
>
> *Tony Campolo is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University and
> served as pastoral counsellor to former President Bill Clinton.*
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 28 13:15:54 2009