Re: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong

Please answer me yes or no, Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder Colorado: Before posting your previous post, have you read The Descent of Man? Campolo makes it absolutely clear he is speaking about The Descent of Man. You accuse him of falsely labeling 'social Darwinism' whereas in the post quoted he does not mention it. I think you are wrong. Have you read it or not? 'Darwin's biographers' are no match for his own words (and in English at that).
 
Also, have you read Robert Young's "Darwinism is Social"?
 
“It is because science is not above history that no clear separation can be made between Darwin’s Darwinism and Darwin’s Social Darwinism. That Darwin was a Social Darwinist is not news, however, often it is conveniently forgotten.” - R.Y. (In The Darwinian Heritage. Ed. David Kohn, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1985637)
 
- Gregory

--- On Sat, 2/28/09, SteamDoc@aol.com <SteamDoc@aol.com> wrote:

From: SteamDoc@aol.com <SteamDoc@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong
To: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 8:45 PM

As David O. pointed out, Campolo's final point is OK -- that Christians should not fear scientific study of how God made us, and that we affirm a qualitative difference (we should note George's concern about "infinite") in humans from God's other creatures.
 
It seems like Campolo made two significant mistakes on his way there.
 

The first is that Campolo ascribes much more racism and eugenics to Darwin personally than seems justified based on the work of his biographers.  Some reading on Campolo's part could have corrected this -- he could have expressed opposition to social and ideological extrapolations of Darwin's work without so heavily blaming Darwin himself for those effects.
 
The second (more foundational) mistake is something that has come up on this list many times -- the sloppy use of the label "Darwinism".  Campolo's essay is more evidence on the side of those who say the word now carries so much baggage and confusion that it should never be used.  To the (small) extent the word is used in scientific discourse, it refers to biological evolution (common descent, natural selection).  For anti-evolution propagandists like Phil Johnson, "Darwinism" lumps together the science of biological evolution with a lot of philosophical baggage (lack of purpose, sometimes Social Darwinism).  The result is confused discourse, as we see in this essay which one eventually realizes is not about biological evolution at all, but about the Social Darwinism and eugenics which some justified from Darwin's science.  By using "Darwinism" in this sloppy way, Campolo perpetuates a usage (and a conflation of the science of biological
 evolution with its unjustified social and philosophical extrapolations) that is toxic to science/faith dialogue.
 
On this second issue, Campolo's essay could have been fine (with corrections on the history) if he had just chosen a title that did not perpetuate the harmful misuse of the word "Darwinism".  It should have been titled something like:
"Darwin's science, OK; Social Darwinism, no way"
 
Allan (ASA member)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"

Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today. __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

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 14:07:24 2009