Re: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong

 
Gregory, the frequent mocking and insulting tone of your posts is one of the
things which sometimes makes this list a disgrace. To avoid anger and
wasting my time, I think I will simply not bother to open your messages in the
future.
 
No, I have not read either of the books you mention. As in many things
where I am not an expert, I take the word of those who have thoroughly studied
Darwin (James Moore, etc.). If there is evidence that Darwin, in the context
of his day, was more of a racist and "social Darwinist" than is acknowledged
by his biographers, that is a valid area for discussion. But one would want
to see scholarly analysis, not cherry-picked passages.
 
Of course even if Darwin was horridly racist, that does not excuse the
sleazy rhetoric of those who try to use these alleged social and philosophical
aspects of "Darwinism" to discredit the science of biological evolution (the
concept most associated with that term). While Campolo did not do this, his
sloppy use of "Darwinism" gives aid and comfort to those who do.
 
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"
 

 
In a message dated 2/28/2009 12:07:09 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
gregoryarago@yahoo.ca writes:

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)

 (http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/)

**************Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your
neighborhood today.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filing&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000004)

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 15:02:27 2009