Re: TE and the tradition (was Re: [asa] Because of us - Steve Fuller's anthropic principle - Darwin's original sin)

Hi Murray and Cameron,
 
Yes, much to chew over indeed! :-)
 
Let me briefly address Murray's curiosity, as I'm not exactly sure I understand what Cameron is suggesting either. But I suspect this is largely because 'theistic evolution' is such a fuzzy concept duo/philosophical assumption, trying to merge science and theology, that "some TEs do and some don't." That could be a motto for TE when one thinks about it, given the centrality they place on 'evolution' in their theologies.
 
Murray wrote: "The TE "rewrite" exists precisely because the original formulation of neo-Darwinism is considered suspect (on theological, not scientific, grounds). That being the case, why would any TE be remotely interested in offering an argument that shows the compatibility of neo-Darwinism with the philosophical and theological traditions? It seems to me that you are, in the above, asking TE's to defend the evolutionary (and metaphysical) formulations of Dawkins, Gould, Coyne et al (i.e. neo-Darwinism "in its original formulation") rather than that which they actually affirm ("the TE rewrite"). Such a request is so curious, that I'm sure I've misunderstood it."
 
One figure in the 'creation' of the 'modern synthesis' that I've done some work on, given my location, which is at the university where he started doing his work, before moving to America, is Theodosius Dobzhansky. If we can speak of 'modern synthesis' as being roughly equivalent with 'neo-Darwinian evolution,' then Dobzhansky was a 'neo-Darwinist' who was also an Orthodox Christian. He is renowned for saying, in the same article about 'everything in the light of evolution' (paraphrase), that he is both a creationist and an evolutionist. Thus, Dobzhansky sets a precedent, though I don't think it is followed by many TEists because I don't see them discussing Dobzhansky often, for showing "the compatibility of neo-Darwinism with the philosophical and theological traditions."
 
It doesn't seem to me that Cameron is *asking* TEists to defend the evolutionary formulations of Dawkins, Gould, Coyne, etc. Instead, he's suggesting that they *already do* defend those formulations on scientific grounds, which are nevertheless based on a faulty philosophical and theological foundation. In other words, TEists are committing a rare form of 'scientism' in the contemporary meaning of 'scientism' because they bow to the 'science' called 'neo-Darwinism,' yet they propose to supervene on it their theological and (most often rather amateurish) philosophical perspectives.
 
Cameron seems to be saying either 1) TEists have their priorities backwards (which btw would go along with the sentiments expressed by not a few people on ASA saying that they don't actually like the 'theistic evolution' label and prefer an 'evolutionary creation' label because it represents better their fundamental priority - God first, and then science), or 2) TEists are not forthcoming enough in scientifically challenging 'neo-Darwinism' because it is convenient for their supposed 'science-theology' alliance, to protect the 'leading school' of 'evolution,' the latter which they have wrapped up tightly in their theologies.
 
But Murray, I could be missing the point too; these seem to be murky waters, and none of the three of us is in the U.S.A. which is the place where the philosophical assumption of TE (and MN) is mainly concentrated (though TEists are found of wrangling many scientists of *yesteryear and elsewhere* 'as if' they should be called TEists too). This demonstrates what is called WAP - weak American philosophy, which coincides with SAS - strong American science. I hope the Americans on the list will not be offended with this, but rather take it as a balance between a positive and a negative.
 
I would prefer to speak of a theology that accepts certain aspects of 'evolutionary science' rather than of 'theistic evolutionist.' But perhaps that's just me.
 
Gregory

--- On Wed, 4/29/09, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Subject: TE and the tradition (was Re: [asa] Because of us - Steve Fuller's anthropic principle - Darwin's original sin)
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 10:49 AM

Hi Cameron,

There's much to chew over here but the part that draws my eye is the
following;

 Do you see the
> difficulty of combining neo-Darwinism (in its original formulation, not in
the TE rewrite of it) with the orthodox Christian understandings of creation,
omnipotence, and providence? I maintain that it can't be done, and I will
stick to my guns until someone gives me an argument, couched in the terms of the
philosophical and theological tradition, to show otherwise.

My minor point would be that I'm personally not sure whether the traditions
should dictate the argument in this way. Indeed, we may need to allow the
possibility that the classical and neo-Darwinian formulations are in error at
significant points and it is this, rather than a problem with evolutionary
theory, which prevents a resolution of the issues involved.

My major point would be this: The TE "rewrite" exists precisely
because the original formulation of neo-Darwinism is considered suspect (on
theological, not scientific, grounds). That being the case, why would any TE be
remotely interested in offering an argument that shows the compatibility of
neo-Darwinism with the philosophical and theological traditions? It seems to me
that you are, in the above, asking TE's to defend the evolutionary (and
metaphysical) formulations of Dawkins, Gould, Coyne et al (i.e. neo-Darwinism
"in its original formulation") rather than that which they actually
affirm ("the TE rewrite"). Such a request is so curious, that I'm
sure I've misunderstood it.
Blessings,
Murray

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 Wed Apr 29 04:04:52 2009