Re: [asa] The term Darwinism

Hi Ted,   Thanks for offering your view on this. It made me think if there needs to be another category added into discussions occuring at ASA, the idea of a 'science hybrid.' The notion that 'anthropic principles' in cosmology 'go beyond science' I find appealing. What I gather often when speaking with scientists is that anything that goes 'into metaphysics' is somehow 'othered' with a predominantly pejorative meaning. In other words, metaphysics is considered 'soft' or 'less certain' or 'less rigorous.' It is measured against the standard of 'science' as if that is the most important or most dependable type of knowledge in our world today. Yet the field of philosophy is full of riches that science qua science does not and cannot possess.   When you say that you appeal to design arguments on the basis of 'fine tuning,' would you also extend your use of 'fine tuning' as a way of pushing back against 'scientism' as displayed in many of the arguments put forward by proponents of Darwinism? I was interested in what Stephen Barr was writing in First Things in response to John West by saying that 'design arguments' take multiple forms. It would be helpful to hear more about this. If the position of 'multiple design arguments' could be maintained, this would lead people to see that the DI's particular form of argument for/from design is not the only one and that other design arguments hold merit also. If discussions of fine tuning lead to discussions of theodicy, then we can say that science itself, when discussed at high levels, can lead people to topics related to philosophy, worldview and religion, instead of away from them. This would do more than simply opposing (negative) the 'warfare
 model' of science vs. religion and instead promote (positive) cooperation between science, religion and philosophy.   Since this thread is about 'Darwinism' and what it means to people, I wonder if you would agree that the term 'Darwinism' is also somehow extra-scientific, beyond science or a science hybrid. Accepting that it is would create space for a shared understanding between Terry and Cameron based on the notion that defending 'Darwinism' as 'pure science' is unsustainable. I'm quite sure that Cameron would agree with this, but would Terry? The latter seems to be saying that 'Darwinism' is equivalent with 'good science.' Following the example that 'anthropic principle' is beyond science or extra scientific, would it not make sense to say the same thing about Darwinism?   Warm regards, (From back on N.A.'s west coast!)  Gregory ________________________________ From: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> To: Douglas Hayworth <becomingcreation@gmail.com>; Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>; Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> Cc: asa <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 9:45:38 AM Subject: Re: [asa] The term Darwinism >>> Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 7/4/2009 9:00 AM >>> asks: Do ‘anthropic principles’ qualify under the class ‘scientific,’ Doug – what do you think? Or are they philosophies playing their role in dialogue with science and theology? *** Ted responds. Answering for myself, Gregory, I do not consider anthropic principles to be scientific.  Although they are based on science, they go beyond science into metaphysics.  I generally like to appeal to design arguments based on "fine tuning," but I regard those arguments as extra-scientific; I don't believe that it's possible to do much with them, without also talking about theodicy and the identity of the designer.  Others may differ with me on this, of course. Ted __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 8 23:42:39 2009