Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Hi again Terry, You’ve become a pivotal figure for the moment in the defence of ‘theistic evolution,’ while continuing your opposition to ID. As such, I side with Cameron in challenging your views, which I also find to be fuzzy in terms of ‘science and religion’ accommodation. But in this thread it is now ‘Darwinism’ that you are defending, rather than TE, the former being a much easier target for both Cameron and myself, whereas you seem not to perceive a significant difference between them. Indeed, you seem to want to call yourself a Christian Darwinist, which both Cameron and I find to be absurd. Terry wrote: “I am delighted to hear you say that Darwinian evolution and Darwinian mechanisms are scientific (contra Darwinism). I'm not sure that Cameron would agree.” Yeah, but Darwinian mechanisms and Darwinian evolution could be ‘bad science,’ Terry. Wouldn’t you agree to this possibility? It seems to me that Cameron is arguing on the question of ‘how scientific are they?’ and he is concluding that they are ‘not all that scientifically rigorous or accurate’ of the reality that we are all wishing to better understand. You hear Cameron saying: “anytime you invoke Darwinian [evolution] or Darwinism that you are invoking something that removes God from the picture.” But have you listened to Darwin himself, Terry or are you invoking hearsay? You admit that Cameron has read more of Darwin’s works than you have and you applaud him for it. But you seem to continually doubt Cameron’s ability to analyse what Darwin wrote, instead attributing to Darwin a position that he did not hold. Darwinian evolution (which you equate with Darwinism) does not allow for ‘guidance’! In other words, you are doing exactly what Cameron is saying by twisting Darwin into a friend of faith, a supporter of TE, rather than speaking about him as he was as a dissenter from religious truth and as a threat to theology. You are siding with Darwin’s science, by accepting Darwinism, rather than rejecting Darwin’s metaphysics and theology, and thus rejecting Darwinism. Darwin excluded God in his science and in his person. Scientists don’t agree on the science *in spite of* their religious differences, but because their science shares common ground, in addition to their religious views. There is a tendency at ASA to focus on the ‘warfare model’ far too much. TE is a philosophical assumption that tries to accommodate science with theology. But it does so from an astonishingly weak philosophical framework that simply divides ‘metaphysical’ from ‘methodological.’ I don’t expect you to hear what I’m saying, Terry, if your ears are blocked from listening. And it probably won’t make much sense to you that I think your supposedly ‘newly coined’ term ‘metaphysical Darwinism’ is an unhelpful one. It is like those who speak regularly of Jesus and of God, but forget to speak of the Holy Spirit, which is the Counsellor for all human beings, including natural scientists. Terry wrote: “This distinction [metaphysical vs. scientific] is and has been my fundamental point all along, i.e. it is possible to agree as a Christian with Darwin's theory inasmuch as it does not specify God's involvement or lack thereof.” I’m glad we’ve established your fundamental point: one can agree with Darwin’s science, but reject his metaphysics (read: philosophy). So, then according to this view a scientist is *not* a whole person when they ‘do science’ but rather a shadow of a whole person, who is merely a rationalist or an empiricist or a positivist, i.e. who blocks out their philosophical self in the process? (For those interested in pedantry, the divide between positive science and reflexive science is contemporary here.) What is wrong with sharply dividing ‘science’ from ‘metaphysics’ have been demonstrated so amply and repeatedly over the years that it seems useless to repeat them unless one is ideologically so inclined to hear. I thought you were a more integralistic thinker, Terry, with links to Dooyeweerd and other broad-minded persons who would not reduce biology to ‘Darwinism’ or to ‘neo-Darwinism’ on the basis of a so-called ‘standard definition’ of neo-Darwinism given by none other than E.O. Wilson. Doesn’t this merely demonstrate the fact that TEs are more than happy to run into the arms of E.O. Wilson and D.S. Wilson, Trivers, Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett and other anti-religious persons if and when it suits their personal defence of ‘science’ as a superior or even just legitimate-autonomous type of knowledge? Terry continues: “among professional biologists, the term Darwinism is in fact synonymous with Darwinian evolution.” And do you trust the language of professional biologists on the topic of ‘ideology vs. science’ too, Terry? *Their* language is esoteric on the one hand and simply ridiculous on the other hand. Fine, call a pig a hen if your bounded academic community decides to do it. But please don’t expect everyone else to bow to your terms as if you have some claim to linguistic priority! Let’s not forget Terry that biology borrowed even the term ‘evolution’ from somewhere ‘outside.’ Why don’t you instead manage a better grasp of language by calling a spade a spade: Darwinism *is* an ideology, while ‘Darwinian evolution’ is a ‘scientific theory’? At first you indicated your delight in hearing me distinguish the two different things in the way that I did. But then you reverted to using the same old language that is simply unsuitable in the common tongue. Your language regarding (neo-)Darwinism, along with that of the evolutionary biologists, is in the minority. Do you accept this? Again, I ask you openly: Would you not feel comfortable in changing your language to more common, i.e. majority usage? Further, Terry writes: “Darwinism as an ideology in these textbooks usually has a modifier "social" as in "social Darwinism" and nearly every textbook distinguishes between Darwinism and social Darwinism. To coin a new term along the same lines I might add "metaphysical Darwinism" which includes claims about God's role or lack thereof. / So when I define Darwinism to be Darwinian evolution, there should be no confusion in your mind. You may not like my choice of words or the range of semantic meaning that I give the term "Darwinism", but there is no reason for you to be confused.” That ‘Darwinism’ and ‘Darwinian evolution’ mean the same thing in your view is astonishing (though not entirely unusual). Blaming it on the social scientists is unbecoming of inclusive dialogue (should we assume you’ve read more H. Spencer than Darwin, as is the case with most people?). Darwinism, according to your position, thus *is* an ideology that TE does or should support. Is this correct? But I shouldn’t wait for people at ASA to reject Darwinism or neo-Darwinism since ASA doesn’t take a position on them, only individual persons do. Of course, you don’t accept that Darwinism *is* an ideology, which is precisely the main problem. But then again you say that Darwinism is sometimes an ideology, which is again confusing. Cameron seems more willing to be flexible on this issue than I am because he is focussing on the mechanisms of change, which TEs likewise do not always clarify sufficiently. Cameron wrote: “Terry, the terminology of "guidance" that you and David Campbell are using is *just not clear*… The way that you and David Campbell are using "guidance" confuses more than it helps. ” With him, I agree. What could you do to make your position clearer? Terry, your admission in answer to Cameron is rather telling, isn’t it? You write: “I guess that means I'll turn into Dawkins and Coyne.” That is a BIG admission! You continue: “But I reject your inference that that means I don't believe that God is guiding the process.” I know that you do think this, but it is not consistent with Darwin’s views. That is entirely the point, Terry! Dawkins and Coyne do not think that ‘God is guiding the process.’ Darwin, however, *did not* think that ‘God is guiding the process.’ Can you please simply submit to this truth? It is consistent with many studies of Darwin’s work that have been done and is surely not a controversial claim. You seem to submit to it, but then you return to the status quo of defending Darwinism, under the guise of Darwinian evolution, which is what makes your position confusing. Why the messy logic here? Cameron and I both defend a limited meaning of ‘evolution’ too! Terry wrote: “In general Darwin's theology is atrocious and unorthodox” With this we are certainly in agreement. What I don’t understand is how you can so conveniently fragment Darwin into pieces, when a holistic view that co-operates science with philosophy and theology is already possible.  Perhaps the main issue is really ideology after all? The real issue here, in this branch from Randy’s OP, is the topic of ideology.You seem to avoid this topic like the plague, Terry. Why is that? You claim Darwinism is not an ‘ideology’. Again, let me ask you, why is that? Or, if you accept that Darwinism is ‘sometimes an ideology’ can you please clarify when it is and when it isn’t? This is the main issue that I would like you to focus on if you make a reply to this message. I have made clear what I believe and accept: Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, but Darwinism is an ideology. Would you be willing to adjust your grammar to say the same thing, and if not, then why not?   Sincerely, Gregory __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 9 21:33:38 2009