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

Hi Randy,

A quick follow-up to this conversation since my feet are starting to grow again in my homeland after 10 months abroad. In the earliest discussion in this thread, Terry gave little indication of willingness to discuss 'ideology and Darwinism' in the same breath. That is why there is a branch in this thread; to discover what Terry means by 'ideology' in contradistinction to what he means by 'science' or by 'Darwnism' or by 'evolution.' It seems to me that the latter three concepts are synonymous to Terry, whereas for me they are not synonymous.

As it is, I don't feel that enlightened by Terry's commentary that he is clear about how much the ideology of Darwinism has influenced 'modern' (western, especially British and American) culture. In other words, what he thinks is 'integrated' (Calvinist thought and Darwinian ideas), I think shows distinct signs of disintegration and that Terry will live to see the day when the integrated view that he seeks can be allowed to exist in science and everyday life.

Terry seems to think that 'Darwinism' is *not* an ideology at all, but rather it is 'strictly science.' Or, if it *is* an ideology (which he sluffed off as 'social Darwinism,' as if all human-social scientists and scholars shouldn't be offended by naturalists' chest-thumping at their disciplinary superiority!), then Darwinism is *not always* an ideology, but most often it is 'simply science.' At the least we can say that Darwinism is 'sometimes science,' which I would agree with, and perhaps Cameron would too - there is a scientific contribution that Darwin made, even if his terms have be appropriated and re-appropriated and the definitions of terms changed in the 150 years since Darwin's "Origin...in the Struggle for Life" masterpiece.

You seem to me, Randy, to be taking the 'simply science' route in this discussion. Both Cameron and myself have proposed that it is precisely the way you view 'science' that is out of date. As a sociologist of science, I am certainly willing to expose this view perhaps even more precisely than Cameron (though he has done so well in placing 'science' within a philosophical and theological context already), and thus to situate (put in its place) the limits of science as far as science takes place as a social process which is done for the betterment of humanity and not in some hypothetical vacuum.

What Cameron has done is to clearly show how the use of the term 'Darwinism' is inconsistent with a Christian-religious Orthodox position. The duo 'Christian Darwinist' is a contradiction in terms. Neither Terry nor Randy have responded to this. Yet neither of them seems to wish to take the label 'Darwinist' either. So what I see Randy and Terry doing is defending 'the science' against Cameron, yet all the while not discussing the mechanisms for which Cameron is asking for greater evidence. Cameron has clearly stated all along his interest in a kind of rapprochement between TE/ECs and IDs, yet it is perhaps becoming obvious that the political landscape in the USA is partly responsible for the lack of shared understanding across borders on this topic.

It would be something else if Randy and Terry would at least leave room for the possibility that Darwinism *is* a false ideology (i.e. and that *they* should call it as such also), based on anti-theism and/or pro-naturalism. And if it were a false ideology, they should be just as welcoming to a reformed understanding of 'Darwinism' as it is discussed in the academy.

Would TEists accept the good sense to DROP the term 'Darwinism' from their vocabularies? Will they assent to speak of 'Darwinian evolution' or 'neo-Darwinian evolution' instead of just saying 'Darwinism' or 'neo-Darwinism'? Will they not try to pin Cameron down with 'facts' or 'hypothesis' for which he is asking rather than floundering again and again with respect to what he is challenging in the Darwinian evolutionary process? It seems useless to pull rank on Cameron and to call his contribution to this conversation 'an inadequate view of what science is,' Randy, because it is possible that Cameron knows more about 'what science is' than a natural-physical scientist does. One doesn't need to be 'a scientist' in order to understand 'what science is' and to be honest, this 'what science is' question is pawned off way too often as if it holds much clout anyway - it is a question for decades ago, not in tune with the cutting edge knowledge today. Cameron
 surely didn't say that Randy 'doesn't understand science;' instead he said 'show me the evidence,' which is catering to your science, Randy. But you are not a biologist either!

This is what Randy wrote:
"A few weeks ago, Cameron and I came to this point and we went down the rabbit trail to an impasse. To me, his reasons for thinking evolution is not good science reflect an inadequate view of what science is as well as what evolution is. In turn, he thinks I don't understand science or evolution and so we end in a stalemate. Whereas one would think that a good science discussion, leaving out all the complex metaphysical ramifications or theological implications, would be one that could be resolved in a straightforward logical matter, that doesn't seem to be the case."

I gladly throw my hat into the ring with you, Randy, in supporting the view that "'evolution is not good science' *when* it is used in human-social sciences." But then again, most people on this list are not thinking holistically enough to include the human-social sciences, and thus with it, to more deeply investigate purpose, teleology, selection, agency, will, intentionality and other related ideas (Mike Gene does this quite a bit, yet noteably fits in here about as well as Cameron and I do). It is probably quite convenient to leave out such difficult terms at ASA and thus to stick to less complicated ideas that can be reduced to purely physical or material or 'natural' explanations, isn't it? Yet why should one have to 'leave out' such things as you mention, Randy? Aren't we all *persons* who are 'doing science' itself, or do you treat 'science' as an autonomous, independent, unintegrated process in the modern world? Can't philosophy help us to
 interpret here?

Let me say it as clearly as possible: Darwin's ideas have been extremely damaging in the human-social sciences. Indeed, Darwin 'forgot the spirit,' as Nietzsche once noted. But additionally, Darwin's 'method' foisted an empiricist, experimentalist, reductionist view of 'science as knowledge' on the academy, which some disciplines are still recovering from. It would be better, at least sometimes, if scientists could 'get outside' of their cloistered-specialised bubbles. Of course, that is one of the purposes of ASA to facilitate such interdisciplinary discussion and to encourage uplifting theology alongside natural-physical sciences (and sometimes human-social sciences and philosophy too), thus attempting to balance the university rather than contributing to further fragmentation.

But then, these comments of mine will probably seem to be missing the mark completely in regard to what you're speaking about; that there are other ways to look at 'Darwinism' than through an accommodationist, sanitised 'theistic evolution' framework.

Gregory

--- On Mon, 7/20/09, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Received: Monday, July 20, 2009, 9:24 PM
> Cameron wrote:
> "...The reason we need to keep dragging the science into
> these debates is that Darwinian theory is weak
> science.  Not just weak metaphysics, but weak
> science.  There's almost no evidence for it...."
>
> I think this helps very much to understand much of the
> confusion among us. In parallel, I've been having
> discussions with another ID advocate who had similar
> comments. It finally makes a lot of sense to realize that
> the big tent nature of ID is an attractor for those who feel
> that the theory of evolution is not good science. Though the
> ID community is very diverse and, as has often been pointed
> out here, defies any attempt at simple generalities, some
> common themes do emerge. I used to think the key unifying
> themes were the design inference, the explanatory filter,
> the role of DNA information/intelligent agent information,
> the wedge strategy, the metaphysical battle with atheism,
> etc. Though each of these is important, I think I had failed
> to grasp the degree to which there is a pervasive
> perspective of "evolution as science is not solid,
> independent of any metaphysical implications or any wedge
> strategy or any theological or philosophical issues." The
> various highly nuanced caveats by Dembski and Behe that if
> evolution were shown to be true, it would not be a problem
> for ID, do not belie the view they continue to hold that, in
> fact, evolution is not scientifically sound. That is, the
> failure of evolution as a scientific theory is not seen as a
> requirement for the design inference but it is viewed as
> failed within its own domain in any case. As a result, the
> Texas school board discussion is viewed solely as a science
> discussion. No ulterior motive of getting the design
> inference or any of these implications into the discussion.
> Just plain and simple, have the teachers acknowledge that
> the science is weak--or at least that many scientists think
> so. Meanwhile, the scientific community can't fathom this
> and insist there must be an ulterior motive lurking
> somewhere.
>
> A few weeks ago, Cameron and I came to this point and we
> went down the rabbit trail to an impasse. To me, his reasons
> for thinking evolution is not good science reflect an
> inadequate view of what science is as well as what evolution
> is. In turn, he thinks I don't understand science or
> evolution and so we end in a stalemate. Whereas one would
> think that a good science discussion, leaving out all the
> complex metaphysical ramifications or theological
> implications, would be one that could be resolved in a
> straightforward logical matter, that doesn't seem to be the
> case.
>
> It is very important to know more precisely what the issues
> are. Cameron, I think you have been most helpful with your
> patient and articulate notes. Thank you! It's a valuable
> perspective going into the meeting at Baylor.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

      __________________________________________________________________
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 Mon Jul 20 14:51:15 2009