Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins& Kimura's phrase about Darwinian evolution, in apposition with "natural selection," is really superfluous.
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Isaac
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
Good points.
On the use of "darwinism" there is a little twist. The related term "darwinian" evolution is sometimes used in articles. Take, for example, the article in the current issue of Physics Today on Population Genetics and Range Explansion. It discusses the Kimura's paper from 1968 on neutral mutations and the subsequent research. One sentence says, for example:
"Kimura's hypothesis seemed to challenge natural selection, the core principle of Darwinian evolution, and thus led to heated debates between 'selectionists' and 'neutralists.'"
I guess there's a difference between "ism" and "ian" in the usage.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: George Murphy
To: Randy Isaac ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
Comments on just 2 points:
On 1, it's unfortunate that Biologos uses the word "Darwinism" here. The point made by Denis Lamoureux in Evolutionary Creation, pp.8-9 is germane. A literature search of relevant professional journal titles, abstracts & keywords shows that "Darwinism" is used only a minute fraction of the times that "evolution" does. I.e., "Darwinism" isn't generally used as a scientific term &, as Denis concludes, "should be limited to studies on the beliefs held by Charles Darwin during his career."
(This also means, BTW, that many of the ongoing discussions on this list miss the mark.)
On 6, I'd omit reference to Jesus probable geocentric belief.
On 8, who are the "many scientists" who've reviewed Meyers' book positively?
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Isaac
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
Here's a stab at a more detailed response. I might even consider sending it to Olasky but would appreciate your edits first.
Randy
1. "Collins recently set up the BioLogos Foundation: Its website defines
BioLogos as "the belief that Darwinism is a correct science." This is
confusing: Darwinism means unguided evolution, right?"
No, Darwinism means different things to different people and is used in
different ways. In Collins's statement he is simply talking about the
predominant role of descent with modification and natural selection in the development of species.
2. "Does Collins mean by "theistic evolution" the concept that God is
guiding the evolutionary process?"
Yes, Collins does mean God guiding the evolutionary process just as he
guides the gravitational process and the electromagnetic process and so on.
3. "If so, isn't that a version of ID?"
No, not the ID that is so prominently discussed in the media. Yes, as
Christians we all believe that our Creator is an intelligent designer and we
all believe that the awesome world around us simply shouts out the existence
of this intelligent designer. But that's not what ID is. ID is the belief
that a) evolution is not an adequate explanation of the origin of species, and b) that there is a specific logical argument
based on the information-like, specified complexity-type character of DNA for which the best
explanation is an indeterminate intelligent designer. That is the argument
with which Collins disagrees.
4."On the other hand, if Collins believes that God passively watches
evolution unfold, isn't that deistic evolution? "
No, Collins has never said that God passively watches evolution unfold. In Collins's views, God guides
evolution and is intimately involved in sustaining his creation at every
instant--the same for evolution as for gravity.
5."The basic problem may be that Collins believes in Christ's resurrection
but doesn't seem to have a high view of Scripture, which is where we
primarily learn about Christ's resurrection."
No, that is mistaking a "high view of Scripture" for a particular
interpretation of Scripture. Collins is committed to the inspiration of the Bible which
to him means understanding it for exactly what God is teaching, not
redefining "high view" to be man's thinking of what God might be teaching.
6. "For example, Collins' BioLogos website declares, "It seems likely that
Adam and Eve were not individual historical characters, but represented a
larger population of first humans who bore the image of God."
Yes, that is a likely scientific interpretation and an appropriate biblical interpretation as well.
7."Many subsequent figures in the Bible, preeminently Jesus, referred to
Adam as an individual: Were they deluded? "
No, they were not deluded but neither were they modern scientists or
historians trying to document a historical event. This was the conventional
populist belief at the time and the message Jesus and Paul were giving was
not a science lesson but a much deeper theological lesson. This isn't
delusion, this is speaking in the language of the people. Similarly, Jesus most likely had a geocentric view
of the world but this doesn't mean he was deluded--it was the perspective of the day. He didn't use it
to teach a parable but his concern was not scientific accuracy.
8."Still, I'm not so worried about Collins' theological statements: Many
readers can exegete them and come to their own conclusions. What I and many
others need help with is the science. I'll put it simply and personally: I
like Collins and find him convincing as he attacks ID. But when I hear Steve
Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell, a major new book published by
HarperCollins and reviewed positively by many scientists, expound the flaws
in Darwinism, I find him utterly convincing."
It is true that Stephen Meyer is a very convincing writer. I recently
obtained this book and am partially through reading it. It is indeed a well
written manifesto--the definitive ID scientific apologetic. I do not yet find the arguments convincing but the
arguments are made in such a persuasive style that many people will be impressed.
9."I don't understand the science well enough to ask Collins intelligent
follow-up questions, so I'd love to see a discussion between Collins and
Meyer. Earlier this year I asked Collins personally if he'd come to The
King's College in the Empire State Building sometime and spend an hour
before faculty and students discussing the issues with Meyer: We'd tape it
and put excerpts in WORLD. Collins said no, and he has since said no to
other entreaties."
Collins has so many requests he has to choose. He would rather select
discussions with biochemist counterparts. Meyer is not a biochemist or an
information scientist. His PhD is in history and philosophy of science with an undergraduate
degree in physics and geology. The argument in
Signature in the Cell is not biochemical but informational.
10."Of course, he was busy earlier this year and he'll be even busier now.
Collins may also be averse to sharing a platform with someone below his
status, but Meyer has a Cambridge University Ph.D. and, as of 10:49 p.m. on
July 6, had the No. 1 best-seller in Amazon's Kindle store in the "science
and religion" category; Collins' book, The Language of God, was No. 3.
(Note: Collins' has been out for a couple of years and has sold widely-but
Meyer is a worthy challenger.)"
Truth is not based on best-selling book volumes. Otherwise The Da Vinci code would have
to be taken much more seriously.
11."I still want to hear two intelligent, influential guys discussing
design, so I'm asking Collins publicly: Please, sir, busy senators and
governors and major authors are coming to King's these days, and I suspect
you too will be coming to Manhattan sometime. Whenever you do, can you spare
an hour?"
Come to the ASA meeting this weekend and that's exactly what you would
hear.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Venema
To: George Murphy ; Randy Isaac ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
I think this bit speaks for itself. The author sees no apparent problem admitting that he doesn't understand the science, but he is convinced by Meyer's arguments. Methinks he finds what he wants to find:
"...when I hear Steve Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell, a major new book published by HarperCollins and reviewed positively by many scientists, expound the flaws in Darwinism, I find him utterly convincing.
I don't understand the science well enough to ask Collins intelligent follow-up questions..."
Show me a scientist who does understand the science and feels the same way, and then one could have a discussion about it.
Dennis
On 27/07/09 6:10 PM,
"George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
2 of my reactions:
The notion that a Christian doesn't have "a high view of scripture" because he understands that not everything in the Bible to be historical narrative is silly.
The fact that a lot of people are buying Meyer's book doesn't make him a top, or even middling, scientist. (His much-touted "peer reviewed" paper of a few years ago raknks as an average term paper.) There's no reason why Collins should spend his time debating him in order to satisfy people like Olasky.
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Isaac <mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:23 PM
Subject: [asa] Olasky on Collins
Marvin Olasky writes a column in World magazine. Here is his take on Collins:
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15663
My brother sent it to me for comment after I sent him the Sam Harris op-ed. What are your reactions?
Randy
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 28 11:07:25 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 28 2009 - 11:07:26 EDT