RE: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?

Gregory, you wrote:

"Unfortunately, you need to still go further from what you've just said in
order to be consistent, which no doubt you would seek. To say what you've
said is to make a *great BIG strike* against the philosophical assumption
that has been called 'theistic evolution.' What an unfortunate combination
of ideas/concepts! Let's be serious as academics about this!"

I think this comment may reveal part of the rhetorical disconnect in your
attempts to pin down theistic evolutionists to a confession that you are
trying to extract from them, so to speak. You write about the
"philosophical assumption that has been called 'theistic evolution' ". What
is that philosophy, in your opinion? If I may speculate, I believe you have
in mind here something like the following: "Theistic Evolution is a
philosophy that *everything* can be explained in evolutionary concepts."
Or, Theistic Evolution is a view that accepts God, but at the same time
accepts 'total evolution' or 'evolutionism'.

If one or both of the above comments is, in your view, what Theistic
Evolution stands for, then your comments make sense - if Theistic Evolution
stands for total evolution (plus God), and yet Ted made a statement that
explicitly rejects total evolution, then you are right to claim a conflict
or an "unfortunate combinations of ideas/concepts". If I have not captured
your definition of the "TE philosophy", then your comments baffle me.

As has already been said hundreds of times, those who hold the position of
Theistic Evolution accept the scientific theory of biological descent, while
at the same time confessing that there is a supreme God intimately
responsible for creation. If that is a philosophy, then so be it - but it's
not "evolutionism" or "total evolution" in the usual sense.

Now, the thing which does confuse the matter is when we are talking about
non-biological things - development of culture, development of altruism,
development of language, development of ideas and philosophies - and then
people (including Theistic Evolutionists) suggest that in at least some of
the above areas, "evolution" can explain such developments. This is, I
think, what you are getting at. And if this is a fair summation, I will ask
the question of TEs, "How does Theistic Evolution (if it is said to be
explicitly about the science of biology, and a theology of God) have
anything to say about non-biological things?" Unless, of course, Gregory's
comments about evolution stepping outside its bounds might be on target even
among Theistic Evolutionists.

On the other hand, if biology can progress *naturally*, and yet under the
care of a Divine Hand, what would be the difference if culture or altruism
developed *naturally* among a people of free will, and yet under the same
providential care of God? If Theistic Evolution can apply a Theos to
biology, why could it not apply the same Theos to other areas of human
development? Granted it's a different definition of *natural*, but I think
the analogy could apply in this way: genes do what genes are programmed (or
designed) to do by their nature, yet God's providence directs and oversees
the outcome; humans do what humans are designed to do by their nature, yet
God directs and oversees the outcome. " (And don't tell me, Gregory, that
the term "nature" as used above must mean *material* instead of its other,
intended, definition: "inherent tendencies or character".)

[Prov 21:1] The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of
water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

[Prov 16:9] A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his
steps.

Gregory, if a Theistic Evolutionist applies similar logic to human
activities as they do to biology, but they still hold that God is in charge
of everything, how is that evolutionism, which seems to be what you are
charging them with?

Jon Tandy

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:17 AM
To: Ted Davis; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?

Ted, you are cutting out the feet from under 'theistic evolution' at the
same time that you intend to be defending it. Do you not recognize *the
philosophy* of what you say? If "evolution cannot explain morality,
mathematics, religion or culture," as you say in support of the views of
others, i.e. Ayala, Peacocke and Polkinghorne, all of which I've read, then
you are in effect *limiting evolution* as a part of your trade. This is
great!

I agree with you wholeheartedly that "evolution cannot explain morality,
mathematics, religion or culture." I do not fail to see this, not at all!

Unfortunately, you need to still go further from what you've just said in
order to be consistent, which no doubt you would seek. To say what you've
said is to make a *great BIG strike* against the philosophical assumption
that has been called 'theistic evolution.' What an unfortunate combination
of ideas/concepts! Let's be serious as academics about this!

Sure, Ted, I grant you that to be a (mono)theist who accepts a *limited*
view of evolution is both possible and acceptable. I am not against this!
(In my surrounding environment this is likely *much, much* less
controversial than it is in yours.) But 'biological evolution' is indeed a
limited 'realm' of knowledge. You simply need to acknowledge this openly
(i.e. that *evolution IS limited*) and then it will allow you to possibly
*rise* to a higher level of discourse. Otherwise you will simply *stay
small* in my view.

Human-made things *don't* 'evolve' into being (or having become). Why not
accept this *reality*? Say it out loud, Ted, because that IS the way things
are!!! The paradigm of 'evolution' (via natural selection) created by Darwin
(and Wallace) and constructed by Huxley, Dobzhansky and others simply *DOES
NOT* take into account human intention, choice, free will, decisions;
teleology and action. Do you accept this or not?! We can speak much more
freely if you see/hear this. I have been writing it here for quite some
time! Is it not time to acknowlege this, Ted, George, David C., Dave S.,
Iain, and others?

Respectfully,

Gregory

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 29 20:35:30 2009