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

Murray -

Just a couple of points here since I've already spoken at some length on
this.

1st a practical point - if we were to drop terms like "stellar evolution",
"cultural evolution" &c, what are we to replace them with?

2d, the way I, at least, approach "theistic evolution" is to speak of
scientific understanding - in this case biological evolution - being placed
in the larger context of revelation and the belief that God is active in
everything that happens in the world. That has consequences, among them -

a) It is clear (if people pay attention!) that the "grand meta-narrative"
is not "evolution" but the Christian story, of which God's activity through
evolution is a part.

b) "Theistic evolution" is just evolution viewed in this context. In the
same way one could speak, e.g., of "theistic embryology" - not as a theory
of everything or a new scientific account of embryology but as a scientific
understanding of conception &c in the context of belief that God is the
giver.

c) Anyone who challenges "theistic evolution", as distinguished from just
evolution, is challenging a theological position, not science or philosophy.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?

> Hi David,
>
> A good comment on the use of adjectives - indeed, it's an issue that Greg
> has been concerned about for some time.
>
> On the one hand, it might be helpful if Greg met those who adhere to
> biological evolution half way and conceded that to speak of stellar
> evolution, cosmological evolution, or even cultural evolution constitutes
> an awareness that there are "evolutions" (plural) each with their own
> particular mechanisms (intelligent or otherwise).
>
> On the other hand, my rough guess is that Greg will still take objection
> because his primary issue, as I understand it, is not a narrowly
> linguistic one, but a broadly social scientific one. As an aside, it has
> to be noticed here that Greg has pretty consistently argued AGAINST
> conflating the different forms of evolution - so one doesn't really need
> to put that question to him - he recognizes, I think, that one can
> legitimately speak of "biological evolution," "stellar evolution," perhaps
> even "cultural evolution" as long as one qualifies one's terms
> appropriately.
>
> Where Greg (again, as I understand him) finds this problematic is in the
> simple fact that people do not, in practice, qualify their terms
> appropriately. So, speaking as a social scientist, Greg observes that even
> when the most careful TE takes pains to clarify what is meant by
> "evolution" (even if qualified by the use of the adjective) the
> consequence is simply to bolster the notion of evolution as a grand meta
> theory.
>
> That might be, and in most instances absolutely is, totally at odds with
> the meaning and intent of TE's but the point that Greg is making I think
> is a weighty one, viz: every time TE's speak of "evolution" (no matter how
> carefully defined or qualified) there is - from a social science
> perspective - a perceived capitulation to the materialist orthodoxy that
> teaches that evolution is everything, that it's basic mechanisms are blind
> and purposeless, and therefore materialism is the only viable metaphysic.
>
> When, then, Greg asks what TE's are doing to combat evolution as a GUT, I
> think he's asking "in what way does the TE treatment of the theme
> 'evolution' serve to overturn rather than bolster the widespread
> perception within society that evolution can legitimately be appropriated
> as a GUT"?
>
> My response to this is pretty much to point out the same considerations
> made by others - at which point the question, in my estimation, becomes
> one of extent of responsibility. That is, I think one can legitimately
> call upon TE's to exercise care in their use of language, even to be clear
> that TE is not, metaphysically, identical to the theories of biological
> evolution put about by Dawkins et al and therefore does not lend support
> to their metaphysical claims. I'm less certain that TE's can be held
> responsible for the misunderstandings which attend their position -
> particularly when those misunderstandings seem themselves a consequence of
> other people's desire to slant the argument in a particular direction.
>
> To put it another way: TE's may be VERY careful about what they actually
> say, but the social reality is that their words get "smooshed" (nice word)
> into the vacuous vanilla blancmange which is the reigning social paradigm
> of "evolution of everything" - as a social scientist it is this social
> reality which arrests Greg's interest. Question is; where does the
> responsibility for this smooshing lie, and what are TE's to do about it?
>
> I'd very much welcome Greg's remarks as to whether I've properly
> understood him.
>
> David Clounch wrote:
>> Michael, Please be patient.
>>
>> Gregory, If you can conscientiously sign the statement of faith, join the
>> ASA and get the journal. You don't have to agree with everybody. ASA
>> members range the entire gamut from YEC's to TE and maybe even to deist.
>> The ASA itself is neutral.
>>
>> If you cannot sign the statement of faith I'd like to know why, although
>> you are under no obligation to tell me.
>>
>> On terminology:
>>
>> Let me be simple minded. Can the question be settled by everybody using
>> an adjective
>> in front of the word evolution?
>>
>> stellar evolution
>> biological evolution
>> cosmological evolution
>>
>> etc?
>>
>> Obviously biological evolution is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in meaning than
>> cosmological evolution. What irritates me is scientists and technical
>> people using the term evolution without the prefix adjective.
>>
>> 1. Do they do this because they are lazy?
>> 2. Or is it because feel they can tell the prefix from context? 3. Or is
>> it because they want obfuscation?
>> 4. Or is it because they believe all types of evolution are part of a
>> grand philosophy? Scientists are into accuracy and precision. If you do
>> chemistry and you don't pay attention to significant digits in your
>> calculation you will be and should be marked down on your papers. So why
>> do we relax this discipline for evolution? Shame!!! (my two cents
>> worth). The E-word is meaningless without an adjective. I have seen state
>> science standards committees use 3 to produce 4 above. (or was it 4 to
>> produce 3). They try to produce a GUP (Grand Unifying Principle) that
>> smooshes all meanings of the word into one big meaning. This is what
>> Gregory is concerned about. I would hope the entire ASA membership would
>> oppose the big smoosh because it is an offense to science.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dave C
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Michael Roberts
>> <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
>> <mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> I will simply second what Ted and George said . I haven't posted
>> because I get fed up with the repeat comments when it is clear that
>> no one is listened to and the activities of "TEs" over the last 150
>> years are simply not acknowledged.
>>
>> Or just within my own family nearly 80 years
>>
>> It gets tedious and frustrating like a snadstorm in a desert
>>
>> Michael
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu
>> <mailto:TDavis@messiah.edu>>
>>
>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>; "Gregory Arago"
>> <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca <mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:43 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit
>> evolution'?
>>
>>
>> The only short response that occurs to me, Gregory, is to say that
>> the term "Theistic evolution" means quite different things to
>> different people. In many ways it's not a satisfactory term. Denis
>> Lamoureux, e.g., refuses to describe his own position as TE.
>> Instead, he calls it "evolutionary creation." I still use the term
>> often, perhaps b/c I'm an historian, and historically a lot of
>> people have used the term to mean the belief that God created humans
>> and other organisms through evolution (i.e., through descent with
>> modification).
>>
>> As you may know, Gregory, the term "creationist" or even "creation"
>> has been co-opted quite forcefully by the YECs, such that the rest
>> of us who believe the universe is a divine creation have to take
>> time to explain what we mean by "creation," in order not to be
>> misunderstood when we talk about it. No one likes to be
>> misunderstood, and we're no exceptions.
>>
>> To echo George, however: the kind of thinking you are calling on ASA
>> members to do, if I correctly understand what you are calling for,
>> is what we've been doing for a long time--probably longer than
>> you've been alive. This is one of those cases, Gregory, in which a
>> visitor to the ASA list has almost no idea who the ASA is, in
>> reality; no idea of what sorts of ideas our members have affirmed,
>> debated, and discussed. It is people like us, not Michael Ruse (who
>> used the term in a recent book), who have routinely used the term
>> "evolutionism" to separate legitimate biological theory from
>> unwarranted extrapolations of it into other realms. If you don't
>> realize this, Gregory, it's only b/c you haven't been reading our
>> journal for decades as many here have been doing.
>>
>> It's high time, Gregory, for you to join the ASA and learn a lot
>> more about who we are. Then, you won't be dropping in here calling
>> for us to do what we have already been doing for decades. A lot of
>> us have been puzzled by some of your "requests," if I can put it
>> that way.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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 20:53:59 2009