Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy

I dont know if I have the guts to say this, but my gut feeling is that it
means Grand Unified Theory
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:22 PM
Subject: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy

> This is the second time in the last couple of days that I've seen the
> abbreviation "GUT", without explanation. I've never seen this
> abbreviation before. Could people please refrain from using it, unless
> they are going to say what it means after the first usage?
>
> Cameron.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?
>
>
>> Hi George,
>>
>> On your first point, or question, let me say only that I think the issue
>> is broader than simply changing the words we use. At the end of the day
>> what we always run up against is the refusal of others - whether through
>> stupidity, ignorance, or shear caprice - to acknowledge the way in which
>> language is being used. One can bang on as long as one likes about what
>> one means by "X" but as long as others insist on loading that term with
>> meaning "Y" then there is no ground for discourse. And the problem, as I
>> see it, is that if one's dialogue partner insists on such a distortion of
>> meaning - again, whether through stupidity, ignorance, or shear caprice -
>> then it doesn't matter what words one seeks out. So I'm not advocating
>> that we change our language, even if I am in favour of greater precision
>> and clarity of usage, I'm merely trying to get a handle on the problem as
>> Greg sees it.
>>
>> On your second point - yes, yes, yes! The problem with critics of TE is
>> ALWAYS that they don't allow the possibility that the GUT is not
>> evolution itself but the Gospel. I don't know how many times one has to
>> repeat this, but it bears saying one more time: TE isn't *necessarily*
>> the attempt to subsume Christian faith under an evolutionary GUT, it's an
>> attempt to make sense of the scientific evidence - which strongly
>> supports the notion of neo-Darwinian evolution - in light of the truth of
>> the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It might help were some to recognize (while
>> we're on the subject of open declarations) that some TE's do, in fact,
>> start with Christian theological assumptions and not with materialistic
>> Darwinist ones. But as that would likely be to concede the argument...
>>
>> I particularly like your point 2.c!
>>
>> Blessings,
>> Murray
>>
>> George Murphy wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> 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 Fri Oct 30 03:37:06 2009