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

I just witnessed Lynn Margulis rail against 'neo-Darwinism' *and* 'western'
biologists wrt their supposed 'mechanisms' of 'evolution,' which she thinks
are bogus)

Can you point to this? Thanks.

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>wrote:

> Hi George,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your post during this busy time. Let me just answer to points 3)
> and 6) as you reminded me about one question that I forgot to address. I
> don't think we'll ever solve all of the loose ends, but I do think we've
> made some progress in understanding each others' positions over the last
> couple of years. Even if we don't always agree, I hope you have learned a
> few things from me that you didn't know before, as I most certainly have
> from you, for which I am thankful.
>
>
>
> First, re: point 6) - yes, I had missed answering this, unintentionally. It
> is a difficult one, indeed. Here is the question: “Perhaps you could
> provide some information about how widely accepted (or rejected) the concept
> ['evolution'] is among cultural anthropologists generally.”
>
>
>
> Well, let me say that cultural anthropology is not my speciality, so I
> don't claim expertise on this realm of scholars. But I am certainly
> interested in anthropology and have been doing more work in the field and
> will continue to do so. What I am about to say is thus open to correction by
> others and I would certainly welcome someone/anyone on the list inviting a
> friend or colleague who is an anthropologist to address the topic here on
> the ASA list or privately with me. Indeed, who do you know if this field,
> George, Ted, Cameron, Schwarzwald, others?
>
>
>
> It is necessary first to say that 'evolution' as a concept has gone through
> various stages of acceptance and rejection in the field of anthropology. One
> simply must be able to involve the term 'neo-evolution' in order to
> recognise the changes that the term has gone through in the view of
> anthropologists. Here is one source, albeit probably not the best one:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoevolutionism.
>
>
>
> This source gives a decent overview; though it is focussed more on
> 'selection' it also deals with 'neo-evolution':
> http://www.agner.org/cultsel/chapt2/
>
>
>
> Stephen Sanderson is one of the main contemporary 'neo-evolutionary'
> athropologists (e.g "Evolutionism and its Critics" 2007), as are Robert Boyd
> (e.g. "The Origin and Evolution of Cultures" with P.J. Richerson, 2005),
> Jerome Barkow (e.g. "Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social
> Scientists" 2006) and John Tooby. And these are just the North Americans. None
> of these names likely mean anything to you and I would doubt if you'd heard
> of any of them before this moment *now*.
>
>
>
> Here is also one resource with big names on the editorial board (published
> in English in Moscow):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Evolution_&_History
>
>
>
> To the question of 'how widely,' I do not dare answer here on this public
> forum. Know only that I am not offended that you've asked about it if you
> were generally interested in an answer, which I believe you are (so I
> send something to you privately about it).
>
>
>
> Re: point 3) You wrote to me: "You object to my statement, ““The problem
> with that is that there is no *scientific* controversy about the reality
> of evolution.” There isn’t. I.e., the bare fact that biological evolution
> (the qualifier was clear from the context) has taken place is beyond dispute
> for the vast majority of scientists. "
>
>
>
> The way you use/communicate the term 'reality of evolution' (i.e.
> 'evolution *has* taken place') sounds just like one would speak about 'the
> reality of natural history' (i.e. 'natural history *has* taken place'). Of
> course I am not rejecting the reality of natural history, George! But as a
> *theoretical* concept, 'evolution' simply *is* scientifically
> controversial, both for its proposed mechanisms (e.g. I just witnessed Lynn
> Margulis rail against 'neo-Darwinism' *and* 'western' biologists wrt their
> supposed 'mechanisms' of 'evolution,' which she thinks are bogus) as well as
> for the *limitations* that its conceptual realm may or may not contain
> (among other things, as Schwarzwald and Cameron have continued to point to
> on this ASA list). You say, 'there isn't' a controversy. I, and several
> others on this list along with me, say 'there is.' Perhaps we'll have to
> leave it at that for now.
>
>
>
> With warm regards as always,
>
> Gregory
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> *To:* Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> *Cc:* Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>; asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Sat, October 31, 2009 6:48:38 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?
>
> 
>
> Gregory -
>
>
>
> I'm busy as well, though mostly with self-imposed tasks, & because of that
> (as I noted earlier) am going to have to leave the list soon. I hate to
> leave lose ends dangling, even as I realize that some disagreements are
> going to remain unresolved. So I'll respond here briefly to your comments
> addressed to me.
>
>
>
> 1) You say, “I haven’t found many voices on the ASA list friendly to the
> importance of distinguishing ‘origins’ from ‘processes,’ but would certainly
> add this qualifier in wrt my ‘acceptance’ of ‘stellar evolution.’” I
> think that *how* one distinguishes them is critical. OTOH the naïve but
> popular idea that the theological doctrine of creation refers only to
> origins has to be resisted. A number of writers on science and theology,
> including myself, have drawn on the classical distinction between *creatio
> ex nihilo* and *creatio continua* in order to do this.
>
>
>
> OTOH the distinction that some have tried to make between two types of *
> science*, “origins science” and “operations science,” is spurious. So-called
> “origins science” is “operations science” applied to origins.
>
>
>
> 2) Yes, I agree that TE in the bare way I've described it could be called
> "flimsy." Both belief in God and acceptance of biological evolution are
> possible with little understanding or commitment. Of course many people in
> the broad TE category have a deeper knowledge of both theology & biology,
> but they don't have to be TEs in the popular sense.
>
>
>
> And as many, including you & I, have pointed out, nobody talks about
> "theistic embryologists" or "theistic gravitationalism". It's unfortunate
> that biological evolution has been singled out in this regard - unfortunate
> but understandable because evolution has, in fact, raised a great deal of
> *religious* controversy. Many have claimed that evolution makes belief in
> God unnecessary or even absurd so it's not surprising that the term TE has
> arisen. (& it’s worth noting that the term can be pejorative – “Oh,
> you’re a theistic evolutionist” isn’t necessarily a compliment!)
>
>
>
> But as I've said before, I'm not enthusiastic about being called a TE, in
> part just because of the vagueness & "flimsiness" of the concept. I don't
> announce myself, even when talking about evolution & theology, as a TE. If
> someone asks me if I'm a TE I probably won't flat out deny it because that
> would cause confusion but I’ll usually try to explain, if only briefly, why
> the term is unsatisfactory. (Again a parallel in my case can be drawn
> with the word “protestant”.)
>
>
>
> So don’t blame me (or Ted, whom you address about this) for the ongoing use
> of the term. As I’ve told you before, attempts to change established
> terminology, even when it’s unsatisfactory, seldom succeed. Sometimes
> quixotic battles are worth fighting & sometimes life’s just too short. You
> are, I think, a good deal younger than I & if you want to devote yourself to
> the eradication of the *term* TE, all I can say is “Lotsa luck.”
>
>
>
> 3) You object to my statement, ““The problem with that is that there is
> no *scientific* controversy about the reality of evolution.” There isn’t.
> I.e., the bare fact that biological evolution (the qualifier was clear from
> the context) has taken place is beyond dispute for the vast majority of
> scientists. There is, of course, lively debate about a lot of details
> about how the process has taken place & about its possible implications for
> areas like psychology, but that doesn’t touch the *reality* of biological
> evolution.
>
>
>
> 4) There seems to be some confusion about what I meant by “classes.” My
> reference (which I though clear from the context but maybe the word isn’t
> used this way in Canada) was to areas in an educational program –
> “courses” if you will – as in “I’m late for my psychology class” or “I have
> an 8 o’clock class.” I didn’t mean it in the sense of “class struggle,”
> &c. (I haven’t read a lot of Marx & his followers but I doubt that they
> had anything to say about the word in the sense I used it.)
>
>
>
> 5) I haven’t written anything about evolutionary psychology.
>
>
>
> 6) If proper qualifications are made, I can’t see a compelling reason not
> to speak of cultural evolution. Before you go ballistic about this it
> would be helpful if you would answer the question I posed to you - I.e.,
> “Perhaps you could provide some information about how widely accepted (or
> rejected) the concept is among cultural anthropologists generally.” I
> respect your opinion on this as a social scientist but it would be helpful
> for me – and probably others – to know what the general opinion (if any) of
> others with expertise in this area is.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> *To:* George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> *Cc:* Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> ; asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:02 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?
>
> The list is moving way too fast for me these days, given my
> responsibilities and duties here, so let me respond to just a few statements
> and questions and also give voice to some thoughts that people have
> expressed in recent days that I find inspiring.
>
>
>
> “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).” – Murray Hogg
>
>
>
> Yes, I see the point here. The difference is between the meaning of
> ‘change’ and the meaning of ‘evolution’ or of ‘development.’ It is better in
> the cultural realm to avoid the concept of ‘evolution’ entirely. The term
> ‘development’ has a large discourse already built around it. Instead, those
> who promote ‘evolution’ are oftentimes ideologically invested in challenging
> theism or deism or even anything transcendental. They are cultural
> materialists (e.g. Marvin Harris and Stephen Sanderson). So, to agree with
> Murray’s point, yes, I do agree that there are ‘changes’ in culture, but not
> that there are ‘evolutions’ in culture. The latter concept is meaningless
> and is an example of a faulty transference of ideas.
>
>
>
> “one can legitimately speak of "biological evolution," "stellar evolution,"
> perhaps even "cultural evolution" as long as one qualifies one's terms
> appropriately.” – Murray
>
> As above, no, I don’t agree. The term ‘cultural evolution’ is simply a
> misnomer and needs to be expelled from our English grammar (and there is
> also no ‘Progressive Conservative’ party in Canada anymore either).
> Biological evolution is acceptable, stellar evolution, with a qualification
> (below), but ‘cultural evolution,’ no, this is unacceptable.
>
>
>
> Here let me also answer to George’s question about whether or not I accept
> ‘stellar evolution.’ As far as I am not a professional astronomer or
> cosmologist, I cannot presume to ‘dictate’ to them what language is suitable
> for their realm. That said, I would immediately add a qualifier to say that
> ‘stellar evolution’ has *nothing* to do with ‘origins,’ just as Darwin
> didn’t write much about ‘origins,’ but rather about ‘processes.’ I haven’t
> found many voices on the ASA list friendly to the importance of
> distinguishing ‘origins’ from ‘processes,’ but would certainly add this
> qualifier in wrt my ‘acceptance’ of ‘stellar evolution.’
>
>
>
> “the consequence [of TE] is simply to bolster the notion of evolution as a
> grand meta theory.” – Murray
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree. But ‘they’ don’t see it this way. And one must put ‘they’ in
> scare quotes because the meaning of this concept duo (TE) is highly suspect.
> Many would decry it, in order to be a Christian in good standing and
> responsible to core beliefs.
>
>
>
> “Can the question be settled by everybody using an adjective in front of
> the word evolution?” – David Clounch
>
>
>
> Yes, I have asked for this clarification repeatedly in the past. Some have
> called it ‘pedantic’ and others have complained about having to type in an
> extra word (up to ten letters!), as if it really hurts their fingers. They
> say it is not important when speaking in a certain ‘context’ (as if ASA were
> unified or just made up of a certain single kind of scientist, and not
> others!) and then are surprised when I and others insist that the meaning of
> ‘science’ (i.e. not Science, capitalized in euro-enlightenment meaning) is
> either broader or narrower than they would admit. Really, is it so difficult
> to type in an extra *adjective* each time one writes the term ‘evolution’?
> I think not.
>
>
>
> “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.” – Murray
>
>
>
> Yes, and that is why I am concentrating my attention on the term
> ‘evolution’ for the moment. (And just yesterday I spoke with someone who is
> a PhD graduate of dialectical materialism in a philosophy faculty, so of
> course I’m not insensitive to materialism either! Let me nevertheless try to
> keep a priority and thus present a clearer case for ‘limiting evolution,’
> without turning the discussion into materialism vs. idealism or vs.
> realism.) Opposition to ‘materialism’ crosses the YEC, ID, TE divide, so
> this is actually a topic for unity in an otherwise divisive conversation.
>
>
>
> When TEs speak, they tend to believe that ‘metaphysics’ are either not
> involved or are somehow ‘less important’ than science (i.e. it is because
> they are themselves natural scientists who have studied little philosophy,
> which is ‘love of wisdom’). When they say philosophy is ‘as important as
> science,’ then they are giving mere lip service, i.e. posturing with
> propaganda, or else they would actually read more philosophers, from around
> the world. Here is where ID is a clear advance on the weak philosophy of
> most TEs. ID is concerned about metaphysics and seeks to balance philosophy
> with science and theology. TE, on the other hand, is philosophically
> inferior (this is unarguable!) and doesn’t recognize the power of philosophy
> on its linguistic appearance. Ted Davis’ history is trumped immediately by
> philosophy because his retrodictions are based on trying to uplift TE to
> Americans today.
>
>
>
> “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"?” –
> Murray
>
>
>
> Yes, I think that’s a great way to frame the question, Murray! I get the
> impression, however, that TEs, the few that will act to defend such an
> admittedly amorphous position, won’t *desire* to address it. It certainly
> says something about the communicative personality of those who like to take
> such a label. Ted has only said ‘we’re doing it,’ so far, but has not made a
> clear attempt to show exactly ‘how’ TE ‘limits evolution.’ He is bluffing,
> it seems to me.
>
>
>
> “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.” – Murray
>
>
>
> Amen! And I think TEs do (seek to) distinguish themselves from Dawkins. On
> the other hand, their near-GUT applications of ‘evolution’ betray their
> position. They cannot limit ‘evolution’ because it is intimate with their
> theologies! They are so against wanting to appear ‘anti-evolution’ that they
> are ‘pro-evolution’ to a degree much stronger than they would like to be in
> a (three-in-one) Kingdom perspective.
>
>
>
> “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?” – Murray
>
>
>
> Yes, this is a key point. And let me admit that I’m ready, open and willing
> to be directed to on-line resources (American and even English books aren’t
> found easily here) where TEs *are* actually ‘doing something about it.’ Ted
> suggests that ASA members are indeed ‘limiting evolution.’ If he can direct
> me to articles in the PSCF, I would indeed be grateful to read them.
>
>
>
> For example, I searched the PSCF archive for articles with the word
> ‘evolution’ in the title and don’t see much if anything there that would
> serve to ‘limit evolution.’ Here’s the link:
> http://129.82.76.41:591/FMPro?-db=ASAdb49.fm4&-lay=Layout1&-format=%2FASAdb%2Fresults2.html&-op=contains&-LOP=or&-sortfield=First+Author&-sortorder=ascending&-sortfield=volume_no&-sortorder=descending&-Max=All&Title=evolution&-op=bw&First+Author=&-op=contains&Date=&-find=&-find=Search
>
>
>
> Ted can probably come up with some things here, since he has been reading
> PSCF for decades, like some others here. What I would suggest to him is that
> there might be alternative sources that can offer a more poignant
> ‘limitation’ of ‘evolution’ that he has not (yet) considered, given the
> particular choir that he is listening to, and which sings similar songs.
> I’ve been extremely impressed by Russian scholars who easily reject the
> Malthusianism in Darwin’s writings, yet who likewise speak a language where
> ‘science’ does not mean ‘natural sciences-only’ and thus where a discussion
> of knowledge and scholarship involves a more holistic approach. Americans,
> Canadians, Brits, Aussies, New Zealanders, and other Anglo-centric
> participants will find this (German-Russian) view of ‘science’ something
> difficult to confront, though it nevertheless opens up new vistas for
> communication that otherwise wouldn’t exist. In other words (and I am not
> condescending here George), you need to listen to learn!
>
>
>
> Ted says: “the term "Theistic evolution" means quite different things to
> different people. In many ways it's not a satisfactory term. “
>
>
>
> Yes, amen! But then why do you continue to use it?!? Why not just drop it,
> and speak as a ‘theist’ who accepts certain aspects of ‘evolution,’ for
> example, the biological aspects, but *not* the cultural aspects? Let me
> repeat, but *not* the cultural aspects! I don’t think you (yet) realize the
> power your voices would have as ‘scientists’ (i.e. educated and erudite
> persons) if you were to open up a dialogue that asserted that ‘ethics’ and
> ‘morals’ are liberated from an evolutionary paradigm!!! Many YECs would
> respect you for this!
>
>
>
> The appeal to ‘familiarity’ is rather a weak one here, speaking as a
> sociologist to George’s defeatist ‘entrenchment’ approach. The sociology of
> science is indeed what I study (e.g. consensus, peer review, meaning of
> science), and few people here have offered anything new to me about this
> (note: Murray and Cameron recently on the peer review thread were
> brilliant!). I strongly believe in and have even seen/witnessed vocabulary
> change happen in one generation, i.e. on a short time scale. One must simply
> desire it and then do the work in correcting their linguistic habits. So
> George’s opposition sounds like fatalism to me (yet he doesn’t call himself
> ‘TE’ so this is a unique combination) and so I imagine that he is also
> willing to change if the better alternative were to arise.
>
>
>
> “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.” – Ted
>
>
>
> Yes, I am aware of this and sensitive to it. As you may know, I’ve lived in
> America and have come in close contact with YECs in Canada. In human-social
> science, the terms ‘creativity,’ ‘creation’ and the verb ‘to create’ have
> not been held hostage by ‘young earthers.’ We (HSSs) are thus in some ways
> much ‘freer’ than you are as natural-physical scientists (NPSs). Though,
> Ted, it is well-known that you are an historian and not a ‘natural-physical
> scientist.’ So probably you should be more on my side than you pretend to
> be, especially if you have read non-Anglo-Saxon views of ‘science’ such as
> those about geisteswissenshaft?
>
>
>
> As ASA president, Ted writes: “It is people like us…who have routinely used
> the term "evolutionism" to separate legitimate biological theory from
> unwarranted extrapolations of it into other realms.”
>
>
>
> Well, so then I await more info or links to articles that demonstrate how
> this is so. It doesn’t appear that this is a strength of American
> Christians, especially given the prevalence of ‘scientism’ even among
> Protestants. The evidence that I’ve seen doesn’t warrant such a view that
> TEs at ASA have made a push to ‘limit evolution’ as you claim is present at
> ASA. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case, even in your PSCF journal.
> To you (folks), ‘evolution’ *is* simply a ‘scientific’ fact, but this
> ignores all of the ‘sciences’ that involve human beings.
>
>
>
> “Further, for ID not more, but fewer, questions fall under science's
> "purview". ID agrees with TE that questions of right and wrong, good and
> evil, politics and culture, spirituality and religion, etc., are not
> scientific questions. But ID grants what TE people do not appear to grant,
> that even certain questions about nature (e.g., questions about origins) may
> not be entirely within the "purview" of science. It is also unclear how TE,
> with its acceptance of the general reductionist approach of modern science,
> can prevent some branches of modern science, e.g., psychology, from
> intruding upon the realms of the ethical and the spiritual which TE wishes
> to reserve for religion, theology, etc. I have seen much railing against
> evolutionary psychology on ID web-sites, but very few objections to it
> raised here.” – Cameron
>
>
>
> This is exactly the way I see things as well and why I find it so difficult
> to dialogue with some people at the ASA list. Folks like Schwarzwald who
> obviously have made an effort to ‘go global’ and to look at the topic of
> ‘evolution,’ ‘creation,’ ‘ID,’ ‘origins’ and ‘processes’ of ‘change’ from
> the ‘outside’ are far ahead of the others on ASA list who are unfortunately
> predominantly insular. In this case, ‘insular’ means accepting the
> hyper-competitive viewpoint that ‘evolutionary’ thinking supports. I’ve no
> doubt that some of you insist on being ‘evolutionists’ simply for the same
> reasons that you insist you live in a ‘Democracy.’
>
>
>
> “TE isn't a philosophy but just a rough term designating people who think
> that belief in God and acceptance of biological evolution are compatible.” –
> George Murphy
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree with you entirely George. This is why I am throwing darts at
> the TE conception! There is no reason to use the concept duo ‘TE’ if it only
> means ‘accepting biological evolution’ as a theist. You’ve been led down a
> faulty path if you think the duo ‘theistic evolution’ is in any way
> ‘necessary.’ John Walley has no philosophical ‘leg to stand on’ when he
> addresses me, other than to oppose YEC, which I think he rightfully does.
> So, why not instead define himself not as TE, but rather as an anti-YEC
> theist who accepts certain features of biological evolution? There is no
> sense to call oneself a ‘TE’ when it is not necessary and especially so when
> it serves to ‘bolster evolution as a grand meta theory,’ as has been
> mentioned above. Yet ‘TE’s’ don’t seem philosophically prepared to
> acknowledge this or to abandon their label for something better! This is a
> great sadness!!
>
>
>
> “The E-word is meaningless without an adjective.” – David Clounch
>
>
>
> Hip-hip hurrah!
>
>
>
> “When someone knows you're a Christian & finds out in conversation that you
> accept evolution they may say "Oh, you're a theistic evolutionist”.” –
> George Murphy
>
>
>
> It is sad to think that this is the state of affairs in America. Really! :
> ( When someone knows you’re a Christian & finds out that you accept gravity
> or electromagnetism, do they call you a theistic gravitationalist or a
> theistic electromagnetist? There is special treatment of ‘evolution’ for
> good reason; one of them is how Darwin over-reached with “The Descent of
> Man” to propose *wrong* things about human beings. Here Darwin was being
> ‘unscientific,’ but that is often forgiven and forgotten by ‘evolutionists’
> today. TEs perpetuate the myth of Darwin’s greatness by over-looking his
> damage to human-social thought. They don’t read Wilson, Diamond, M. Harris
> or S. Pinker, so they think that things are o.k. to ignore them. Yes, this
> is a sad state of affairs!
>
>
>
> “there are few general statements that can be made about TEs beyond the
> fact that they believe in God and accept evolution.” – George
>
>
>
> Then ‘TE’ is a pretty weak position, wouldn’t you say?! Indeed, the word
> ‘flimsy’ comes to mind; weak in philosophy. Why else would anyone want to
> take such a label upon them-self, if only to put up an appearance as being
> anti-YEC?
>
>
>
> “The problem with that is that there is no *scientific* controversy about
> the reality of evolution. There are social, religious & political
> controversies which might be discussed in other classes but not in science.”
> – George
>
>
>
> Now we get to a problem, George. You’ve gone too far, and this is the
> tendency in almost all TEs that I’ve seen. Again, is ‘evolutionary
> psychology’ a ‘science’ or not? If it is, then yes, there simply *is* a
> ‘scientific controversy’ about ‘the reality of evolution.’ Did ‘rape’ evolve
> as something ‘natural’ or is there something ‘sinful’ or ‘extra-natural’
> about it? I find TE answers on this extremely weak! Please don’t pretend to
> deny it when you don’t read much about it! Or what do you mean by ‘class’?
> I’ve read Marx and his disciples, George, have you? But you are normally
> referring to a limited view of ‘science’ that really just means *only
> natural sciences* and in your mind are things like biology, chemistry and
> physics (your personal speciality). This is likely why you asked me about
> ‘stellar evolution.’
>
>
>
> What about you, George, have you written anything about ‘evolutionary
> psychology’?
>
>
>
> And do you accept ‘cultural evolution,’ George? Let's even the table...
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gregory
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> *To:* Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>; David Clounch <
> david.clounch@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>; asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Fri, October 30, 2009 5:24:35 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?
>
> I was fairly sure that you would reject the concept of cultural evolution
> but didn't want to put words in your mouth. Perhaps you could provide some
> information about how widely accepted (or rejected) the concept is among
> cultural anthropologists generally. My certainly inexpert understanding is
> that it is a widely discussed, though somewhat controversial, idea. As I
> already noted, cultural evolution - if the term is allowed - is certainly
> not just a sub-category of biological evolution.
>
> Your last statement about TE is certainly not true of TE in general. Here
> you are getting outside your area of expertise.
>
> For completeness, what's your stance on the legitimacy of "stellar
> evolution" as a concept?
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :* Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
> your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :* Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
> your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 31 19:03:10 2009