Re: [asa] A Message from the RTB Scholar Team (fwd)

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Fri Apr 18 2008 - 01:56:15 EDT

Knowing only little of Hugh Ross, my comment is to question the meaning of 'human evolution.' If you mean, George, that Hugh, like any intelligent person who accepts the sovereignties of scientific knowledge, ought to accept that the 'biological aspect' of human existence is amenable to 'evolutionary theory,' such a meaning of 'human evolution' may be acceptable even to him. It need say nothing (even) about 'age of earth,' but rather speak of the morphology, variation, differentiation, transformation, etc. of human beings over time, in a biological sense.
  However, and George, you well know what I'm about to say, which is why I am asking for you to clarify your language and meaning, if by 'human evolution' is meant to include all of the things which 'humans make,' e.g. technologies, arts, sciences, and artefacts of all sorts, then no, Hugh need not accept the term 'human evolution.' There are other ways to say the same thing you are expressing without using the term 'evolution,' which, for all the good intentions of folks such as TE/ECs who wish to reduce or defuse the 'warfare model' between science and religion, does carry an implied ideology that is problematic in various spheres outside of biology.
  If this is admitted (and I'm not budging from promoting better communicative clarity, George), then it is sensible and responsible to speak more clearly so that misunderstandings will not continue (even if as the lone voice saying it here at ASA, some find it easy to dismiss as 'mere semantics'). You never know, taking such a perspective may open up Hugh Ross to taking an alternative approach that nevertheless still welcomes his core views, based on interpretation of Scripture. If you say it is his interpretation that is wrong, then at least you're in the realm of theology and not in biology or anthropology. The 'anthro' in anthropic principle has an unequivocably 'human' meaning, though one might call it a term that natural science has appropriated for its more or less quantitative (show me the numbers) purposes.


          I would even argue (in fact have argued) that Hugh's position would be strengthened in at least one way if he would accept human evolution. The main thrust of anthropic principle arguments has to do with the possibility of a universe suited for the evolution of intelligent life. To put together all the physical anthropic "coincidences" to show the very low probability of a universe just like ours and then to say that intelligent life didn't evolve reduces the anthropic principle stuff to numerology.

Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 18 01:57:11 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 18 2008 - 01:57:11 EDT