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

From: Chris Barden <chris.barden@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Apr 18 2008 - 07:57:39 EDT

I assumed from "accept human evolution" that you meant "accept that
humans were not created ex nihilo but were a product of mutation and
natural selection". In other words, that humans are not apart from
the Tree of Life, but are a branch of it.

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:43 AM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
>
> OK, let's take a poll here. Does anyone on the list besides Gregory have
> any doubt about what I meant by "human evolution" in the statement "Hugh's
> position would be strengthened in at least one way if he would accept human
> evolution"?
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gregory Arago
> To: George Murphy ; Stephen Matheson ; asa@calvin.edu ; Rich Blinne
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 1:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] A Message from the RTB Scholar Team (fwd)
>
>
> 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.
>
> Gregory
>
>
> 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.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ________________________________
> Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo!
> Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 18 07:58:50 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 18 2008 - 07:58:50 EDT