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

From: skrogh. <>
Date: Fri Apr 18 2008 - 10:22:22 EDT

No doubt here. This is not hard to understand. However, if you don't want to
understand, one can intentionally make is so difficult.


  -----Original Message-----
  From: []On
Behalf Of George Murphy
  Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 6:43 AM
  To: Gregory Arago; Stephen Matheson;; Rich Blinne
  Subject: Re: [asa] A Message from the RTB Scholar Team (fwd)

  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

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Gregory Arago
    To: George Murphy ; Stephen Matheson ; ; 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.


      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 10:24:39 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 18 2008 - 10:24:39 EDT