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

From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Apr 18 2008 - 10:28:14 EDT

Ditto, I didn't have any problems with George's intended meaning. In the
context of the list discussion there is clearly no ambiguity.

The problem is that Gregory wants to widen the context of the list and the
discussion. Gregory, I have suggested this to you over on the CiS list - if
you want to change the terms of the debate onto something else, then you
won't succeed if you simply try and hijack an existing thread and try to
bend it to your own agenda. To talk about what you want to talk about,
start a new thread. Otherwise you will simply cause frustration.

Iain

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> 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:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]*On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2008 6:43 AM
> *To:* Gregory Arago; Stephen Matheson; asa@calvin.edu; 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
> evolution"?
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> *To:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> ; Stephen Matheson<smatheso@calvin.edu>;
> asa@calvin.edu ; Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> *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/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ------------------------------
> Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. *Go to
> Yahoo! Answers.* <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com>
>
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
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 10:29:46 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 18 2008 - 10:29:46 EDT