Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Tue Apr 29 2008 - 20:15:02 EDT

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Gregory Arago <>

> Is fair to say that most TE/EC positions are against the idea of, as
> George puts it, "circumventing the evolutionary process at a critical
> point"? In other words, everything is 'always already' contained withIN that
> evolutionary process itself, which is used by the SuperNature/Creator to
> continue (the) Creation in, through and beyond time.
> **

No it's not fair. First of all check the context of the sentence quoted:
Rome and how it draws a line to rationalize its acceptance of evolution with
the reality of the Fall. Note that this list can be described as Pim contra
mundum. He is trying to extend the evolutionary processes beyond what we
believe it is warranted. It is probably fair that we do not necessarily draw
the line exactly where Rome has but we still draw a line. Typically some
(most?) don't accept so-called evolutionary psychology and some (most?)
believe the evidence for the evolutionary basis for altruism and morality is
weak. (It's hard to assess how big this is because we just base it on how
loud people make their case. Hint to Gregory: This would be helpful
sociology to do a follow up poll of TE/EC proponents on these issues but not
on this list because of the self-selecting nature of e-mail lists.) Having
said that, we also know the limitations of our position and that it is
possible that our assessment of the current state of the evidence may be
overthown -- the same goes for the SAP, BTW. That's science.

The cause of altruistic and moral behavior in humans may be material or
immaterial. The immaterial is out of reach of science. Another problem is
you cannot prove a negative. So, if God chooses a material cause it does not
undo our position that it is God by making us in His image causes us to have
consciences and thus act altruistically and morally. Science finding a
material cause for these chararacteristics of humans does not disprove our
position and science not find a material cause (yet) does not prove our
position. Because all of this it is thus not falsifiable making it not
science. N.B. just because it is not science does not keep TE/ECs from
believing the propositions above. Ultimately for many of us this makes
demarcation neither relevent nor interesting. What makes it interesting is
everybody wants to be scientific as it is a cheap way of getting street
cred. Demarcation is not interesting per se but only as an empty rhetorical
tool used both by ID and the New Atheists to "demarcate" each other's
arguments away. That and the screwed up precedence of the Supreme Court
decisions concerning the establishment clause. The inconsistencies coming
out of the courts here is like watching a slow train wreck.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 29 20:16:13 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 29 2008 - 20:16:13 EDT