Re: [asa] How theistic evolution was explained to kids in 1964

From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Jul 30 2008 - 14:33:49 EDT

Gregory,

You take exception to what "I wrote". This shows me that you are incapable
of reading the context either. It was a QUOTE. That was the whole point of
the post.

Since you can't even attribute what was written to the correct person, I
shall not even bother to respond to the rest of your questions. Ask the
original author, if he's still alive.

Iain

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>wrote:

> For the record, Iain, I also cringed at that one sentence of yours. It
> seems to confuse the meaning of natural history from a theory about how
> natural history happens/happened. Are you sure you're clear on the
> difference between them?
>
>
>
> For example, you write: "evolution shows that certain things happened. The
> evidence for it is very strong. Therefore if it is God who is running the
> show, then the strong evidence is that this is His method of running it."
>
>
>
> Though this is common fare for TE/EC perspectives, it is rather flimsy when
> philosophically analysed. 'Evolution' does not 'show' things - in the way
> Moorad is referring to it (please correct if I'm wrong A.M.), it is
> describing and attempting to explain things. So, to choose the now-famous
> bacterial flagellum example, evolutionary theories talk about HOW the
> flagellum 'evolved' with mutation, adaptation, variation, differentiation,
> etc. under the pressure of natural selection, how it excercised 'fitness' to
> survive via what pathways up to now. The evidence for the flagellum's
> current existence is, as you say, 'very strong.' But HOW it happened to
> arrive at now is uncertain, or at least there is still debate about it (e.g.
> Behe) and the concept of 'irreducibility' is provocative philosophically for
> biologists to contend with. I asked Behe if he knew about S. Wolfram's
> 'irreducible computation' and he went quiet.
>
>
>
> But to say 'evolution is God's method of creation' is a very strong
> statement, which I still contend is an example of tying one's theology up
> too tightly with evolutionary theory. Cringe at my saying that if you like,
> but TE simply hasn't, in the many pieces I've read, done an adequate job of
> distinguishing the ideology from the 'science,' from the 'religion' and from
> the 'philosophy' of evolution - it is indeed 'meshed' together, though
> sometimes it looks mashed haphazardly, rather than meshed coherently. Yet,
> perhaps I am mistaken now in writing this because you didn't write
> 'evolution is God's theory of creation,' but that it is God's METHOD of
> creation.
>
>
>
> So, let me ask you this Iain. Is evolution a METHOD? Or is evolution a
> theory or a fact of natural history? I can accept two of the three above
> things, noting that clearly 'evolution' is a misnomer in social-cultural
> history, which I find rather important alongside of discussions about purely
> natural history. Human nature is actually not a concept studied in 'natural
> sciences' as they are now done, so hopefully you'll cut me some slack in
> taking a different view of 'theistic evolution' than you (i.e. taking into
> accout theology's close neighbourly disciplines in anthropology, pscyhology
> and sociology) and asking you to clarify your language for our communicative
> improvement.
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Gregory
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 7/30/08, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] How theistic evolution was explained to kids in 1964
> To: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> Cc: "Stephen Matheson" <smatheso@calvin.edu>, "ASA List" <
> asa@lists.calvin.edu>
> Received: Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 9:36 PM
>
> Once again, you are plucking a sentence out of the middle of the quote
> and nit-picking with it instead of considering what it says in the context
> of the whole of it. Please READ WHAT IT SAYS. A couple of sentences back
> it says "The theory of evolution says certain things happened".
>
> So in the context OF COURSE the sentence is going to presuppose the truth
> of the theory. The whole purpose of the paragraph is to answer religious
> peoples' objections to the theory of evolution. It is trying to say there
> is nothing inconsistent in believing God to be creator, and that evolution
> is true.
>
> Please stop the cherry-picking and use your English comprehension skills on
> the WHOLE PASSAGE.
>
> Iain
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>>
>>
>> The answer to both questions is certainly no.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, the statement, "I*f God made the world and runs the world, then
>> evolution _is_ God's plan," *presupposes the truthfulness or correctness
>> of evolution, whatever the word evolution means.
>>
>>
>>
>> The one-way implication, "if A, then B" presupposes that both A and B are
>> true otherwise the statement is meaningless, which is what I have been
>> saying.
>>
>>
>>
>> Moorad
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :* Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
> your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.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 Wed Jul 30 14:34:06 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 30 2008 - 14:34:06 EDT