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

From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Jul 30 2008 - 14:52:55 EDT

Please ignore my last posting. I committed the same crime I'm accusing
others of. I read "evolution shows that certain things happened", which is
a direct quote from the original text by Barr, but added my own expansion to
it (which I think is saying the same thing). Hence Greg was indeed quoting
me.

Apologies for my hasty response.

Iain

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
> -----------
>

-- 
-----------
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 14:53:17 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 30 2008 - 14:53:17 EDT