Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 17:15:57 EST

In fairness to Bernie, he is trying to present an alternative to YEC which
he escaped from. He is seeking to put this over to his fellow Christians who
are/were caught up with YEC and in terms they can understand. In that I
totally support him.

I do find some of his arguments weak and could almost be seen as a TE
equivalent of popular YEC which can use some very simplistic analogies. One
only has to visit some of the popular YEC sites and this is very apparent.
He may well influence some of those who would simply reject the two
excellent books by the two Denis's (Lamouroux and Alexander)

Another writer who is similar is the BJU graduate Dean Olhmer(?) who has a
bit of a funny idea of geology but raves about the sound geological and
biblical teaching of the geology dept at Wheaton college. I had no qualms in
passing on his geology and genesis tract to YEC students (I taught a course
for Wheaton in summer 2001) as I felt he could get through where I couldn't
with my "sophisticated" view of genesis and geology - framework etc ,
rejection of Methuselah's age etc.

I don't find it a helpful analogy at all but wish Bernie well as he develops
his ideas. There are several who have escaped from YEC who must understand
his pilgrimage

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Cc: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist
without evolution?)

Ahh but don't you see it evolved out of all the memes swimming about
in your head. You had no part in the creative process ;-)

LOL.

Seriously, this whole like of reasoning from Bernie is one of the most
ridiculous I've ever seen. It reduces the word "evolution" to a
virtually meaningless concept. I've no doubt that Dawkins would NOT
state there was an evolutionary relationship between the VW and the
pig. He would make the clear distinction between the VW as "Designed"
and the pig as "Designoid" (ie evolved, but looking as though it was
designed). I think Dawkins introduced the term "Designoid" in his
Royal Institution Christmas Lectures in 1991. The VW is NOT designoid
it is designed.

Iain

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:45 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This sentence did not evolve. I typed it essentially all at once and de
> novo.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Gregory said:
>> "Once one asks questions such as 'when is something not a mimic?' or
>> 'what
>> are examples of things that don't evolve?' they will see the limitations
>> and
>> boundaries of the concept/percept in question."
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think there are any examples what-so-ever of anything that has
>> not
>> evolved. If you can think of just one, give an example, and I think I
>> can
>> explain to you how it evolved.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bernie
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Gregory Arago
>> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 12:03 AM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu; gordon brown
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution?
>>
>>
>>
>> "...actually the only evolution we can attribute directly to Darwin is
>> biological." - Gordon Brown
>>
>>
>>
>> Upon reading Darwin's "Descent of Man," such a statement as the above
>> becomes less tenable. In fact, Darwin in it wrote about morals, values
>> and
>> reason, about psychology, anthropology and ethics. One can argue, of
>> course,
>> that Darwin didn't take the word 'evolution' out of thin air, i.e. he
>> didn't
>> coin the word - it has a past as well. One could credit or debit Darwin
>> with
>> importing 'evolution' into biology or for giving systematic shape to
>> biology
>> in which the term 'evolution' came to have a significant use. Or one
>> could
>> suggest that Darwin wrote about human beings more like a zoologist than
>> an
>> anthropologist. As far as I remember, Darwin didn't even use the term
>> 'evolution' very often in "On the Origin of Species...in the Struggle for
>> Life." What one cannot do, however, is divorce the person (qua scientist)
>> entirely from his very real non-biological thoughts, which are part of
>> his
>> worldview on display in his writings; one cannot (better to say should
>> not) dehumanise Charles Darwin in order to paint him as biology's genius.
>> Not even Darwin's evolution is biology-only.
>>
>>
>>
>> Likewise, picking and choosing from Dawkins by accepting his
>> concept/percept of 'memes' is ridiculous. What it shows is that the
>> person
>> who wants Dawkins' 'memes' but not his agnosticism/atheism simply doesn't
>> understand the connection between the two. Rejecting 'memetics' in
>> philosophy and social-humanitarian thought is common because the term
>> 'meme'
>> is absurd. However, one might ask the same thing about 'evolution,' which
>> has in fact been rejected by a good many, while being accepted by others
>> (witness Gordon suggesting that language and knowledge 'evolve'). Once
>> one
>> asks questions such as 'when is something not a mimic?' or 'what are
>> examples of things that don't evolve?' they will see the limitations and
>> boundaries of the concept/percept in question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does Gordon have any evidence to back up the following statement?:
>>
>> "each of these has a theory that was developed mostly independently of
>> the
>> others, and it is difficult to find major features that all of them have
>> in
>> common beyond that they involve evolution."
>>
>>
>>
>> For example, was Herbert Spencer's evolutionary theory 'developed mostly
>> independently' of Darwin's or do they somehow overlap and borrow from
>> each
>> other? Or how about Karl Marx's?
>>
>>
>>
>> I would contend that 'change-over-time' is a major feature common to them
>> all; that to take away 'change' is to be left with no evolution. Would
>> anyone on the ASA list disagree with this?
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your
>> favourite sites. Download it now!
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 12 17:16:42 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 17:16:43 EST