Re: [asa] red in tooth and claw

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Sun Nov 29 2009 - 18:20:56 EST

hi Dave, I appreciate your candor in this message. But there is no need to accept 'my definitions' only for the moment when you admit that they make sense entirely. why not then accept them more regularly and instead choose to *not* capitulate your point of view to naturalistic scientism? The fact is that most TEs are 'naturalistic fundies' in disguise - they are fundamentalists for the cause of naturalism. (Unfortunately, they do not see that it is their GRAMMAR that betrays them - e.g. they dogmatically say 'the nature of' something, which can just as easily be said 'the character of'.) This is seen through their almost blanket acceptance of 'MN'. What a sham, I say - Weak American Philosophy (WAP)! They do injustice to the Global Academy by diminishing the contribution of its most important part, in terms of human self-understanding. But don't expect them to admit this! To clarify, Dave, I do not 'denigrate the physical and animal in us.' Not at all; please don't say this. But rather, I seek to go beyond the physical and animal in us so to better understand what it means to be 'human.' It is their lack of knowledge of the 'higher realms' that is the problem here. The 'image of God': do you really think it 'evolves naturally'? This is the first time I've heard such a combination of words; TEs are utterly confused to think so. They have no understanding of 'creation' or of 'creativity' to say such a thing. I'm at least sure that nothing that Dave Wallace has ever created, designed, programmed, computed, made, etc. has *ever* 'evolved' into being or having become. The *fact* of decision, choice, agency, purpose, plan, goal, etc. makes his doing so a fundamentally teleological action. Mere 'evolutionary biology' cannot account for that. Let's not pretend that Darwin was a teleological thinker!!! The same can be said for the inspiration of humanity; Benedict XVI, in line with other RC Popes has confirmed this. "I don't think that it is worth while to argue for your position." - Dave W. Yet you say yourself, Dave, that you *believe* 'God intervened.' So this is enough to suggest that what you deem the impossible is in fact possible! HSS trumping NPS is not the main issue, though it is important to acknowledge nonetheless. What is more important is that you accept that human beings are 'more than natural.' You will likely endure the wrath of Christian geneticist/naturalists like Dennis Venema to suggest such a thing! I don't have any problem at all in resting my humanitarian case on 'The Impossible Dream'. Balance is a challenge in our electronic age indeed! Gregory ________________________________ From: Dave Wallace <> Cc: Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 8:11:38 PM Subject: Re: [asa] red in tooth and claw Gregory Arago wrote:<!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --> The key issue is that human beings are not 'just natural,' but rather we are 'more than natural' as well. Accepting for the moment your definitions of human and natural then YES!  although some on the list probably disagree.  The advantage of your definition is that the difference between humans and our nearest common ancestor is emphasized and the commonality is minimized.   Your position has the potential downside of denigrating the physical and animal in us, maybe somewhat Platonic.  Likely your position is more compatible and accepted by YEC, OEC and ID leaning people than by some EC/TEs.  I believe that you have indicated that your position is the one accepted in all the human or social sciences.   The definition of nature on the list emphasizes the commonality and potentially minimizes the differences humans have as a special entity with an animal linage.  Those holding a EC/TE position where the image of God is something that evolved naturally would tend to accept the definition on the list and oppose your definition.  Of course there are some ECs who believe that God intervened and thus imparted the image which is the position I lean towards.   In some ways I prefer your definition but since the definition used mostly on the list has a long history and custom and the fact that some would find your definition objectionable, I don't think that it is worth while to argue for your position.  To me at least it appears that you think the definition used in the HSS trumps that used in the natural physical sciences and any meta scientific/theological objections such as I alluded to above.  To me some battles are not worth fighting and when I sometimes forget and do try to fight, I hear the melody of "The Impossible Dream" playing quietly in the background. Dave W  ps The Impossible Dream comes from the musical Man of La Mancha which tells the story of Don Quixote.  One might crudely summarize the story as tiling at windmills.  Tilting is jousting. 'Tilting at windmills' derives from Cervantes' Don Quixote - first published in 1604, under the title The Ingenious Knight of La Mancha. The novel recounts the exploits of would-be knight 'Don Quixote' and his loyal servant Sancho Panza who propose to fight injustice through chivalry. To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 29 18:21:27 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 29 2009 - 18:21:29 EST