RE: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism

In Behe's new book he makes it clear he clear he accepts common descent. The
only component of evolution he takes issue with is the supposed power of
random mutation. Is this still toxic?

Granted most of the criticism of Dembski and Johnson before in the past is
valid, but I'm curious if ASA will allow Behe to redeem himself if he
disassociates himself with them which he seems to have done in this book. Is
common descent sufficient enough evidence of taking evolution seriously?

I would think as TE's, most ASA members would now be on board with Behe's
new arguments excepting the fact that possibly he takes the conclusion too
far and suggest interventionist Design instead of an embedded natural
process of just design of unknown natural origins. He does do a good job
though in my opinion of illuminating the observed limits of random mutation
which I think is a worthy contribution.

Behe compares Darwin's randomness to Maxwell's "aether" which was widely
accepted before Michelson-Morley. Maybe like science, IDM is a growth
process where the truth becomes more clear over time and people's
presuppositions are exposed and falsified, on both sides?

John Walley (ASA lurker)

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:59 PM
To: Gregory Arago; David Campbell; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism

What IDM has brought is not just not "healthy," it is toxic. Its one
contribution has been to give people who don't want to accept evolution some
supposed reasons for not taking it seriously. ICR & AiG also have resources
to hand out, videos under their belt, &c. The tactics of Dembski & his
Minister of Disinformation O'Leary put Karl Rove to shame. Sure, maybe you
can find a couple of rose petals floating in the muck, but why bother?

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----

From: Gregory Arago <mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>

To: David Campbell <mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com> ; asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:10 PM

Subject: Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' = Naturalism

Well, let's give this a bit more rigour than just throwing the whole IDM out
wholesale. Surely there must be features of the IDM or ID
theories/hypotheses that you don't find too far off the mark? At least for
me, it is not all bad.

The IDM appears to have done, in a short period of time, more than ASA has
done in its entire history (a history I don't know that well) in bringing
the dialogue between science and religion, science and theology or science
and faith to the mainstream American public. Granted, not all of what it
brings is healthy, but 'bring it' it has certainly managed to do! I was at
Discovery Institute not long ago and they've got resources to hand out,
videos under their belt and books that are not too far out when they stay
away from the politics. Priviledged Planet and the new resource Explore
Evolution are indeed achievements. So let's not be so quick to throw stones
at what they've done.

I would agree with you that they have failed for the most part on the
social-humanitarian thought front, but this is mainly because they have very
few scholars working in these fields. The infamous 'wedge' document hinted
that within 5 years (this was a couple of years ago), 'design' theory would
find its niche in social sciences and humanities. Yet still, the IDM refuses
to distinguish between human-made and non-human-made i+d. So they are
certainly not making hay in those fields.

You write: "It's not anything justifiably associated with biological
evolution that is the root of problems in social-humanitarian thought,.."

This is not exactly accurate, imo. There is now happening what has been
called a biological challenge to social science. Some social scientists are
looking to reestablish connections with biology, as it is now arguably the
signature discipline in the natural sciences. Issues in physics do not
compare with the urgency of bio-genetics, especially since the 'mapping' of
the genetic code. Physicalistic philosophies that already underlie
biological thought have made their way into social-humanitarian thought, not
only through socio-biology and evolutionary psychology, but also deep
ecology and green friendly animism. This occurrence certainly IS associated
with biological evolution, given that biological evolutionists have taken
the liberty to export/transfer their theories to other disciplines. R.
Dawkins' memetics is a prime example.

"...rather atheistic or other bad theological/philosophical assumptions. It
is true that many people, including those knowledgeable about biological
evolution, have tried to claim that evolution supports these other views,
but such claims are not justified." - David C.

Again, I think you're speaking from within a protected world that does not
acknowledge what's really happening out there. There are very, very few (I
would provocatively add, IF ANY) evolutionary theories, fitting inside an
evolutionary paradigm that have a good theological/philosophical assumption.
P. Singer, E.O. Wilson, R. Trivers, D. Dennett, M. Ruse - even if we leave
out those names as extremists of the mirror-image-to-ID-leadership, the
majority of evolutionary theorists I am familiar with either disregard
theology and (oftentimes) philosophy or have a contrary worldview to those
espoused across the range in monotheistic world religions. If you'd like to
argue otherwise, then I'll be glad to bring a whole bunch of names in the
secular academy to compare with your anonymous list of neo-creationists
(incl. evolutionary creationists) who for the most part are not
evolutionists theoretically, but only by word of mouth.

ASA continues to be a last bastion of hope for TE's because the fact of the
matter is most people in American are not TE's!! The claim of bad
theology/philosophy is actually quite easily justified when one actually
looks at what Darwin himself said, and then also looking at what his
followers did with his ideas. Besides, for every one Asa Gray or Alfred R.
Wallace there are many times more who use Darwinian evolution as a tool for
atheism or agnosticism or even anti-theism.

The only thing I can see that will help ASA's cause, which could indeed be
soon discussed with CIS brothers and sisters, is to allow more space for
social-humanitarian thought, including philosophy and theology, to find a
platform against evolutionary naturalism (as an ideology - which even George
Murphy is against), that will leave respective space for natural scientists
to practise in their fields with concepts and percepts as they see fit. This
would be a platform that acknowledges the challenge of i+d theories TO
SOCIETY, to people outside of where natural science is done who are looking
for a way to finally and completely reject the type of evolutionary ideology
that says we are meaningless, purposeless products of chance, that religion
is an illusion and that Science proves we are physical-only systems of
self-organized complexity. If TE's at ASA would be willing to re-configure
their relationship with evolutionary ideology, as expressed wholesale in
social-humanitarian thought, it could save the legitimacy of evolution in
natural science and cut away the bad theology/bad philosophy that you are
highlighting in your message.

Stepping up to confront Theological Naturalism is one way to do this.

G. Arago

David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:

> Most people on this list find it easy to
> criticise the IDM for its supposed failings in biological science, yet at
> the same time they remain quiet on the second front of the 'wedge' which
is
> directed towards naturalism, materialism, physicalism and secularism
> generally. This was Johnson's intention - to combat the secularization of
> society, part of which is happening through the diffusion of evolutionary
> theory, specifically Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories,
into
> social-humanitarian thought.

Yes, they fail at that part, too, both because of the energy that
could be directed at that that is being wasted on inaccurate attacks
on evolution and because of their failure to properly identify the
problem. It's not anything justifiably associated with biological
evolution that is the root of problems in social-humanitarian thought,
but rather atheistic or other bad theological/philosophical
assumptions. It is true that many people, including those
knowledgeable about biological evolution, have tried to claim that
evolution supports these other views, but such claims are not
justified.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
 
  _____  
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
boot with the
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40705/*http:/mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=c
a> All-new Yahoo! Mail 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.