Re: [asa] What is exactly is a TE?

Gregory Arago wrote:
> Yes, so now we have to question whether or not TE is so popular and
> common, at least when counting people's views at ASA. Indeed, I would
> contend exactly this as Merv writes, that an evolutionist, that is,
> any type of evolutionist, including theistic or theological
> evolutionists, have '*an ideological commitment to Evolution*.' If
> anyone would argue this point, please could they explain why or how an
> evolutionist does not/need not have 'an ideological commitment to
> Evolution.'
>
> Merv notes that Keith&co. are "scientists who merely accept evolution
> as the best scientific theory of origins," but let me then ask Merv if
> he thinks evolution is really about 'origins' or if it is rather about
> 'processes' of change. Since this thread is asking what a label means
> and the persons who may or may not wish to take it for themselves, we
> must be as clear as possible with our language. Is 'theistic
> evolution' about origins (that is, if creation itself presumably came
> before any biological or cosmological process, in terms of priority)?
> Is it trying to stick together origins and processes? Or is TE mainly
> about processes described/explained by the theory of biological
> evolution? Merv continues that Keith&co. i.e. *ECs, hold "no a-priori
> commitment to 'evolutionism'*," which I find encouraging and an
> important acknowledgement to make. By implication, *TEs do indeed have
> an "a-priori commitment to evolutionism";* this is precisely what I
> have been getting on about in bringing this thread into view.
Regarding your bottom paragraph above first: Your usage of the phrase
'origins' or should I say 'Origins' probably needs to be unpacked as
well. You are referring it it in an ultimate sense, right? -- i.e. a
real beginning of something poofed or spoken into existence by a
creator, unless I misunderstand you. In that case no science could be
said to be about Origins because science would be incapable of touching
it (a first cause with no natural prior cause to be investigated --
putting it out of bounds for science.) But in the more common sense, if
I dare call it that, origins as studied in science is probably an
informal way of addressing the question 'where did the world as we see
it today come from?' And so we try to discover/infer previous possible
states the world & life were in that may have led to the present state
-- but in no way do we go conclusively back to any true beginnings with
this. So this would be 'small o' origins -- entirely within the scope
of science. And then the science would seem to be all about "process"
-- although I may not yet fully understand or appreciate your objections
to the balance involved between process and Origin. It seems to me that
as far as science is concerned, process is the only thing we CAN
investigate.

Regarding first paragraph above -- "ideological commitment"
Let me put it this way. Engage in a little fantasy game thought
experiment: Tomorrow, somebody announces to the world slam dunk
evidence that YEC was right all along and they conclusively showed how
it worked -- how all the radiation & heat was dispelled in a twinkling,
all the mechanisms were laid bare that had so convincingly fooled us
about the fossil record, the light from the distant cosmos through some
quirky QM process turns out to be young, and all the myriad of
problems. And all the scientists of the world do the math, run the
simulations, try the experiments, and it all holds together and explains
more things better than any prior theory (we won't mention any names)
did. Quite a fantasy, huh? --if any young earthers are reading this,
stop your drooling. So here is the point of clarification or the
knife's edge where the ideologues get separated from the scientific
thinkers. The scientific thinker (even if he/she doesn't like it &
triple checks everything first) eventually says "okay -- that's where
the evidence currently is. Let's pursue that..." The ideologue flatly
refuses to be "taken in" and insists that no evidence could ever lead in
that direction and that there must be some world wide conspiracy with
the evidence -- some trickery. Even if it is true, they will maintain
rebellion against the idea and live for the day that somebody smashes
it. (sound familiar -- but in reverse?)

Now -- I'm not saying that scientists aren't allowed to be attached to
their pet theories (especially their own) and into constructs in which
they have invested life's work and publishings. They are human and
resist unwanted deviations, of course. But to the extent that they are
ideologically so attached, they are not at their best scientifically
speaking. And most will admit this in their more objective moments.
The strength of their theory does not reside in any ideological
attachment to it. The true strength resides in the evidence. If you
are insisting that there is no such thing as a grown human without
ideology, then I agree with you. If you think science heavily leans on
ideology with regard to evolution, then you must have a low estimate of
the evidence and explanatory power involved.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 3 18:07:04 2007