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

I don't know many examples of someone going from an evolutionary,
theistic perspective to a process position, so I can only suggest
possible reasons rather than known causes in general.

I do know that the hostile pressure of certain young-earth advocates
or views has alienated some people from a more orthodox theology in
general.

Probably some people are carried away by the success that biological
evolution has in explaining biology and try to apply it to everything,
just as Marx, Freud, etc. recognized that money, sex, etc. motivate
people more than we realize or care to admit and then wrongly jumped
to making it the sole factor.

A weak grasp on the doctrine of God's providence plays a role in the
vast majority of bad claims relating to science and faith. If you
start thinking that physical explanations remove God from the picture,
or that physical things are independent of God in their existence
(they are distinct from God but wholly dependent on Him), then you
will have problems responding to a scientific explanation. You might
try an all-out attack on the science, or you might modify or abandon
your model of God if you fail to see that God is just as involved in
events that happen according to known natural laws as in events that
don't.

Other theological concerns (not totally independent of the above) may
also play a role. The problem of evil, theodicy, etc. has long
troubled people; evolution has some relation to it but it would still
be a problem without evolution. Making God less powerful is a popular
"solution" to the problem of theodicy, though I'm personally
unconvinced it really solves anything.

I think the main reason to reject process or other modified theologies
is a commitment to the authority of Biblical revelation. This
includes but is not restricted to believing it to be inerrant.

> On what basis does Don believe in 'cultural evolution'?...Does culture inevitably evolve or is it somehow forced or guided?<

Of course I can't speak for him, but I think your study of
sociological models may promote miscommunication with biologists.
Culture certainly changes over time. As a whole, it has become more
complex and technologically advanced over time, though there are
certainly reversals and there are people groups who have maintained a
relatively ancient-looking pattern while others change rapidly. On
the other hand, there's little reason to suppose that cultures
inevitably must change according to certain patterns. Marxism is
perhaps the best known of such erroneous models, but plenty of
examples exist despite the recalcitrance of the data to match up. A
number of stock criticisms of the Bible fall under such errors as
well, e.g. Edom couldn't have rulers as enumerated in Genesis because
they were still mostly nomadic; any OT passage suggesting absolute
monotheism could not be written before the exile because no one could
have thought that way before then (except in Egypt), etc.

>This is one of the sticking points about 'intelligent design' – it
employs the views of quite a number of computer scientists and
engineers, who quite obviously and commonly use the language of
'design' in their respective works. The fact that Ian Strachan posits
'random' computer programming doesn't seem to cancel out the majority
of 'design' theorists convenient usage of computers and machines in
their favour. We, as human beings, 'make/build/design/construct/etc.'
but we almost certainly don't 'evolve' machines into existence –
'evolution' is simply the wrong concept in this arena of practical
knowledge. <

There are two issues here that make the application from engineering
to biology problematic. First, it is unclear that biological systems
should be considered as analogous to computers or engineering
projects. There are some useful similarities but also significant
differences. (The exact defintion of ID comes up as well-setting up a
basic framework of rules at the beginning that guide the system into
suitable response for each situation versus claims that there are gaps
in the system requiring additional intervention have different
engineering analogues.) In particular, biological systems include the
information to direct their assembly and function, the means to
assemble and function, and the means to modify the directions, though
generally not the ability to modify towards a specific end. Thus,
the functions of engineer or programmer and project or program are
somewhat combined. This doesn't prove that additional input (besides
the environment providing selective pressure) is unnecessary, just
that caution is needed with the analogy. It may also be a bad sign
for the merits of a view that claims to be based on biology but
actually appeals more to engineers and programmers than to biologists.

> If people care to read Teilhard they might find that most TE's actually depend more on Teilhard and also H. Bergson than they might imagine.<

Or perhaps have converged on greater similarity than they realize,
rather than any sort of dependence. de Chardin is rather heterodox in
some ways; I don't think his particular ideas about human progress,
etc. have gained much following under the general heading of TE.

> Let's open up this question of cosmological evolution then. <

A wide range of physical evidence, including the microwave background
radiation, the general expansion of the universe, the physical
appearance of astronomically distant objects (which therefore are
detected by radiation that left them billions of years ago and thus
portrays them at a much younger stage), the presence of stars
appearing to be at different stages of development, abundance and
distribution of different elements, etc. indicate that the cosmos has
been changing through time. Calculations based on our best physical
models indicate that it will continue to change. Calculating
backwards points to a point and time of origin (Hawkings' approach
seems merely a semantic sleight of hand to me).

-- 
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.