Hello Merv - Please excuse that I thought I'd sent a reply to your earlier post, but it appears I didn't. So, a few days delayed the dialogue continues.
Gregory 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.”
In reply, Merv wrote:
“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.”
Gregory replies:
In regard to the phrase/concept/percept ‘origins’ I do not necessarily mean it in an ‘ultimate sense,’ at least not in terms of ‘poof’ or ‘spoken into existence by a creator.’ From a personal sense, I may indeed believe that, but from a scholarly perspective I cannot posit that because it is simply not in the domain of my field. You are thus correct, in my view, that “no science could be said to be about Origins,” with the exception of perhaps cosmology, that science that everyone has their own views about and sometimes pretends to use to pad their personal-scientific case. I’m not sure that I see your distinction about small ‘o’ origins being ‘within the scope of science’ unless you are referring to cosmology, which I already mentioned. The science of cosmology, at least, the parts of cosmology that are ‘scientific’ (which is as debatable a term as is ‘cosmology’ itself) need not be ‘all about process.’ Why should it be unless it is completely ‘given out’ to process
philosophy? What it seems you are contending is that science is also ‘all about philosophy,’ which is a philosophically untenable position to hold; my objections to the imbalance between processes and origins are exactly displayed in such a viewpoint. Origins are also open to investigation in social-humanitarian sciences, why should they be excluded from natural sciences?
Merv wrote:
“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?)”
Gregory replies:
This is not a thought experiment that I personally have entertained. Not really fruitful for our reality, in my opinion (though I like the ‘slam dunk’ analogy – I’d rather come back with a three pointer to your best acrobatic dunk any day!). Ideologues are almost always hard to convince, but that shouldn’t sway thinkers from showing a better way to solve a problem. The approach of some ID advocates, that of not pronouncing either way on the age of the earth actually has its benefits and costs. The benefits are that it does not presume knowledge that it cannot prove (i.e. without time travel we will 'never really know' by experience) and allows both OECs and YECs to coexist without absolute knowledge of 'origins'. The costs include ignoring some of the scientific contributions to 'origins of life' research, which are nevertheless heavily invested (both ideologically and institutionally) in terms of their preferred answer. So many people are calling ID advocates 'science
stoppers' when the truth is this is not entirely a fair assessment in all cases. ID is yet another approach that can inspire good science and that challenges Darwinistic ideology, naturalism (sometimes THE 'method' but mainly the ideology), and the evolutionary status quo.
Merv wrote:
“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.”
Gregory replies:
Yes, I am in agreement with the fact that ideology disturbs peoples’ science. The same thing is true with peoples’ theology (as the influence of evolutionary ‘thought’ on theology displays). We had a conference about this two years back in St. Petersburg; “Science, Ideology and Religion” in which Arthur Peacocke was taken to task for his rewriting of Genesis ‘in the light of Science.’ I suggest, with all due respect to his scientific and theological contributions (not to mention his pastoral care), that he never really did complete a hermeneutic circle about theology influencing science as much as science influences theology. We seemed to be on the same page about the ‘science of evolution’ at least in natural scientific spheres, but the line to be crossed he felt was in the realm of psychology. Here my approach made him question whether evolutionary theory could really be applied as ‘universally’ as he apparently believed it could.
Regarding your guess that I think “science [I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not speaking of Science in a monolithic sense] leans heavily on ideology with regard to evolution,” this is in some ways accurate. I think the heavy influence of evolutionary ideology outside of biology is rather obvious. It’s not that I have ‘a low estimate of the evidence and explanatory power involved’ [in evolutionary science], its more accurate to note that as a non-natural scientific thinker, I do not privilege ‘science’ or ‘evidence’ in the same way as you seem to do.
Einstein’s quotation about the ‘theory telling us what we can see’ is rather illuminating, just as is the ‘observer’ effect and the ‘hermeneutic turn,’ which many scientistic (i.e. ideologically invested) scientists simply do not take into account in their communication with ‘outsiders.’ Instead, they play like heavies on ‘lighter minded people,’ the latter who should simply ‘trust the evidence’ because their own theory supports it. Such privileging is dictatorial and one reason why the image of Science has been tarnished in many people’s eyes.
I hope that helps to clarify where our views overlap and where they depart from each other.
Regards,
Gregory
Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote: 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
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail
---------------------------------
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 9 11:07:47 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 09 2007 - 11:07:47 EDT