Frank,
Answer carefully. The first time Tom asked me this, and I asserted that I did, he proceeded to throw a haymaker at me -- and, to my eternal shame, I reflexively flinched.
Later on, I would reliably answer that I did not, even at a seemingly safe remove. Then again, that *was* during the tenuring process, so it was undeniably accurate.
Ed
________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of Dunfee, Thomas
Sent: Fri 10/28/2005 7:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
Frank,
Do you believe that you have free will?
Tom
Thomas W. Dunfee
Kolodny Professor of Social Responsibility
Chair, Department of Legal Studies and Business Ethics
The Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215-898-7691
________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frank Cross
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
No, that's not a falsifiable hypothesis for ID. It could be a falsifiable hypothesis for Darwinism, but those aren't the only two conceivable alternatives. As I understand it the claim is pretty weak, but I really can't understand how you could prove anything "impossible." Mere randomness makes everything "possible." If it were true, I concede it would be suggestive that something more than Darwinian evolution was occurring.
I could identify a variety of possible falsifiable hypotheses for ID. For example, I could hypothesize that an intelligent designer would not create worthless appendages or organs (called vestiges in evolution like the whale's vestigial legs or the human's vestigian tale). But it fails that test. Or I could hypothesize that an intelligent designer wouldn't create a bunch of creatures only to make them extinct. But it certainly fails that test as well.
At 03:25 PM 10/28/2005, Pearson Liddell, Jr. wrote:
Frank,
Isn't Michael Behe's claim that irreducible complexity in a part of an organism makes Darwinian evolution impossible a testable and falsifiable hypothesis?
Pearson
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Cross <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
I didn't mean you had to choose between science and religion broadly, just as a methodology to resolve a particular question (unless they yield identical answers). If you are trying to decide about evolution, you can put your faith in a Biblical account (say hypothetically a simplistic 6000 year theory) or the account of science as we best know it today, which is based on hypothesis testing. You can't believe both, I don't think.
David is of course right that religion can fully embrace science, indeed find God's handiwork in natural laws. But this evades the issue that is now controversial and that I thought began the discussion, i.e., intelligent design. As I understand it, that theory has produced no falsifiable hypotheses nor tested them, by contrast to the enormous magnitude of evolutionary research. As such, you can't call it science comparable to evolution. You can believe it as a matter of faith.
At 10:25 AM 10/28/2005, David Opderbeck wrote:
Religious faith puts forth entirely different standards. One must choose
I disagree with you here again Frank, although it's a little difficult because we have to define "religious faith." I can only speak with any confidence from my own tradition, which has a long history dating back to Augustine of wrestling with such questions, but a traditional Christian understanding of epistemology doesn't require any such choice. I would characterize a traditional Christian epistemology as "modest foundationalism," which accepts the same foundational epistemological assumptions as modern science. Most Christians who think about such things believe their faith is empirically reasonable given those assumptions -- that the data of history and human experience support the core claims of the Christian faith (I'm not intending to argue that particular point here). Of course, there are some aspects of Christianity that are more mystical than rational, but in the traditional Christian view faith and reason are complementary and intertwined ways of knowing.
-----"Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Frank Cross <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10/28/2005 11:00AM
Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
Now we're getting deeply into epistemology.
David is right that science depends to some degree on faith, so my opposition of them was simplistic, though functionally workable.
It is functionally workable because science as currently understood puts forth certain standards for establishing "truth." These involve the scientific method. Religious faith puts forth entirely different standards. One must choose
At 09:47 AM 10/28/2005, David Opderbeck wrote:
Frank -- no, the citation I provided is referring specifically to the teaching of evolution, not only to science generally. The quote I gave relates to science generally, but the entire text indicates that "evolution" is "science" because it shares the same naturalistic presuppositions, whereas other explanations of origins are not "science" because they don't assume naturalistic materialism. Perhaps this conflicts with the "accepted" definition of evolution, but then I'm not sure there is a clear or "accepted" definition.
And why does science conflict with faith? Science rests on certain assumptions that must be taken on faith (e.g., that human perception of reality is reasonably accurate, that natural laws do not vary over time, that observation and experimentation can be conducted with limited degrees of value bias and with limited influence from the observer's presuppositions, and so on). Science is not the bastion of pure objectivity the children of the 18th Century Enlightenment thought it was.
-----"Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Frank Cross <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10/28/2005 10:28AM
Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
The accepted definition of evolution refers only to changes in organisms over time, not the origin of life. The citation that David provides is talking about the notion of "science" generally, that it excludes supernatural causes. It's true we get into definitional problems. If the supernatural were falsifiable, it sits within science comfortably, I suppose. Evolution is not contrary to religion, but science is contrary to faith. I think that is all the citation is saying.
At 08:25 AM 10/28/2005, David Opderbeck wrote:
[This is David Opderbeck. My CUNY email is down, so I need to use this account. This is kind of a long post, on a topic I personally find very interesting, but that many list members might find tedious. If this stuff doesn't interest you, please forgive me and hit the delete button.]
Perhaps my understanding of evolution is flawed, but I never
understood evolution as speaking to the origins of life itself
One of the problems in any discussion of "evolution" is that the term is highly elastic. You could use the term "evolution" to refer simply to changes in organisms over time, in which case your understanding would be correct. However, that isn't what "evolution" means in debates over issues like public education. Take, for example, the National Association of Biology Teachers' Statement on Teaching Evolution ( http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp ): "Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called ?creation science,? ?scientific creationism,? ?intelligent design theory,? ?young earth theory,? or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum."
In other words, if one accepts "evolution," naturalistic processes are sufficient to account for the development of all life. This is the way most popularizers of evolution present it, and it also seems to be what the proprietor of the website you originally quoted thinks (else why would "science" be the "antithesis" of religion?).
Is my understanding of the conflict between a literal reading of The
Bible and the theory of evolution correct?
Only partially. Although some religious people speak of a "literal" reading of the Bible, that is a misnomer. There is a school of Biblical hermeneutics, prominent within evangelical Christianity, that relies on what is called the "literal-historical-grammatical" approach, but even that approach allows for metaphors and other non-"literal" devices when the context allows. And, in particular, within American evangelical Christianity, there are two major and two minor schools of thought about the relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and observations from natural history.
The two major theories are the "young earth / flood geology" position and the "day-age" theory. While the young earth position holds that the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 are equivalent to 24-hour periods, the day-age position holds that the Hebrew grammar and literary context of Genesis 1 suggests that the "days" are idioms for long periods of time (as in the statement, "one day, I'll retire and spend my time playing golf").
The two minor theories are the "framework" position and "theistic evolution." The "framework" position holds that Genesis 1 and 2 present a literary structure for explaining God's creative activity but that the literary framework of "days" doesn't suggest any real connection to natural history. The "theistic evolution" position is often held in conjunction with the framework position; it holds that God initially created a universe with the essential conditions for evolution to occur, but didn't intervene further after that.
Although there is plenty of intramural debate about this within the evangelical Christian community, the "day-age" position can be considered a "literal" reading of the text, and the "framework" position, although not invoking a "literal" reading of the text in the colloquial sense, could be considered cosistent with a conservative hermeneutic which views the Bible as fully authoritative and truthful.
Specifically as to the relationship between humanity and animals, proponents of the "young earth" view, and many proponents of the "day-age" view, hold that the text of Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be reconciled with a view that humans descended from animals. However, some proponents of the "day-age" view, along with most proponents of the "framework" and "theistic evolution" views, argue that Genesis 2:7's reference to the creation of Adam from the "dust of the ground," if intended to refer at all to events in natural history, could represent a guided evolutionary process by which homo sapiens descended from other animals and subsequently was imbued with the imago Dei . This latter view is not prominent in American evangelical Christianity, although it is more widely accepted among Brittish evangelicals.
All Christian positions about the relationship between humanity and animals (including the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, which aren't surveyed here), however, reject the notion that naturalistic processes alone are sufficient to explain the development of life and the nature of humanity. Thus, when "evolution" is defined to include only unguided, naturalistic processes, this conflicts with a Christian understanding of scripture. When "evolution" is defined to mean simply change over time, that does not necessarily conflict with a Christian view of scripture.
(If you're interested in some further reading on the variety of Christian approaches to this topic, see the website of the American Scientific Affiliation, at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/index.html )
-----"Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Michael O'Hara <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10/28/2005 12:10AM
Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
Perhaps my understanding of evolution is flawed, but I never
understood evolution as speaking to the origins of life itself (i.e.,
evolution neither accepts nor rejects the proposition that life itself was
created by a deity).
See, for example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
As I understand the conflict between a literal reading of The Bible
and the theory of evolution is that the theory of evolution does speak to
the origins of --human-- life. Specifically, the theory of evolution
asserts human life sprang from forms of life preceding human life. In that
way the theory of evolution is in conflict with a literal reading of the
seven days of creation in Genesis.
See, for example,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=50
Is my understanding of the theory of evolution (propounded by the
adherents of the theory of evolution) correct?
Is my understanding of the conflict between a literal reading of The
Bible and the theory of evolution correct?
Michael
Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department Editor, Journal of Legal
Economics
College of Business Administration (402) 554 - 2014 voice fax (402)
554 - 3825
Roskens Hall 502 www.AAEFE.org <http://www.aaefe.org/>
University of Nebraska at Omaha www.JournalOfLegalEconomics.com <http://www.journaloflegaleconomics.com/>
Omaha NE 68182
[log in to unmask]
(402) 554 - 2823 voice fax (402) 554 - 2680
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm
**********************************************************
Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
**********************************************************
Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
**********************************************************
Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
**********************************************************
Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
|
