Re: Evolution: A Legoist Perspective

Padraic Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Note misspelling of "legoist" (legioist) in the second line.
> [Author response: The misspelling has been corrected.  
Leave it to me to misspell the word that I coined. Thank you for
pointing out my error.]
> 
A theory based on Lego! I love it!
> [Author response: I just hope that the Lego Company doesn't sue me for copyright 
> infringement.]
> 
Naturally, your first stumbling block around here will be your
assumption that Gods exist. There is no direct evidence, that we know
of, either for against the existence of Gods. You might want to make
this, the acceptance of faith in Gods, the first Assertion. This is an
extremely fundamental part of the Legoist's world view and it should
be made known in a prominent fashion.
> 
[Author response: In my essay I do not assume that a god exists. I
merely pointed out that if a god were to exist then there would be no
limit to what he could do.  For example, if he were to exist, then
there would be nothing to stop him from putting evolution into
motion.]
> 

Assertion 1: science is based on evaluating theories based on data.
>[Author response: A Legoist is someone who does not have the
competency needed to evaluate scientific theories.]
> 
Assertion 2: a good one, but implicit in the evolutionist side of the
argument. Scientists (pace atheists!) can neither confirm nor deny the
existence of Gods. Scientists also know that the Theory of Evolution
has nothing to do with Gods, even if there are Gods - it's all to do
with the later development of the Gods' creation.

>[Author response: Assertion #2 merely restates what is stated in
TalkOrigin's FAQs.]

> Assertion 3: I don't think the evolutionists will disagree. Scientists
(biologists in this case) like to work with observational and
experimental data - dusty manuscripts aren't much use.
> 
> Assertion 4: Fair enough. The legoists are clearly theists of some
sort, though you make it sound too much like a Christian / monotheists
only club - it is appropriate that they understand and state the
understanding that their scientific understanding countermands their
religious literature.
> 
[Author response: I make no mention of Christianity in my essay. In
fact I begin Assertion #4 by using Hebrew terminology.  The only
reason that I use the Greek name "Genesis" is because most
English-speaking people do not know Hebrew terminology.  Furthermore,
in Assertion #4 I cite Jewish theologians, not Christian ones.

Regarding the appearance of a promotion of monotheism, I have changed
my definition of a Legoist.  Now it states, ". . . a philosophy which
says that if a god or gods exist, then he/they has/have the ability .
. ."

I do not intend for Legoism to be for theists only. Unfortunately, I
cannot avoid addressing theological issues because most (if not all)
opposition to Evolution Theory is based on theology.

By the way, science does not necessarily countermand religious
literature.  It does, however, give insight as to how religious
literature is to be interpreted.  In his book "Rock of Ages" the late
Stephen Jay Gould states,

"So long as religious beliefs do not dictate specific answers to
empirical questions or foreclose the acceptance of documented facts,
the most theologically devout scientists should have no trouble
pursuing their day jobs with equal zeal."(p. 84)

 Assertion 5: No arguments from me.
> 
> A little too Bible-centric and way too Christianocentric - but then
> again, it's usually Christian fundamentalists and Christian
> Creationists that argue the creation point of view around here!
> 
>[Author response: Regarding my reference to the Tanakh book of
Bereshith, I make reference to the book because most of the
anti-evolution people I encounter base their opposition to evolution
on their interpretation of Bereshith.

Again, my essay makes no reference to Christianity.  Granted I cite an
evolutionist who has a Christian backgroud (Miller), but I also cite
Gould, and he had a Jewish background. Gould, by the way, was an
agnostic with personal leanings toward atheism (Reference: Rock of
Ages).]

For what it's worth, I don't think I'd call Legoism a "neutral"
> position. Personally, I agree with much of this - and I don't consider
> my own position "neutral". By accepting the standards and methods of
> Science (i.e., by accepting the reality of evolution and Theory of
> Evolution that explains it); ánd by believing in something beyond the
> mundane (Gods, if you will), the Legoist clearly plants one foot in
> both camps. Something that doesn't always sit well with either
> evolutionary atheists or creational religionists.
> 
> >[Author response: In his TalkOrigins essay "Naturalism: Is It Necessary?"
Dr. John Wilkins makes the following statement:

"A final form of naturalism is ontological naturalism. This is the
opinion that all that exists is natural. Many scientists are also
physicalists. They argue that if we do not need to postulate the
reality of non-physical processes for science, then we can conclude
that there are no such things. This argument is too quick. The claim
that ‘if A then B' explains B may be true, but there may also be a C
that explains B. Moreover, many things in the physical world are cause
by many things together rather than just a few. So, we might say that
a physical event is caused by both God and by physical causes, without
being logically inconsistent."

The error in logic that Dr. Wilkins describes is called "affirming the
consequent".

In Assertion #5 I state, "The legoist adheres to the principle of
non-overlapping magisteria, which says that science does not belong to
the same magisterium that philosophy and theology are in."
The late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould promoted the concept of non-overlapping
magisterium.  He had no objection to someone being a theist while
believing the Theory of Evolution.]



Keep us apprised of your progress!
> 
> Padraic.
> >[Author response: Thank you for your feedback.  I have already made changes to my 
> >essay based on this feedback.
Peace.]