What - no Monkey Trial?

It's interesting that some philosophers and historians are talking about the evolution of technology.

This is particularly apparent in pre-scientific craft-traditions. Societies have traditional received methods for working stone, metal, pottery and designing tools. As time goes on, craftsmen push the envelope and get creative. Lacking the theoretical framework of physics, chemistry and metallurgy, they rely on guesswork and on seat-of-the-pants intuition based on a lifetime of practical experience.

Some new ideas don't pan out. They are no better than techniques already in use, and probably considerably worse in most cases. Tradition, after all, is the distilled experience of past generations. But a few new innovations are definite improvements, either because they work better or because they suit local ideas of what's stylish. They catch on and after a few generations they are what every craftsman learns and become part of the received tradition.

Recently scholars have begun applying evolutionary theory to the history of technology, treating museum examples of tools as if they were fossils.

 

thoughts on evolution and evangelical Christianity

I'm no scientist.

I know plenty of Christians who feel deeply threatened and insecure about the evolution "debate," a debate which only takes place, I would add, among Christians (and/or Jews or other theistic believers who deny metaphysical naturalism).

I see the the "fact" of microevolution clearly. I have some questions about "macro" evolution.

Basically, I see our educational culture as epi-genetically informed by metaphysical naturalism, a ministry that preaches the anthropic principle when it comes to questions of design and practices a materialism that is pre-interpreted for us by the priesthood of scientists. Why do saltationists still exist if the facts about macro-evolution were clear?

For this reason, stories like the one above don't surprise me. It would be just fine to give such a recommendation based on merit in a class, etc., if one were not at the same time inviting another person into a social club, a priesthood that exists to minister metaphysical naturalism and throw off the superstitions that hamper the progress of humanity toward global, ecological paradise.

It is a necessary thing for this priesthood to exist in our culture because of the separation of church and state. Religion can do what it wants just as long as it doesn't have anything to do with the facts and the truth. This is our distinctly western, individualistic way of making peace and glossing over the enmity that sin brings into relationships.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with evolutionary facts and I would really like the time to learn more about it. What I have a problem with is cultural hegemony, and that, perhaps because I am and evangelical Christian, is what I see.

Another thing, these are generalizations. Because of the advent of postmodern thought, which can only be helpful to evangelical, perhaps even fundamentalist Christians at this point, such belief communities can be respected even though they appear anachronistic and reactionary.

Last: I'm not a literal-6-day-creationist, and I have my textual reasons for not being one. They aren't simple justifications, like others who try to merge two cultural titans together. I just have some observations that I think make the 6th day creationism a less natural reading than our English translations dictate. To me, this is a tragedy.

Chris

 

UPDATE: Dini Rewords Policy; DoJ Inquiry Closed

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/April/03_crt_247.htm

 

Question about Darwin's Theory

I am currently reading about Darwin's theory of "Clustering" as it relates to business and competition. Does anyone here know of other ways in which this the clustering theory has been adapted?

Roscoe