By way of introduction I want first to distinguish between several types of pluralism; then I want to consider more closely the pluralism of norms and values in order to formulate, finally, the problem that is central to this essay, the problem of particular versus universal norms.
Renewed attention on Darwin over the last few years has not brought to a halt the clash between belief in creation and the theory of evolution. In Christian circles, too, opinions clash. In this article, the author sketches the diverse positions of creationism, Intelligent Design, and Theistic Evolution. He formulates his reservations against these three approaches and suggests that both evolutionary science and the biblical faith in creation need to be re-examined. Over against philosophical materialism or naturalism, on which evolution theory is usually based, he introduces a theory of emergent evolution. The process of evolution had its starting point in physical reality but has shown stepwise novelties at crucial moments. In successive organisms, irreducible new ways of being came to the fore. Evolution includes chance, but the ascent to higher modal levels of being refers to plan and purpose in the phylogenetic development of life. Not in theory but in faith, we can see evolution and its ascending line as being embedded in the creation order. However, the creation message of Genesis 1 does not only concern what happened in the past. It is a dynamic motive and includes liturgical and prophetic references to a new world of shalom.
The author enters into discussion with colleagues about their comments regarding Purpose in the Living World? and the theory of emergent evolution. First he discusses the alleged irrationality of emergence, the intimate connection between material and living nature, and the questionability of type-laws in the manner of Dooyeweerd. He then addresses the topic of purpose in evolution and the impasse in the evolutionary debate between Dooyeweerd and Lever, colleagues at the VU University in Amsterdam. Finally he considers whether the theory of emergence is correct in its appeal to Augustine, and whether it is in agreement with the concept of theistic evolution.
Over de vraag hoe geloof en verstand zich onderling verhouden, bestaat geen communis opinio; ook in het verleden is die er nooit geweest. Integendeel, de filosofiehistorie vertoont een complexe verscheidenheid van opvattingen. In dit artikel heb ik deze geordend in een beperkt aantal grondschema’s of grondmodellen. Ik breng zeven van die grondmodellen ter sprake, en duid ze kortweg aan met de termen identificatie, conflict, subordinatie, complementariteit, fundering, authenticiteit en transformatie. Mijn analyse laat zien hoe deze modellen, eenmaal present op het publieke forum, zich blijvend doen gelden, tot op de dag van vandaag. Hun sterke en zwakke kanten dagen ons uit tot een eigen standpuntbepaling in het debat over religie en rede.
In this article, following an indication of Meijer C. Smit, I make a basic distinction between the first and the second history. By the first history I mean history as we experience it from within on the basis of personal interest and active involvement in our historical past. The second history is history as academics construct it on the basis of critical research into historical facts. The central question that arises is that of how these two paradigms of history are related. I discuss commemoration as one of the most telling expressions of our involvement in the first history. I analyze it as a hermeneutic, dialogical, and anamnetic experience contrasting anamnetic and academic history as experienced versus constructed history: is the latter value-free? I conclude with the question whether we must regard commemoration as serviceable to the project of academic history or the latter as serviceable to commemoration.