@glipsnort
@Sy_Garte
Let’s be clear, guys: the issue here is communication, not biology. I am not in your biology classroom and don’t want to be in it. My contribution to this conversation is not about biology. You are both biologists, respectfully, so it is not at all surprising you take a similar position. Please try to hear a different position than you are used to on this topic, a topic on which biologists do not possess universal ownership.
The title of the thread is “Misconceptions of Evolution” not “Misconceptions of Biological Evolution.”
You sound like you are both trying to teach me something about which you most likely have very little knowledge, experience or training. Let me reiterate: I research and write specifically on this topic professionally. If you’d like a link, I’m willing to provide it. If you are not willing to listen to my argument and honestly consider what I have to say at a site like this (‘science and faith’), then there is little hope of progress. You’ll just continue to appear as biological reductionists. To be clear: I’m not in any way trying to attack you as biologists or biology as a field of study; I’m rather attempting to show you that there are other important voices that are not being heard re: ‘evolution’ which make a HUGE difference on this highly interdisciplinary topic. Will you at least try to listen?
For Steve, the term ‘evolutionist’ could mean: “one who likes the taste of cayenne pepper”. C’mon guys, that’s just being petty. You make biologists look foolish when you say such things.
“if I were told that smart phones evolved from flip phones by Darwinian natural selection, I would suggest that while such evolution (meaning change in this context) might seem to follow some of the parameters of NS, the actual mechanism of the appearance of smart phones was entirely different.” – Sy
Yes, Sy, I agree! We are not in disagreement about this. You are saying smart phones don’t evolve from flip phones by ‘(neo-)Darwinian’ natural selection. For the love of fellow man, please say you understand that I agree with you. Biological ‘methods’ (whether Darwinian, post-Darwinian or non-Darwinian) simply won’t cut it; they are irrelevant on this theme. So, yes, we are in full agreement here, Sy.
So here’s the rub. What you call ‘the appearance of’ smart phones (& other technologies) is not just a passive environmental phenomenon, lacking human agency, i.e. teleological action. It is based on innovation, investment and risk. It involves activities that cannot be reduced to mere biology or even ‘behaviours.’ To understand what goes on, one must elevate from that level of ‘scientific’ analysis. One must climb up the ladder of causes and effects to the human realm of manufacture to study inventions and novelties, whether in technology or any human-made institution.
Please have a look again at my Misconception #11 above. It is quite detailed wrt scholars and fields and clearly addresses the point about ‘evolution’ you are making from the ‘other’ side, as a non-biologist. Let’s leave poor Charles Robert Darwin out of this because he is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to thinking about socio-cultural or technological change and development. A.R. Wallace is more relevant, with his ‘human selection’ and in ‘science and faith’ conversation, with his rejection of Darwin’s atheism/agnosticism. But likewise, he is still not a major figure for either socio-cultural change or non-evolutionary change. People do commit their lives and careers to exploring technological progress and development, guys, and yes, though it may bother you (as it does also me), some of them use the term ‘evolution’ to describe ‘technological change.’ Do you doubt or deny this?
Would it be wrong to suggest that you both are largely unaware of, or at least, not well versed in the people and the ways ‘evolution’ is (mis-)used in social sciences and humanities, and indeed in colloquial usage on a general scale? This is one of the giant weaknesses at BioLogos in their token rejection of ‘evolutionism’ so far.
“The word ‘evolutionism’ is an unfortunate one, as is scientism.” – Sy
I disagree. ‘Evolutionism’ is an important and specific term that helps clarify what happens when evolutionary theories are applied beyond their ‘proper’ boundaries and limits. So, Sy & Steve, what are the proper boundaries and limits of evolutionary theories? Does ‘everything’ evolve in your perspectives? Answering this would help with the ‘Misconceptions of [not only biological] Evolution’ topic.
When Sy writes, in another thread, “In Church I have been very clear about my pro evolution views,” has he also been very clear about his anti-evolutionism views, a position that BioLogos holds, at least minimally? BioLogos appears caught on the anti-evolutionism, but not anti-evolutionist dilemma, as evidenced by Jim’s agreement and then no second answer to my posts above in this thread.
Guys, please understand the importance of making this distinction between evolution and evolutionism and between people who accept limited biological evolution and evolutionists for interdisciplinary communication. I’m not going to criticise your biology; please do me the honour of looking carefully at my argument instead of frivolously invoking cayenne peppers, ok?
And what do you mean by ‘unfortunate’, Sy? Is it that the term is aimed at and used to expose chronic ideological misuses in the name of biological science? Do you really think those misuses don’t exist (cf. Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins by Dennis Alexander and Ronald Numbers, 2010)?! If so, then you are against BioLogos’ stated rejection of scientism. Personally, I view this as important and also essential for science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse. Sometimes way too confident biologists (usually atheists) need to humble themselves and learn their rightful place if/when they think their field is much more important in interdisciplinary conversation than it actually is.
Similarly the term ‘scientism’ serves an important communicative function, which prevents the promotion of (natural-physical) science from becoming ideological. Here’s a BioLogos article, Sy - What is Scientism? - BioLogos. Sorry to have to say it, but the suggestion you made in this thread dismissing the proper and important usage of ‘evolutionism’ and ‘scientism’ almost sounds chauvinistic coming from a (natural-physical) scientist who doesn’t seem to be aware of the volumes of work that have been done on scientism and evolutionism. And as a man of Christian faith, this claim of ‘unfortunate’ rather than awareness of the communicative ‘importance’ is really not a position you need to take.