I think Steve answered this well. The word “evolutionism” is an unfortunate one, as is scientism. But thats what we got. If evolutionism were called “Potscamism” then it would be no problem to be an evolutionist whlle being and anti potscamist. For example if someone said that a particular bird evolved from an earlier type of bird by Darwinian natural selection, I would agree. (given the genetic or anatomical evidence). But 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.
Jim, Frank offers a a misconception you missed: that the sequence evidence is only some vague “similarity.” You’ll never see an evolution denialist address or explain twin nested hierarchies.
[quote=“frank_ankersly, post:6, topic:2645”]
in fact, if one were to deduct ANYTHING from the “DNA relativity” idea, one could deduce that all these life forms were designed similarly, or by the same designer…[/quote]
You’re misrepresenting the idea here, Frank.
It’s not mere similarity. If your analogy were valid, we’d see that every component in the BMWs would be slightly different, even 10-mm bolts, while in reality, many of the components of different BMWs are utterly identical or wildly different.
You see, you can’t explain the mathematical pattern of the differences, so you misrepresent the data as mere similarity. Again, in living things the components mirror the hierarchy of the assemblies. It’s remarkable and remarkably strong, but I predict you won’t even look at the evidence for yourself.
[quote] and in comparison to say GMC, one would deduce the same, but one could compare the two and logically deduce the two groups of brands have quite similar DNA (engine, transmission, 4 wheels, doors, etc, but are in fact designed and built on separate continents)…
[/quote]You’d see identical GM engines in different GMC models, so your analogy fails.
This is not merely an inference, but makes very strong predictions about where not-yet-known sequences will end up in the nested hierarchy.
1 Like
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.
Gregory, I responded to one and only one piece of what you wrote. It was your claim, “you are only an ‘evolutionist’ if you accept ‘evolutionism’”, and your assertion that this is true on logical, linguistic grounds. That point has nothing to do with biology, just linguistics, and as a piece of linguistics it is was wrong. Before I became a scientist my training was in the humanities, and I still take language seriously.
As for your broader crusade against evolutionism, it could easily be well founded. But our previous attempts to communicate on this subject have quickly degenerated into insults and rancor, and I see no reason to start down that road again.
What other linguistic option do you offer then, Steve? Biological evolution = natural scientific theory. Evolutionism = ideology (BioLogos speaks of it this way: “Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can in principle be explained by science.”) ETA: A person who studies, researches & publishes about biological evolution is an evolutionary biologist. An ideologist who promotes evolutionism is an evolutionist. Now your turn.
Yes, I am stating that “you are only an ‘evolutionist’ if you accept ‘evolutionism’.” With this in mind, if YOU personally really so badly want to be called an ‘evolutionist,’ then yes, I view you as an ideologist. The main point is, Steve, you don’t have to choose that term. What could possibly convince you, other than your (20+ years ago?) undergraduate “training in the humanities”, to change your language of communication and the way you self-label?
You appear to be a linguistic relativist with your cayenne pepper comment. That approach is imo both silly and destructive of clear communication. It makes you look uncertain and indefinite; not Christian compliments.
Are you suggesting the suffixes ‘-ism’ and ‘-ist’ are practically meaningless, easily relativised, or even simply nonsense that biologists like yourself would be happier to live without?
“One who accepts biological evolution” need not be considered an ‘ideological evolutionist.’
You may disagree with this and proudly call yourself an ‘evolutionist’ simply because you work in the field of evolutionary biology, but as it is you have provided no serious social-linguistic argument to support your position. I’m attempting to take this a step closer to clarity, so maybe you could at least credit me with that, while instead you apparently seem to prefer linguistic relativism (as Luke Skywalker yells ‘Never!!!’ to Darth Vader) from biology’s anti-humanistic pirate ship.
“words mean what they’re used to mean, and nothing else” - Steve
This echoes Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
And I would add that reductionist biological defenses of evolutionism often come across as also carrying a “rather scornful tone.” Can we not agree to disagree, if we must, as fellow theists in a friendly way, Steve? I am simply not convinced that the single field of biology holds monopolistic sway over certain terms (e.g. selection, adaptation, evolution), as you and Sy seem to believe, unless I am misunderstanding you. It is quite obvious to me from conversations and having shared office space with them that many (if not most) biologists are largely ignorant of ideology. Have you read Lewontin’s “Biology as Ideology”, Steve? It might help.
If you value clear communication, then please recognise the rather significant point that I am attempting to clarify, based on English language conventions of using the suffixes ‘-ism’ and ‘-ist’ that ‘evolutionism’ denotes an ideology and ‘evolutionists’ are ideologists. It makes no sense to me on the social level that you would wish to obfuscate the point simply as a defensive biologist. It appears you have not at all considered the benefits of holding such a position, as if it sounds to you as simply anti-biology.
As for “our previous attempts,” I don’t recall ever communicating at BioLogos with you before. Each ‘forum’ has its own environment which impacts exchanges. This is a science and faith forum. Mere skepticism isn’t rather low-brow here.
Nevertheless, if you are linguistic relativist, we’ll have trouble communicating anywhere. I reject such a confusing position.
BioLogos is against evolutionism too. Do you use the term ‘crusade’ with them?
Gregory
I think that I entirely agree with you, and I think (other than in the lingusitic sense) so does Steve. I mentioned this discussion to my wife who is a linguist and she basically agreed with you about the use of terms evolution and evolutionism, so (since she is always right) I hereby withdraw my comment regarding my unfortunate use of the word “unfortunate”.
The example she gave me was the difference between Islam and Islamist. In fact it might be interesting to consider coining a term like Christianism (held by certain Christians) which in a mirror to scientism, holds that the truth of all matters is related to one’s interpretation of Christian or biblical doctrine. Christianists would include Ken Ham and the AiG crowd as an instance, or Kim Davis as another.
Oops. Having a lingusit wife is very interesting. She has just informed me that Christianism is a well known term (meaning what I suggested) and there is a Wiki article on it.
Yeah, Andrew Sullivan uses it all the time, for example.
I don’t know why Gregory raises linguistic relativism – the idea that thought patterns are in part determined by language – here. My point was a very simple one: natural language definitions are determined by usage. Unless there is an official body with the authority to declare definitions binding by fiat, that’s what we’re stuck with.
In the case of “evolutionist”, usage is varied. Some biologists use it as a description of their job: they are scientists who study the biological theory of evolution, on analogy with physicists who study physics (and who are not adherents of the ideology of physicism). Gregory and others use it to mean someone who adheres to a broad ideology of evolution that extends well beyond the natural science in question. Creationists often use it to mean someone who adheres to a religious belief called “evolution”. This is not the same as Gregory’s evolutionism, but is rather the biological theory, viewed as a religion(*) and of course distorted in many ways. Because of these varied uses and their accompanying connotations, I find the word just about useless and almost never use it myself.
(*) Viewed negatively, that is – creationists don’t think highly of religion, it seems.
Thanks Sy. I appreciate your post and am very glad you’ve cleared this up. (And big thanks to your wife too! 
)
Btw, there is a term called ‘Christianism’ (it even has a wiki page) and also one for ‘religionists’ and ‘religionism’. Cf. William Safire: Language: The dark shades of -ists and -phobes
ETA: Oops, you guys beat me to it re: Christianism.
Let me admit I find discussing ideology VERY difficult with native English speakers (while I am one too). I’ve lived in the ‘east’ for more than a decade, where ideology is discussed much more openly and deeply than in my ‘home and native land’. ‘Capitalism’ here, for example, is not simply a ‘neutral’ economic system and ‘scientific atheism’ was widespread in society. To avoid ideology in such conditions would be simply impossible, just as would ignoring ideological ‘consumerism’, ‘environmentalism,’ ‘neo-liberalism’ or ‘neo-conservatism’ today in N. America.
In N. America, somewhat more in the USA than in Canada, there still seems to be a (generation relative) shadow of Marxism which suggests that ideology = ‘false consciousness’ or ‘political’ distortion, e.g. as Eddie’s baby boomer theological education taught. Safire reflects this in the link above. Today, though, with memes, second screens, democratism, marketism and generally more global opportunities for communication, a new view of ideology, perhaps closer to the original ‘science of ideas’ by Comte de Tracy, but updated is needed. We all face McLuhan’s ‘information overload,’ with electronic communication capabilities, after all.
I recall in the BioLogos (& AAAS posted) “What is scientism?” thread with historian/philosopher/communicator of science Thomas Burnett, that he was unwilling to call ‘scientism’ an ideology, as I suggested to him (this was before ‘scientism’ was added on the questions and resources pages as specifically what BioLogos opposes). This seems to be the same situation here with the term ‘evolutionism’ for Jim in this thread. It seems, for whatever reason(s), people either don’t want to be called or don’t want to label someone an ideologist, even when the term is suitable.
Once one distinguishes ideologies from mere sciences or humanities, however, let me suggest that a huge new conversation, not necessarily draped Marxism or Althusser’s or Marcuse’s notions of ideology (& ‘state apparatus’), science and knowledge is made possible. It can significantly help the BioLogos mission, once ‘creationism’ is deemed ideological, along with evolutionism. Is this a step that BioLogos may eventually take?
Steve,
I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue here at this ‘science and faith’ venue.
You say: “words mean what they’re used to mean, and nothing else.” To me, this is ‘linguistic relativism.’ See the classic linguistic relativist Humpty Dumpty quotation above.
I’m aware that usage of ‘evolutionist’ is varied. Creationists misused it in the 20th century and many of them continue to misuse it now. What I’m asking for is more in-depth philosophical and sociological thinking about designations of terms.
Please understand, Steve, that if you lump me in with creationists you are making a grave mistake. I am not a creationist, not a young earther. I openly accept the reality of divine Creation, but this does not make me an ideological creationist. Many of our common opponents, however, will reject this careful distinction. To them, anyone who believes in divine Creation qualifies as a ‘creationist.’ Shall we not work together to dispel this myth once and for all? 
“Gregory and others use it to mean someone who adheres to a broad ideology of evolution[ism] that extends well beyond the natural science in question.” - Steve
Yes, that is a fair characterisation (with the ‘-ism’ added). I’ve written one book, already published about this, and the 2nd will be ready next week. Please understand that many, many, many, many scholars have used the term ‘evolution’ and its cognates “beyond the natural science in question.” If you can find a few people anywhere in the world who have studied this linguistic phenomenon of ‘evolution’ and ‘evolutionism/evolutionist’ more closely and carefully than I have, please introduce us. (e.g. I was hosted at MIT a few years back as part of my research on this, Steve, in case that resonates with your locality.)
“Some biologists use it [evolutionist] as a description of their job: they are scientists who study the biological theory of evolution, on analogy with physicists who study physics (and who are not adherents of the ideology of physicism).” - Steve
Then they should properly take offense to ‘gravitationalists’ or ‘Copenhagenists’, but not to being called ‘physicists.’ Do you see the difference, Steve? Biologists are simply not qualified to presume to be judges on this topic.
To me, as a sociologist of science, to take the label ‘evolutionist’ is to admit one is an ideologist. Period. There is no need to call oneself an ‘evolutionist’ when one can simply call themselves an ‘evolutionary biologist’ and avoid the problem. Other options are available to avoid this perception.
You are not promoting ‘evolutionism’ as an ideology, right Steve? If not, then please stop calling yourself an ‘evolutionist.’ If you are promoting evolutionism and calling yourself an ‘evolutionist’, then you have a lot of explaining to do at BioLogos, a site and people which reject evolutionism.
The caveat, of course, is that I am not calling all biologists ‘ideologists.’ In short, there are a few professions which are denoted by adding the suffix ‘ist’ which are not ideologists (a list is available; e.g. violinist, typist, artist, etc.). That point is openly granted. But from a sociological perspective, in the attempt to clarify conversation regarding ideology, in the majority of cases, adding an ‘-ist’ denotes an ideologist. ‘Evolutionist’ is no valid exception.
So, I think we agree, Steve,; it is sad that the ‘creationists’ have muddied the communications on this topic. Are you ready to join me speaking sociologically against both creationists and evolutionists?
“creationists don’t think highly of religion, it seems” - Steve
That is, of course, except for the creationists at BioLogos, who call themselves ‘evolutionary creationists.’ They think very highly of religion, it seems. Don’t you agree, Steve?
Regarding #4: No new information can be added to DNA through natural processes.
Yes it can. Any reasonable definition of “new information” in this context has to mean something like “instructions to build something useful that weren’t there before.” That happens a lot through genetic mutations and gene duplication.
“No new information…” may be a true misconception. I think the truth, however, is that new USEFUL information is added only VERY RARELY to DNA through natural processes. Consider the long-running drosophila experiments for example. Which mutations have added useful information in this fruit fly? What new species of creature is it evolving into?
I agree with the commenter who said your “misconceptions” have been carefully constructed as strawman statements to attack rather than to illuminate true challenges to the theory of evolution.
Hi Orion. Thanks for the comments. As I said to a previous commenter, these misconceptions are not intended to be the best objections to evolution; they are “misconceptions”-- things people actually believe and perpetuate. So in that sense this is not a strawman. Useful information really can be added to a genome through mutations. There are plenty of other good challenges to evolution (e.g., can random mutations and natural selection really be the sole mechanisms of evolution?). Clearing away the misconceptions may help some to focus on them.
Hi James,
I’d be curious as to where you’ve read or heard this misconception (#4) stated?
Here for starters: Evidence of New Genetic Information? | Answers in Genesis
Then you could go here: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (N.b., the argument creationists shouldn’t use is “There are no beneficial mutations”; that’s not true, they admit, but instead creationists are supposed to say you can’t get new information of the kind required for “molecules to man” evolution).
Now, you might object that these organizations aren’t quite saying it the way I did; they’re a little more cagey. But the message that filters down is definitely that: https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/2rx8bd/can_mutations_add_information_to_a_genome/ There are gobs of this kind of thing out there.
Since when do scientists in this field believe that random mutations and natural selection are the sole mechanisms of evolution?
Sigh. Another argument purely about terminology.
We can say something about actual usage in this case:
The term “evolutionist” is used in reference to the strictly biological theory quite early – 1873, and by Darwin himself, in the 6th edition of The Origin of Species. The reference can be found in the full-sized Oxford English Dictionary. So the term “evolutionist” is no modern, confused application of a suffix by some recent writer, muddling things by changing established usage; it was used (if not coined) by Darwin himself, very early in the game, not long after Darwin’s theory was introduced.
Gregory can of course choose to use the word “evolutionist” in a special way – to refer only to an ideology and never to the simple biological theory; I would have no objection to that; but no one has given him authority to tell others – including Darwin! – that they are wrong to use the word in a different way – indeed, probably in the original way!
If Gregory were to argue: “It would be less confusing if everyone were to reserve “evolutionist” for an ideology and “evolution” for the biological theory” – I would see some sense in that. But Gregory is not simply recommending the adoption of a helpful distinction. He is rather dogmatically stating that other people’s usage is wrong.
It seems to me that there has been a similar argument before, about “Darwinism,” in which Gregory claimed that “Darwinism” never meant the biological theory, but only an ideology. At that point numerous historical examples were presented, ranging over several decades from the early 20th century to the early 21st century, which proved that “Darwinism” was in fact used, by leading scientists, philosophers, etc. to mean exactly what Gregory said it did not mean and could not mean, i.e., a biological theory alone, with no ideological overtones. And if memory serves – and I would gladly be corrected if I’m wrong, because I don’t want to make a false accusation – Gregory either did not reply to the detailed enumeration of counter-evidence, or refused to concede the legitimacy of the usage despite the empirical evidence.
It now appears that “evolutionism” is getting the same prescriptive treatment as “Darwinism” received before.
I myself use context when I am talking to people. If it is very plain to me, from context, that someone calling himself an “evolutionist” is referring strictly to a scientific theory, I don’t complain about the person’s language. I know what he means, and I get on with discussing the substance. And if I don’t know what he means, I simply ask: “How are you using the world ‘evolutionist’?”
It’s usually pretty easy to tell what someone means when he says he is an “evolutionist”, because usually the comment is embedded in a conversation and therefore there is plenty of context. As an abstract, isolated sentence, “I am an evolutionist” is not clear; but in context, there is usually little difficulty. It is the same with “evolutionary creationist.” I have no doubt at all that BioLogos writers, when they use the term, mean “a person who thinks God created by means of evolution.” I know that they aren’t referring to any “ideology” and I know they don’t mean they are “creationists” in the sense that Ken Ham is a “creationist.” The meaning of the term in context being transparent to me, I don’t complain about it.
If Gregory honestly doesn’t know what people mean when they say “Darwinist” or “evolutionist” or “evolutionary creationist” etc. then it is of course perfectly fair for him to ask for clarification. But I get the sense that Gregory does know what they mean, and knows that they aren’t referring to any “ideology” in these cases, but merely to evolution as a biological theory. So his objection seems to be not that their meaning is not clear, but that their choice of words is insufficiently systematic for his taste. I don’t see that such judgments of verbal taste are worth arguing about.
[Note: I shortened this post from an earlier version, which in my view was too long and repetitive.]
And yet BioLogos (and others) make much of the distinction between science and scientism - the argument MUST consider semantics to distinguish a biological paradigm from an ideology, because Darwinian thinking is semantic based - otherwise the entire debate becomes farcical.
1 Like
Thanks James,
The first link was interesting. I had previously written off answersingenesis, but that article is pretty good.
The second link didn’t work for me, and the last one leads to a comment section of an evolution website (??).
Irregardless of what any of these people are saying, I don’t believe that mutation and selection can account for the creation of new species. For me, that’s not a religious prejudice. I just think it’s totally unproven and the burden remains on the evolutionists to defend. It’s speculation. And as a Christian, I wish you wouldn’t foist this stuff on church congregations.