It seems for Christy, then, there are no sociobiological threats to linguistics & anthropology or to USA society? Sociobiology simply doesn’t exist for Christy and it’s links to evolutionary psychology are impossible to point out. And though Christy might just have expressed here a “sociobiologized view of linguistics” in saying what she did, though she can easily deny that because she hasn’t read Wilson himself, what we should look at instead is how evolutionism & naturalism can sneak up on people unrecognized & reveal themselves in their choice of terms.
While it is undoubtedly true that some “linguists say languages evolve,” as you say, Christy. It is also true that other linguists (& not just fringe ones!) don’t say that “languages evolve,” but rather look scientifically at how languages change and develop, etc. Do you wish to argue with that fact? Please speak clearly & directly to this one point, as I’m finding the continuity of your claims hard to follow.
I would advise you to become more careful with making loose generalizations - e.g. “Linguists say”. 1) You simply can’t speak for all linguists & in this case I’m curious if you’ve even studied the ‘great controversy’ of origins in your field. 2) This one can so easily be shown wrong in the literature.
Sorry for Christy’s moderator oversight, but no, not all linguists say (or believe) that languages evolve. (Including the largely most cited one in the game!) That is a point of fact that a humble BioLogos moderator, a good balanced communicator should easily and willfully acknowledge … happily in acceptance of truth. I am not asking for more than truth, Christy. I am not trying to rival you, but to show what it does not appear you have yet seen. And this is something crucial in understanding religion in the Abrahamic faiths, not just in/for a pocket niche of evangelicals uplifting natural science.
Let me add that Christy’s so-called “standard” is also easily shown as “naturalized” in the contemporary field of linguistics. It is a naturalized, not a theological ‘standard’ that Christy now appears to be appealing us to with her evolutionary linguistics promotions. The turn to semiotics and biological semiotics is fascinating for what it is now opening, but leading science is not a BioLogos priority compared with de-converting YEC evangelicals.
Please watch your assumptions more carefully, Christy, than you are now doing. The Logos in BioLogos betrays a standard naturalised reading of Scripture, as you are likely aware. We can be more inspired and inspiring on this site than that, so please stop dipping into the secular humanist barrel for your ideas & notations. The people you might appeal to as authorities in your evolutionized linguistics aren’t role models for their naturalization of humanity, in so far as it costs theological understanding of human identity. It may be that your husband’s cultural reading of Logos & Scripture speaks louder on important topics here than your scientific-naturalised reading of Logos & Scripture, don’t you think?
So, respectfully to what you are trying to do in linguistics, anthropology & missionary work, please stop trying to naturalise linguistics using evolutionistics (that in other social sciences & humanities you claim repeatedly is disallowed & morally wrong, thus contradicting yourself with your own field!), especially as you haven’t even read some/many of the key texts (e.g. Wilson & Wilson) needed to have an understanding of the difficulties involved in making some of your claims.
BioLogos, does this translate into: evolution made easy for everyone - theistic version, just like D.S. Wilson says … except for the double truth dilemma involved?