From my experience, scientists don’t really care what it is called. For the vast, vast majority of scientists it is simply the theory of evolution. In the 1940’s and 50’s it was also called the Modern Synthesis, describing the combination of Darwin’s earlier theory with modern understandings of genetics.
If you are interested in the history of how the theory of evolution was developed then I would suggest a really cool and well written essay by Ernst Mayr called “80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery”.
Mayr wrote that essay when he turned 100 years old, and he recounts his own experiences during the era when modern genetics came to the forefront. He describes the different camps within biology, and how it all shook out when genetics was melded together with Darwin’s theory. Just a snippet from the essay:
“By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery’s demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair.”
This reminds me of a quote from Darwin, which you might find interesting. As science started finding natural processes that explained the world around us there was some backlash among some philosophers and theologians, and it wasn’t limited to just evolution. Some even objected to Newton’s idea that gravity was a mechanistic in nature.
“It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers … I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, “as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion.” A celebrated author and divine has written to me that “he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.””
— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)
That quote is an interesting time capsule from a time when the theory of evolution was first put forward. Thought you might find it interesting.
I think you are using terminology different than others on this site. I don’t want to say there is no difference in reality between your views and others’, but I want to urge you to consider that terminology barriers may be causing a good bit of the frustration.
GJDS’s views make sense to me compared with the hard to pin down, sometimes near relativistic “open philosophy” approach of liberal Protestantism. GJDS’s reflect a more orthodox relationship between science and faith than most others here, that should be easy to admit. And that could be part of the problem too, don’t you think, Chris; the obvious moves towards unorthodoxy by ideologue evolutionists that GJDS indicated?
Please don’t forget that one of the BioLogos mods recently referred to the “theological constraints” of other Christians without acknowledging home denomination “theological constraints”. So yes, let us remember that terminology is used differently sometimes by BioLogos people than is used by mainstream Christians too.
I am surprised at the response(s) to what has been standard theological discussion for almost 2000 yrs. The distinction between “energies” and “activities” may require a degree of theological understanding that is beyond many of the commenters on this site, but the rest is about as standard as it gets.
I am disappointed that almost all have adopted such a response, instead of seeking to clear their somewhat confused outlooks on the theological implications I am alluding to. If, instead of expressing an extraordinary need to defend ToE, some spend the time to become acquainted with the theology, some may share in my outlook that ALL of the physical sciences, in whatever degree of theoretical stage, are underpinned by the intelligibility of the creation, and as such would deserve the same level of scrutiny. I think that seeking deeper insights into the Orthodox teaching on the energies of God as the basis for the creation and sustaining it, may also provide insights on the QM world, including the indeterminacy and related matters.
For the time being (it is by now that I look to the expended energies of GJDS), I cannot spend any more time on this subject. If you manage to get back to me on the issues on the paper, I will converse with you again.
I have referred to Fuller because his comments can be “lumped up” with other views from PoS. I am not endorsing his (or other views), and as you have noticed, I keep trying to bring the conversation to science and faith. The task is difficult because many seem motivated to either “defend” ToE, and/or make a hash of orthodox theology - truly a mess.
So, if I understand you correctly, suggesting that God is involved in making rain and other distinctive weather events is also jeopardizing the transcendent nature of God?
What exactly is the Bible telling us when it talks about God shaping the weather? Isn’t there any way of receiving that information without jeopardizing the very theology that the Bible is also trying to present? Surely there must be, or there would be no need for the Bible to do anything so dangerous as to say that God made it rain, or made it windy, or made it hot.
Or are you creating a red herring, so that you can keep the ToE as the ugly step-child of the natural sciences?
Ernst Mayr was the Grand Old Man (literally) of Evolutionary Theory.
He formulated the reproductive compatibility criteria for a species.
Ironically, this criteria is quite consistent with the Genesis language of each generation of animal from its own kind. It’s the perfect coincidence for a group like BioLogos!
If 2 strange animals cannot produce offspring, then they are not of the same kind. Boom.
Full stop! Drop the microphone!
None of this wishy-washy a kind is anything we want it to be stuff.
A horse and a donkey? Not the same kind! Mules are not fertile offspring.
A hyena and a wolf? Not the same kind!
A tiger and a lion? Well … woah there. They can produce fertile offspring. So the old phenotypical definitions might persist out of a sake of tradition - - but some of these felines are really more sub-species than fully differentiated species.
The biggest burden seems to be how to convince a YEC that once a group of animals are no longer reproductively unified to another population, that new group can eventually become anything, look like anything, without any permission from the “Religious Species” or “Religious Kind” Police !
Thanks for this apology, Dredge. I think your new title is an improvement. They sometimes go too far defending evolution here at BioLogos that it seems to turn into the ideology of evolutionism. They don’t seem overly occupied with Darwin, though, and the term “Darwinist” doesn’t really seem to fit anyone here, except perhaps like one biologist above who seems to think “Darwinism” means simply “natural selection” & “common descent.” It will likely take biologists pushing back against each other, as some have done, and as the Third Way and Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is curiously starting to do, to get Darwinist ideology cleansed from their ranks.
This put me in mind of a recently shared article here that does discuss Darwin’s theories and their process of acceptance by the biological community. I found this part particularly interesting:
“The paradigm of Darwinian evolution was not a single theory, as Darwin always insisted, but was actually composed of five quite independent theories.* Two of these were readily accepted by the Darwinians: the simple fact of evolution (the “non-constancy of species” as Darwin called it) and the branching theory of common descent. The other three—gradual evolution, the multiplication of species, and natural selection—were accepted by only a minority of Darwin’s followers. Indeed, these three theories were not universally accepted until the so-called Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1940s.”
Perhaps you would be interested in clarifying which of these, if any, are the ‘Darwinian ideology’ that needs to be cleansed from the ranks of biologists? Or perhaps it’s elsewhere in the article? I feel sure it ought to be somewhere, I’m just not sure exactly where to look.
Very well - it is false to suggest that I, or any sane person, would suggest the is “a lack of math in evolut…” It is ludicrous to think any discipline of natural science does not use maths - thus I repudiate such nonsense attributed to me, and I am currently discussing some maths suggested to me on an area of evolutionary biology.
Hi Lynn, not sure what your point is. Is it the “there’s no ideology in Mayr” position? There’s no ideology promoted by evolutionary biologists … ever - they just do science neutrally, wink, nudge, etc.? I’ve already cited Dennis Alexander’s work here at BioLogos showing that is untrue. So, please clarify your main point.
I would not say that. Dawkins is a fine example of an evolutionary biologist promoting an ideology. (I’m not saying his ideology is fine…) But you seem to attribute objectionable ideology to Darwin personally and/or “Darwinists,” whatever that means. I was wondering if you cared to clarify, since as far as I’m aware, Darwin isn’t particularly known for promoting ideology over solid data and science.
I ran a quick search for any of your comments mentioning Dennis Alexander and didn’t find what you were referring to, would you mind pointing me there?