6 posts were split to a new topic: Biological Mongenesis and theological constraints of various streams of Christianity
A post was split to a new topic: Why is it that genetic similarity = common descent? Isn’t that an interpretation not an observation?
Chris,
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?
1 Like
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 !
1 Like
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.
1 Like
GJDS has had his false claims about the lack of math in evolutionary biology corrected many, many times.
1 Like
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.
[edited by moderator]
1 Like
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.
Thanks, Al-Khalil
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?
If you mean me, you’ve seriously misread my comments. “Darwinism” isn’t a term I use, and I generally don’t know what people mean by it.
3 Likes
And that would be different from my characterization of your comments as “the lack of math in evolutionary biology” in what way?
Here are two examples:
Question: why would you read and cite PoSc on these matters, instead of the primary evolutionary biology literature?
Creationists tend to turn conversations into “EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!11!” when they can no longer address the evidence. It’s a way of trying to smear the messenger so that people will ignore the message.
Evolution is no different than any other theory in science.[quote=“Al-Khalil, post:318, topic:35756”]
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.
[/quote]
The EES is nothing more than flashy salesmanship. When you look at the actual science of EES it falls apart pretty quick.
1 Like
You have made mention, but I fail to see what the claimed ideologies are. What are they? What are these ideologies you keep speaking of?
1 Like
So, then I’m glad we’re on the same page. I don’t generally use the term “Darwinism” either, unless I’m clearly dealing with a “Darwinist” who is trying to push it. It is a largely useless term nowadays, except for it has remained in the vocabularies of a significant # of the kinds of people BioLogos is catering to who continue to use it.
I’ll side with Sy_Garte on this one, and with some of the other biologists who are fascinated by what EES means for the field biology. A colleague and friend of mine is very upset about the 11 million, apparently being “wasted” on trying to extend the Modern Synthesis. But of course there are always backwards-looking people (historians) in any discipline or academic field, while people on the cutting edge explore new opportunities and ideas. Kevin Laland would handle your ‘concerns’ rather well, anonymous blogger @T_aquaticus, as would Dennis Noble, I assume. If anyone around here had heard of John Dupre, a little philosophy may help too. We’re simply not going backwards to the way it used to be anymore in biology, folks! We need some new language and let the biologists have their messy quarrel (but there is no quarrel, right? nobody is supposed to be quarreling, except for when they disagree, without consensus in the field). The 99% non-biologists will watch, many of us amused at the denials. Start another thread on EES if you like. It’s BioLogos that should be doing this if they had a wider view.
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” - William Provine.