Why would someone drive 12 hours[**] all the way to the BioLogos meeting room… filled with people who believe in Jesus and in his father, and argue about Godless Darwinism as though we were promoting Evolution-without-God?
It’s virtually inconceivable that someone would want to waste that kind of time … unless, Atheism is really all they know how to talk about.
Note: For the purpose of this thread, I am using the term “Hours” in the same way Genesis uses the term “Days”.
I dare say you don’t believe me. If you were able to find a creationist who could explain genetic data, your (lack of) belief would have a basis in reality.
It appears from that that you lack that acceptance as otherwise you would not make such a fuss about it 
It makes you look a bit like Don Quixote. And regarding the I-phone, it would have implications if you buy it even if you knew is was built using slave labour for the sake of profit.
Evolution is your enemy that you make of it as may be science because you perceive it as the domain of the atheists, thus fuelling your existentialist angst. In the absence of proof, faith is the only way to overcome angst. Only if you can see the love in the natural selection that has shaped the garden we live in you can appreciate the skills of the Gardener who gives every plant a chance to prove its value before weeding it out. And even the ones he weeds out are not wasted but are recycled into the soil. And despite all the efforts of garden designers, nothing beats the beauty of the wilderness of the woodlands.
is the core of your problem. The definition itself,“evolution”, represents the slow unfolding of a script. Looks like you do not believe in the author.
Just found another jewel of yours
Indeed, people here tend to argue pro Darwin, not Darwinism. Ism’s are to be avoided in any case. Now, one could say biology needs Darwinism, as every science subject should teach how people try to use scientific findings against mankind to further their own political agenda. After all, we learn only from the things we get wrong.
Yes, but this would require me to spend a lot of time constructing counterarguments and assembling evidence for no purpose. I’ll let others tackle that Sisyphean task …
Hear, hear!
-isms and -ists are used far more to obfuscate than to illuminate.
For example, how can someone who studies explicitly non-Darwinian evolution, such as drift, be classified as a “Darwinist”?
It depends on the goals of the system one is in control of. Randomness in some systems can be almost immediately catastrophic, causing not just loss of control, but destruction of system.
“Ism’s are to be avoided in any case.”
Then you’d better exclude the theist position which derives from theism and the creationist position from creationism, the latter which BioLogos is built to oppose. Oops, better not avoid ideology anymore? Maybe a better approach to ideology by BioLogos is needed.
Stop, go back to the first post, 13 days ago. If you actually face what Darwinism is NOT, then the conversation could likely be more edifying.
Don’t forget, some people out there say, “I can’t think of any examples [of ideology] detriment[al] to biology” (Curtis Henderson). So, I brought up Lysenko, but Curtis appears not to think Lysenkoism was “detrimental to biology” because for him, apparently, ideology has no punching power and is therefore impotent, even when used widely among evolutionary biologists, a few of who still aggressively use the term “Darwinism” against religious theists.
To deny this is really to miss the gripe of these people who are not really “creationists”, but who are simply trying to find a new exegesis of Scripture given the post-Darwinian, Extended Evolutionary Synthesis era. BioLogos sadly appears to defending Darwinism sometimes against these people, when it really should stop that practise entirely.
To a person who has seen ideology used by plenty of biologists, such a statement as Henderson’s unfortunately (as otherwise he appears to have his package together in order) displays ignorance, even when wrapped in noble hope for a better conversation.
You folks continue to entertain anti-Darwinists for little reason, when BioLogos should be as anti-Darwinism as they are, i.e. when Darwinism is not pretended as synonymous with evolutionary biology. Who named the title of the thread anyway - was it Dredge or someone at BioLogos? For the ideology averse, the question just translates as, “Why does biology need evolutionary theory?” which would be too absurd.
Please allow me to portray the scenario accurately. The actual quote, should you have taken the trouble to check was:[quote=“cwhenderson, post:10, topic:35756”]
Personally, I do feel there is a portion of ideology associated with the theory of evolution, but I can’t think of any examples of detriment to biology.
[/quote]
You may notice the words I used were “I can’t think of any” and NOT “there are not any” examples. I must confess ignorance regarding Lysenkoism, which I have not rectified in the last two weeks. I would expect an individual with a broad knowledge of both science and philosophical issues as you possess would be careful about making unfounded assertions as you did.
Your point point about ideology is well-taken. I do believe that authors select thread names, but not 100% sure.
Sort of like calling a physicist a Newtonist, or a airplane pilot a Wrightist.
If randomness destroys your system I would say you were not in control of the system.
You will not be able to remove the ism as in theism or atheism as in the absence of ultimate truth you have to postulate a fundamental belief on which you base your worldview on which to build a coherent view of reality. Several ism’s in your worldview are bound to create incoherences.
Enough poetry, Cervantes.
Good choice.
If this is true, then…
There is no God and no BioLogos in quantum mechanics.
There is no God and no BioLogos in e = mc2
There is no God and no BioLogos in meteorology and weather forecasts.
There is no God and no BioLogos in petroleum geology.
There is no God and no BioLogos in organic chemistry.
And so on throughout the scientific disciplines.
But your assertion is not true. The fact that a scientific discipline takes no position on theological matters does not mean that the theologically inclined, such as BioLogos supporters, cannot reconcile the domains of science and theology.
The Big Bang theory makes no assertions about God, but Christian astronomers assert that it was God who spoke the universe into being. Thus the Big Bang can be regarded as a scientific observation of what God revealed in the Scriptures.
Meteorology makes no assertions about God, but Christian meteorologists assert that it reflects God’s care for His creation. Thus meteorology can be regarded as a scientific observation of what God revealed in the Scriptures.
The theory of evolution makes no assertions about God, but Christian biologists assert that it was God who authored life and created man in His image. Thus the theory of evolution can be regarded as a scientific observation of what God revealed in the Scriptures.
Richard Dawkins makes a gross philosophical error when he insists that science excludes the existence of God. Why are you in philosophical agreement with Dawkin?
You’re right; the reference to Satan was uncalled for. I apologise to Biologos.
But Darwin and his minions DO take a position on theological matters - go read for yourself - I did. That (1) and the lack of any scientific observations whatsoever (2) and finally it’s illogical claims (3) is why the theory is not like the other fields you quote and more in the category of magic stories (even has a magical “primordial soup” that no one has ever seen or duplicated).
I don’t see how you can possibly make such a claim. You would first have to at least understand science to be able to make such a bold (and silly) pronouncement.
I was about to flag your post … and then I thought better of it. I think we all needed that laugh …
First of all, it is insulting terminology to refer to professional biologists as “minions” of anyone.
Secondly, I have read them, but unlike some readers I distinguish between scientific claims and philosophical claims. Many scientists make claims for the implications of science that are really philosophical claims. Time to protest the science? Not at all. I do not feel that I have to throw out the baby of good science out with the bathwater of bad philosophy.
For example, Lawrence Krauss is an astrophysicist who claims that astrophysics proves that there is no creator of the universe and there is no such thing as spiritual reality. I vehemently disagree with Krauss’ philosophical claims, but I do not feel that I have to reject the Big Bang theory or even multi-verse theory on that basis. The fact that someone misuses a scientific theory does not have any relevance to the question of whether the theory constitutes good science. Plenty of Christian astrophysicists believe that even the multi-verse theory can be reconciled with belief in God; even an astrophysics-heavy apologetics ministry like Reasons to Believe has taken that position (here and here).
In the same way, some biologists misuse evolution to make atheistic philosophical claims. So what? I do not have to throw out the baby of good biological science along with the bathwater of bad philosophy.
I have read many of your articles and compared them to the peer-reviewed biological literature. I honestly do not know how you could possibly arrive at your conclusions. At one time I shared your opinion, but then I read the literature with an open mind and eventually realized that Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, et al. made some serious scientific mistakes on the road to their well-intentioned but erroneous conclusions. Your conclusions strike me as similarly well-intentioned and similarly unaware of the strong evidential foundation for the theory of evolution.
Actually, it is very much like astronomy, which relies solely on reconstructing the past based on Bayesian inference from observational data that exhibit patterns of statistical randomness. Laplace showed about 200 years ago that Legendre’s least squares method, when fit to a set of observations with random errors, would maximize the likelihood function and minimize the posterior error. And yes, he provided applications to astronomy, specifically with respect to planetary orbits.
Likewise, ask most people what Einstein received the Nobel prize for, and they will respond, “the theory of relativity.” And they will be wrong! Instead, he received it for his 1905 paper on Brownian motion (published the same year as his paper on special relativity). As gargantuan as the theory of relativity seems, I think the Nobel committee got it right when they honored his Brownian motion paper instead because it established statistical methods–in particular, the applications of mathematical randomness*–as foundational to the practice of physics.
That’s right, Einstein’s application of statistical randomness was judged a more important contribution to physics than the theory of relativity! However, my friend @NonlinOrg, one would never gain that impression by reading your blog. Your statements about randomness and science lag behind the practice of science by a considerable margin.
Thus when biologists like @glipsnort use statistical analysis of genomic similarities and divergences to infer neutral drift, mutations, and natural selection–and then build/test predictive models on that analysis–their methods are fundamentally parallel to the methods of physics and astronomy. Your assertions to the contrary serve only to illustrate your lack of formal/extensive training in the disciplines. The fact that you do not possess that training is no crime, of course.
In fact, here’s another illustration of the relationship between physics and biology: Steve Schaffner earned his Ph.D. in physics and now works as a computational biologist.
Have a great weekend!
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
Thanks Curtis for taking well my point point about ideology.
“not 100% sure” - My guess it was BioLogos editor, not Dredge who (poorly) chose the thread title, which has led to the problems in the thread. Which Darwinism? Why so angry with that one man and no even hugging Christians who believe evolutionary biology is best explanation based on evidence & methods available so far in natural sciences. But such a limited theory is evolution to understand humanity today, of course, and for taking as a very small element within a person’s larger theological worldview.
I’m not going to argue with you about “unfounded assertions”. Alexander has already written about this at BioLogos, so there’s no need to ask for more supportive help: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/biology-and-ideology-%E2%80%93-from-descartes-to-dawkins
You guess wrong. Users choose the titles for the threads they create. The only time an editor or a moderator chooses a title is when they split parts of a thread off into a new one, and you can tell that has happened because there is a link to the original thread and text saying where it came from in the spin-off. The only time we edit a user’s thread title is when it is flagged at insulting or something. Sometimes I fix people’s spelling or grammar too, I confess.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.