For the most part, I agree with you. But that only means that evolution plays no role in the changes we see in human psychology during human history. It does not mean evolution has nothing to say about those aspects of human psychology which have not changed.
Iâm glad to hear that about such scholars, they are dealing with emergent phenomena above biological individuals of an evolved species. Youâll get no finer theology than British one way and another.
Iâve already recognized enough of the limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thought that I donât have to go on fishing expeditions to know theyâre there. Being excited about where all such theory does yield fruit does not entail blindly accepting that its successes must then be universal. You need to stop projecting all this stuff onto others that they just donât own. Just because I donât accept 100% of everything you say as Godâs truth doesnât mean I reject it all either. Some of this is patently obvious, and Iâve never heard any âBiologiansâ around here disagreeing with you that evolutionary science is not some sort of universal acid.
Yes, surely youâve recognized enough to be a professional in your own field. But that doesnât mean youâve recognized enough on this topic, which is not what you are trained in. Those of us who are trained shouldnât have to constantly be doubted by you who hasnât done the necessary work, based on some kind of colloquial protestant science & faith script.
âIâve already recognized enough of the limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thoughtâ
Really!? A short list would be welcome. What are some of âthe limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thoughtâ, Merv? Please show that youâre not bluffing and that you do actually recognize.
So far, Merv, you simply get too much wrong to be trusted about what you think Iâm âprojectingâ. I do sociology, while you give entitled opinions. Thatâs something at the end of the day youâll need to eventually realize. Youâre not a professional about âmodern humansâ just because you teach science & maths to high schoolers. Sorry, friend, but you need to look to others instead of yourself for insights about this topic. I would respect if you would do that and show their words, instead of just adding more of your own confusion to the conversation on a topic in which you were not trained, but merely opine about loosely as if that counts as research.
âIâve never heard any âBiologiansâ around here disagreeing with you that evolutionary science is not some sort of universal acid.â
Well, youâre in deep trouble here as BioLogos is âfully & completelyâ promoting âevolutionary scienceâ, as far back as 2012. Just discovered that BioLogos itself might be the source of this terminological problem via unjustified & ideological exaggeration, even before Joshua Swamidass. Gasp!?
How do you get from âŚ
âŚto: therefore Biologos must think evolutionary science is the answer to everything?!
I donât have any of your degrees in the social sciences, Gregory, but may I at least appeal to you as a fellow speaker who knows and uses English? You are seeing things in sentences that simply arenât there. I really like cherry pie. And I would have no problem completely promoting the goodness of cherry pie to any and all who will listen. (well ⌠okay - other than that it might mean less cherry pie for me if others are now wanting it too. )
Must it then follow that Iâm promoting âcherry pieâ as the answer to âLife the Universe and Everythingâ?!
This is you putting words into my mouth, Merv â these are your words, not mine: âBioLogos must think evolutionary science is the answer to everything?!â
âmay I at least appeal to you as a fellow speaker who knows and uses English?â
If you did this faithfully and truthfully, Merv, you would end up walking away ashamed at what youâve been doing for your part in enabling ideological evolutionism. Your âfellow speakerâ colloqualism that turns âevolutionary biologyâ into âevolutionary scienceâ is breathtakingly absurd.
It doesnât matter that you donât yet realize youâre doing it because you are still doing it; thatâs theistic evolutionism / evolutionary creationism. Itâs ideological, Merv, and Iâm calling it out.
You could show youâre not an ideologue by answering my question directly. Somehow, this is the place you always duck and dodge, without ever answering directly.
âIâve already recognized enough of the limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thoughtâ
Repeat: Really!? A short list would be welcome. What are some of âthe limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thoughtâ, Merv? Please show that youâre not bluffing and that you do actually recognize.
No ⌠you can think of me bluffing as much as you want - I wonât join you in the ceaseless banging on that one drum. Even if I did give you the satisfaction, Iâm reasonably certain that I would still end up being âan idealogueâ and Biologos would remain in your head as the organization ceaselessly dedicated to being a thorn in your flesh. I have never seen any evidence that your views of us could change - and Iâm okay with that.
May your future engagements lead to ever improved understandings for you as well as for those whom you wish to instruct. Blessings.
âI would still end up being âan idealogueâ and Biologos would remainâ
Again, moderator Merv, itâs âBioLogosâ, the âLâ capitalized because, well, John 1, etc. Letters have meaning. Itâs also âideologueâ, not âidealogueâ, though Swamidass took time to correct himself on this too. Otherwise youâre making up words or just plain misspelling.
You donât answer because youâre not trained to know. Instead of just saying that humbly here, we get from you relativism and obscurantism, âas ifâ the treacherous sub-field of âevolutionary religious studiesâ MIGHT BE noble, honourable, etc. (i.e. if done by one with an ideology like yours). This is not what humility among the disciplines is meant to show.
Sorry, but I just donât find that approach to be helpful, Merv, if thatâs what youâre indeed bringing. Iâd rather see you take a position or admit you arenât familiar enough to say, which is frankly how it appears. Would admitting your own limitations on this topic be acceptable to you, Merv, for open and honest communicative purposes? Otherwise, itâs just posturing that obscures the reality of what people who actually study the topic closely say and believe, given that you havenât consulted them. I just donât understand why you would want to obscure that, Merv.
âI have never seen any evidence that your views of us could changeâ
Then youâre blind to the evidence. My views of BioLogos changed after I spoke with Darrel Falk in 2011, and as a result he instigated change in the BioLogos website, based on that conversation. My views of BioLogos changed when I was not given credit for submitting work done, that was published on BioLogosâ Forum. My views about BioLogos changed when a series was pretentiously called âThe Evolving Evangelical.â Yes, Merv, my views about BioLogos can and have changed.
What I havenât seen change, speaking of stagnancy, however, even after many attempts to tease your ideological evolutionism from actual science, is for you to address my simple question below, which you almost teased that you might answer. Will that ever change?
What are some of âthe limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thoughtâ, Merv? Please show that youâre not bluffing and that you do actually recognize.
Itâs entirely pertinent to the topic of the OP, after all. Will Merv âshow upâ to answer or yet again pass the hat to others and later pretend he engaged?
Reciprocally withdrawn
Just a reminder from our FAQs regarding gracious dialogue:
â * Focus on discussing other peopleâs ideas, not on evaluating their character, faith, communication style, or perceived âtone.â Please avoid attributing beliefs, motivations, or attitudes to others.
- Contribute thoughts that are relevant to the topic at hand, and avoid intentionally steering a conversation off-topic.
- Assume legitimate Christian faith on the part of other people, unless they identify otherwise. The purpose of discussions here is not to judge the legitimacy or efficacy of anyoneâs faith or lack of faith.
- Be willing to learn from the perspectives and expertise of others and respect the diversity of your conversation partners. This includes being sensitive to differences in educational backgrounds, faith traditions, cultural contexts, and levels of English language fluency.
- State your case and then respect other peopleâs right to agree or disagree. Avoid repeating the same ideas over and over because you have failed to convince everyone to accept your viewpoint.â
I might add that it is good to make your case with specifics rather than just criticize if you want your opinions taken seriously.
We give some latitude and grace as it is difficult to determine tone and intent in written forums, but ultimately, repeated violations must be addressed.
Phil Mc
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.