Evolution in modern humans

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.

I’m glad to hear that about such scholars, they are dealing with emergent phenomena above biological individuals of an evolved species. You’ll get no finer theology than British one way and another.

I’ve already recognized enough of the limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thought that I don’t have to go on fishing expeditions to know they’re 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 don’t own. Just because I don’t accept 100% of everything you say as God’s truth doesn’t mean I reject it all either. Some of this is patently obvious, and I’ve never heard any ‘Biologians’ around here disagreeing with you that evolutionary science is not some sort of universal acid.

3 Likes

Yes, surely you’ve recognized enough to be a professional in your own field. But that doesn’t mean you’ve recognized enough on this topic, which is not what you are trained in. Those of us who are trained shouldn’t have to constantly be doubted by you who hasn’t done the necessary work, based on some kind of colloquial protestant science & faith script.

“I’ve already recognized enough of the limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thought”

Really!? A short list would be welcome. What are some of “the limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thought”, Merv? Please show that you’re not bluffing and that you do actually recognize.

So far, Merv, you simply get too much wrong to be trusted about what you think I’m “projecting”. I do sociology, while you give entitled opinions. That’s something at the end of the day you’ll need to eventually realize. You’re not a professional about “modern humans” 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.

“I’ve never heard any ‘Biologians’ around here disagreeing with you that evolutionary science is not some sort of universal acid.”

Well, you’re in deep trouble here as BioLogos is “fully & completely” promoting “evolutionary science”, 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 …

…to: therefore Biologos must think evolutionary science is the answer to everything?!

I don’t 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 aren’t 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. :pie: )

Must it then follow that I’m promoting “cherry pie” as the answer to ‘Life the Universe and Everything’?!

2 Likes

This is you putting words into my mouth, Merv → these are your words, not mine: “BioLogos must think evolutionary science is the answer to everything?!”

“may I at least appeal to you as a fellow speaker who knows and uses English?”

If you did this faithfully and truthfully, Merv, you would end up walking away ashamed at what you’ve been doing for your part in enabling ideological evolutionism. Your “fellow speaker” colloqualism that turns “evolutionary biology” into “evolutionary science” is breathtakingly absurd.

It doesn’t matter that you don’t yet realize you’re doing it because you are still doing it; that’s theistic evolutionism / evolutionary creationism. It’s ideological, Merv, and I’m calling it out.

You could show you’re not an ideologue by answering my question directly. Somehow, this is the place you always duck and dodge, without ever answering directly.

“I’ve already recognized enough of the limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thought”

Repeat: Really!? A short list would be welcome. What are some of “the limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thought”, Merv? Please show that you’re not bluffing and that you do actually recognize.

No … you can think of me bluffing as much as you want - I won’t join you in the ceaseless banging on that one drum. Even if I did give you the satisfaction, I’m reasonably certain that I would still end up being “an idealogue” 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 I’m 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.

2 Likes

“I would still end up being ‘an idealogue’ and Biologos would remain”

Again, moderator Merv, it’s “BioLogos”, the “L” capitalized because, well, John 1, etc. Letters have meaning. It’s also “ideologue”, not “idealogue”, though Swamidass took time to correct himself on this too. Otherwise you’re making up words or just plain misspelling.

You don’t answer because you’re not trained to know. Instead of just saying that humbly here, we get from you relativism and obscurantism, “as if” the treacherous sub-field of “evolutionary religious studies” 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 don’t find that approach to be helpful, Merv, if that’s what you’re indeed bringing. I’d rather see you take a position or admit you aren’t 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, it’s just posturing that obscures the reality of what people who actually study the topic closely say and believe, given that you haven’t consulted them. I just don’t understand why you would want to obscure that, Merv.

“I have never seen any evidence that your views of us could change”

Then you’re 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 BioLogos’ Forum. My views about BioLogos changed when a series was pretentiously called “The Evolving Evangelical.” Yes, Merv, my views about BioLogos can and have changed.

What I haven’t 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 “the limits and weaknesses of evolutionary thought”, Merv? Please show that you’re not bluffing and that you do actually recognize.

It’s entirely pertinent to the topic of the OP, after all. Will Merv “show up” 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:

“ * Focus on discussing other people’s ideas, not on evaluating their character, faith, communication style, or perceived “tone.” 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 anyone’s 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 people’s right to agree or disagree. Avoid repeating the same ideas over and over because you have failed to convince everyone to accept your viewpoint.”

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

5 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“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.