Yes, for lay people it makes sense.
Hello Kakelyn,
You ask a good clarification question, to which I offer a perspective.
Difference: One exaggerates focus on the concept of “evolution” and reveals its oftentimes confusing usage across a range of fields in which it is not well-suited (i.e. anywhere outside of natural-physical sciences). The other exaggerates focus on “immanence” & “process” (cf. “open theism”), while maintaining intense focus on divine creation in a Protestant “science & faith” context. The conversation about “evolutionism” is much different among more unified Roman Catholics than among the very many scattered branches of Protestants.
Similarity: Both “evolutionary creationism” and “evolutionism” are ideologies. There’s no way around this semantically, although many linguistic tunnels have been attempted and are tried even today. Still, some people attempt to avoid acknowledging that “creationism” (just like “evolutionism”) is an ideology, regardless of the qualifying adjective, for a variety of cultural reasons.
There’s actually in universities and among academics nowadays no such “unified science” (cf. positivism) as what some people loosely call “evolutionary science” across the following fields: geology, biology, ecology, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, marketing, literature. Anyone who tells you there is has a serious problem on their hands.
The post-modern term “evolutionary science” is a classic example of “bloat” that is never very well explained, without actually exposing ideological evolutionism. It’s a curious pickle, and thus a good “fault line” question that you asked.
Cheers,
Gregory
““Evolutionism” may be a bit more problematic as it tends to be a pejorative label applied by critics of evolutionary science who wish to paint all evolutionary science as first and foremost an ideology. And it may indeed be that for some scientists who do wish to push the conflict thesis and plant their ideological flags on their respective hills accordingly.”
That was an understatement. Yes, ‘evolutionism’ is a lot more problematic! You’re incorrect sociologically, Merv, but that’s ok, as it can be corrected.
“Evolutionism” is designated as not just “pejorative”, but as “properly descriptive” of the exaggeration of “evolution” beyond its proper reach, i.e. the “over-extension of evolution” outside of biology & other natural sciences. This is what Merv doesn’t seem willing to examine in the available literature, given the focus here on “creationists” and pop-anti-evolution, rather than on scholarly and credible anti-evolutionism. If one hasn’t read any of this scholarly anti-evolutionism, instead of just pop anti-evolution from “creationists”, then it can be easily omitted from their understanding, revealing a significant sociological gap.
Indeed, there really is no such official thing as “evolutionary science”, as Merv continually calls it. This is because “evolutionary theories” are quite obviously not in fact “strictly scientific” as soon as “cultural” fields are entered. Thus, a boundary is missing that needs to be identified and which ECists are among the worst at omitting (it makes sense why they omit it, but leaves a gap in their ideology). Adding “evolutionary anthropology” or “evolutionary psychology” under the label “evolutionary science” is HIGHLY problematic, just as is the notion that “evolutionary religious studies” is a “strictly scientific” study of religion. Is it really?
Not “unwilling” so much as “been there, done that…” and don’t see it as a high priority for how to continue spending my time. Does this mean there are gaps in my exposure to the latest of ideas on all these different areas? No doubt. As far as broad strokes and major ideas go though, - I’ll attend to any that rise to credible levels so as to merit interest.
I just add that (typically unecessary - I agree) label when I feel that emphasis is needed that mainstream science does include evolutionary theory with all its well-known mechanisms, as well as its cutting edge and frontier areas that are still developing. It’s unecessary to always add that descriptor because it’s redundant, not because it doesn’t exist.
1 Like
Between us, Merv, the only person who’s “been there, done that…” is not you. I doubt you’ve read a single text by a non-creationist rejecting evolutionism. To prove my claim wrong, you could just list a single text that you’ve read by a non-creationist rejecting evolutionism. The “over-extension of evolution” outside of biology & other natural sciences isn’t all that difficult to see when one is open to looking.
Thanks for your fairness and honesty in addressing this, Merv.
“It’s unecessary to always add that descriptor because it’s redundant , not because it doesn’t exist.”
No, it’s unnecessary because it’s a misnomer, full stop. Maybe Merv can make terms up in private Christian high school setting like his, but in universities there are no “evolutionary science” departments, faculties, or courses! Are you ready to fact check your own claim, Merv?
That’s why I say it doesn’t exist; it’s a trojan horse by evolutionist ideologues, which has started seeping into the language of liberal evangelicals, like Joshua Swamidass, who speaks of “evolutionary science” regularly.
Biology is a natural science; so are physics, chemistry & ecology. No one is arguing about those fields. No one is arguing that evolutionary biology is a field within biology. Does that make sense to you, Merv? Are you aware of that, since Sy Garte agrees with me and rejects the “universalism” in your “evolutionary science” claim, given your stance does NOT reject “evolutionary theories” in human-social sciences.
If you could finally accept that “evolutionary theories” are problematic in human-social sciences, Merv, that would show progress. Is it time for this yet? Are you willing to be humble about the “gaps in your exposure to the latest ideas” in this area of human-social sciences, Merv? Or will you again dismiss the opportunity to raise your awareness about this serious problem, from your “natural sciences & mathematics” background? I’m here joyfully to help raise your awareness, if you’re willing to allow that to happen. If you prefer not to rise, then that’s your responsibility for remaining willfully unaware.
Calling it “evolutionary science”, when “evolutionary psychology” is pretty much a TOTAL SHAM, “evolutionary sociology” is largely vacuous, and “evolutionary religious studies” is largely anti-religiously offensive, is pushing things too far. Promoting “evolutionary science” as legitimate for studying “religion” is simply not a realistic, balanced, or sustainable position for careful, sensitive, and “intellectual” Christians to adopt.
I suspect he’s referring to (multiple?) previous conversations here were the topic has been hashed and rehashed.
E.g.:
Science rejects God?
How?
Science is both a body of authoritative knowledge about material reality and a means to pursue knowledge about reality through hypothesis and experimentation.
Science itself doesn’t make metaphysical claims. It operates under the presumption of metaphysical assumptions.
Yes, though most likely without Merv actually having read the relevant literature. And then opining and pronouncing about “evolutionary science” as if that’s the reality at universities, when it’s just a linguistic fetish at BioLogos and among ideological evolutionists.
I’m sure you’ll agree that self-labelled “theistic evolutionists” are likewise not immune from ideological evolutionism; that part should be obvious, right Dale? It’s thus a problem when theistic evolutionists refuse to call “theistic evolutionism” an ideology. Likewise, it’s problematic to claim that speaking of “evolutionary science” is standard, when it’s actually not.
Are you willing to be fair about it based on evidence, Dale? If so, I’ll be glad to follow the evidence with you where it leads, so as to be fair and honest about the combo duo “evolutionary science” and it’s common relationship with ideology. How about it, Dale?
No thanks. There has been more than enough pedantry already.
1 Like
Learning, Dale, that’s what it’s called. If you’re open to it?
Respect for scholarship and literature is the way I prefer to oppose obscurantist “evolutionary creationists” and “evolutionary providentialists”. Why not try it?
Research and literature on this topic are available for those ready to getting realistic, instead of remaining in a fantasy of their own buffet worldview-making, using non-standard terms.
This looked quite excessive to me, implying an excessive application of ideology itself forcing reality into absurdly narrow categories. So I decided to look up a definition of evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach to psychology that attempts to explain useful mental and psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, i.e., as the functional products of natural selection.
Well… according to this definition I would tend to agree that this is dubious. The problem is the use of the word “products” as if evolution should be the sole explanation for human mental and psychological traits. This would either make this a pseudoscience which adopts a conclusion and seeks to prove it much like creationism, OR the whole science is merely the effort to test this single unproven hypothesis.
I would have assume a more conservative definition of the science such as: an investigation into the evolutionary factors involved in the development of human mental and psychological traits.
As a result, I would conclude that the use of the word “sham” let alone “total sham” is excessive. There are honest scientific endeavors in this field. And we should merely caution against misrepresenting what the actual science can and should consist of, lest it cross the line over into pseudoscience and ideology.
1 Like
“Developmental psychology” is already long in existence. eVopsych in contrast is atheist/agnostic psychology, more than 99% of the time. It REALLY is a sham, if you look at it closely & those promoting it. If you’re embracing that, problems might follow, if you’re not careful. I’ve seen it happen many times, sadly.
Nope. Not gonna take the bait. Since I have no need to prove anything to anybody on this front. (I’m not even claiming to be any kind of official scholar in this anyway - so what would I be proving beyond that I’ve read enough - from parties on all sides - to have a decent enough appraisal of the overall situation in sufficient detail to satisfy me?)
You’re on your own, Gregory, and maybe the main reason you’re getting even this much of a reply from me is because I’ve got lesson plans I should be working on instead. But first, I’m gonna attend to some more important stuff … step outside and watch the grass grow for a bit in the bright autumn sunshine here, make sure some bike tires are aired up for tomorrow’s commute, and generally putter around on this Sabbath afternoon.
Similar blessings to your afternoon too!
5 Likes
You have no need to prove anything because the evidence goes against you, Merv. That’s why you’re discounting evidence now and unwilling to fact check. Other than that, blessings on your afternoon also!
“I’ve read enough - from parties on all sides” - Merv
No, sorry Merv, I don’t think you have. And I’m quite sure you haven’t, based on our previous conversations here. And to show this, if you would fairly accept critique, I politely challenged you to come up with actual sources, to show us the literature, but you failed to respond. So, please understand, Merv, why people reject “evolutionary creationism”, when that’s your attitude to truth and reality to avoiding the literature and sources that reject your ideology.
You’re simply wrong about this, Merv, and flat-out refuse to examine the rather obvious “over-extension of evolution” outside of biology. And your lesson plan will NEVER help you get out of this because you’re operating in the WRONG fields. If you are honestly open to learning, this is one topic that you should be showing humility about, instead of claiming you are being “baited”.
You are simply being asked to face reality, Merv, in this case regarding linguistic usage of a term. If you wish to avoid reality due to high school lessons, that’s up to you. I’ll continue to prefer truth-seeking and truth-telling, as we are taught to love and respect, over avoidance and obscurantism.
Excuse me for mistakes and improper expressions, English is not my mother language. I’m Italian. You say deism is different from EC, but I still don’t understand, concretely, where the difference lies. Both say that the action of God is only at the beginning, and then no more, or am I wrong? EC denies that there is any subsequent action, but Evolution does the business. It looks to me that God in this case is like such an incredibly good billiards player that one shot at the beginning is enough to send all the balls in the holes. Everything was calculated with infinite intelligence. But still what is the difference with deism? It also says that God, like a watch maker, created everything perfect and then let it go.
Hi @SdF. Welcome to the forum.
Certainly, some ECs see God as setting the conditions and letting evolution run on its own. Although they would reject the term Deism. This is because Deism refers to ALL of God’s interactions with his creation not just one part of it. What I mean is that even if God was hands off when it comes to evolution, the very fact that he acts to reveal, save, redeem, and intervene in his creation means that the ‘Deism’ label doesn’t apply. God is either deistic everywhere, or not at all. Does that make sense?
As to God’s involvement in evolution, I for one view God as shepherding the process of evolution through providence. In this sense, God is intimately involved as he upholds, sustains, and guides life on this planet towards his own perfect ends. In this way, God is not like a Divine billiard player who pots all the balls in one shot. Instead, God is like a divine conductor directing the sections and instruments of an ever changing orchestra in a grand symphony.
Of course, this is 100% a faith position. Science cannot test for reason, purpose, meaning, or divine goals in evolution or any where else for that matter. That is outside of its remit.
Hope that helps.
EDIT: I should also say that I have no issue with those who see God as preloading evolution and letting it run either. 
3 Likes
There is no start for a start. No start of starts. No beginning of beginnings. Above whatever grounds being from eternity, God or no, being, nature works. There is no contradiction at all if God is the ground of being and being does its thing. No part of science rejects God explicitly or otherwise; it doesn’t have to. It is never necessary to invoke God in explaining existence. It is desirable, which is a very different thing. The focus, the epicentre of that desire is Jesus, our instance of incarnation. I’ve no idea how EC understands evil and the horrors of this world, they are meaningless; there is no explanation at all apart from nature, even in God. I very much doubt whether He can explain it, but if He grounds being, He grounds transcendence where all is well. We won’t need any explanation.
Your English is at least as good as mine. And I’m English! Again, and again, there is no beginning, no end, of beginnings. God acts by beginning existence from eternity. He always begun existence, grounded being. Nothing was calculated. God does not need to calculate anything apart from when to incarnate. He ‘just’ instantiates the prevenient, independent perfect laws of physics and nature does all the rest. Except incarnation.
I think you are still thinking of EC as a scientific theory, and it isn’t, neither is deism. Deism says God created the world and essentially disengaged from it, and what you are describing with the billiards and the watchmaker is deism, not EC. EC says God creates the world in an ongoing way and has remained intimately involved in and sovereign over his creation, interacting relationally with creatures, giving creation purpose and meaning and bringing it to an intended culmination at some point in the future. These are theological views, not scientific views. The theory of evolution, which ECs accept as good science describes evolution is an unguided process. ECs would not say that “proves” God has disengaged from creation, they would say that science can’t speak to supernatural involvement, so from the perspective of what science can observe and describe, it is unguided.
2 Likes
Therefore from any perspective nature is unguided at least above its instantiation.