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.