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?
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.
“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.
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.
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
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
56
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.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
57
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
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
59
Therefore from any perspective nature is unguided at least above its instantiation.
Read “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller, a Biology professor at Brown University. Dr. Brown is a practicing Roman Catholic. He goes after the militant atheists and intelligent design people that beguile their listeners/readers with such things as “irreducible complexity” arguments that are easily refuted. There are voluminous footnotes.
It would be helpful to hear a summary of what you’ve discovered from the responses, @Kakelyn.
Looking back, I’m thankful with the way this came out:
That’s why I say it (so-called “evolutionary science”) 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.
We just don’t see it at universities in “science” departments. We see “evolutionary biology” or “ecology and evolutionary biology” or “organismic and evolutionary biology”. We just don’t see “departments of evolutionary science”, and for VERY good reasons. What we see instead is multiple and ongoing attempts (Wilson, Tooby & Cosmides, Jablonka & Lamb, Wilson, Laland, Mesoudi, et al.) at inflating evolution into many, many other fields. Did you notice this too in your research, Katelyn?
