Evolutionary Creationism and Materialist Evolution

You can’t have it both ways. You seem to want there to be something “different” about EC science to distinguish it from what you are apparently thinking of as “materialistic science”; …but then you turn around and want to also say that “EC science isn’t accepted by mainstream science.”

That contradiction aside, the obvious answer is … since there is no difference between “EC science” and mainstream science, then of course it doesn’t suffer any distinction or general scientific animosity in general. Science, to the extent that it ‘accepts’ anything, will of course take on board all its practitioners with the usual caveats that healthy science in general is always seeking to overturn things in order to churn up new ground. Self skepticism is one of the distinguishing hallmarks of good science.

Who or what decides what is and what isn’t “mainstream science?”

I have asked this several times in regard of evolutionary theory. Is the Selfish Gene mainstream? Yes or No? When E.O. Wilson disagrees with the Selfish Gene does that put him out of the mainstream?

I am interested in Niche Construction Theory, which seems to be out of the “mainstream.” Why? How do evolution and ecology interact? Why is this not discussed?

I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘EC science’ distinguishable from mainstream science, because science is science and it has no mechanism for detecting anything but the material. God’s providence is something we can talk about, however (and deny, or not :slightly_smiling_face:).

Elsewhere earlier:


You are putting words in my mouth. Either EC Science is different than ME Science or it is not. If it is not than just call it ME Science. If it is, than state exactly how it is. I have already indicated that EC Science, which I will will refer to as Theistic Evolution (TE), either doesn’t seem to clearly state how it is different than ME (or maybe isn’t from what you seem to be saying) or if it does (such as in the case of Francis Collins) is not accepted by mainstream science (his premises 2 and 6 would constitute a significant problem for mainstream science if they suggest a god explanation is necessary and the rest are consistent with mainstream science). Suggesting a god explanation for 2 and 6 is necessary would just be invoking a “god of the gaps” explanation

1 Like

Mainstream science involves methodological naturalism - so no “god of the gaps” explanations.

1 Like

If EC science is not detectable than why talk about it wrt science at all? Why not just deal with it like Stephen J. Gould suggested (NOMA). If people want to discuss it fine - but it is meaningless since only ME Science is viable when relating to mechanisms, processes, systems etc. as you suggest. However, the moment someone starts to include it or tries to smuggle it in as an explanation (such as premise 6 of Francis Collins premises) then it becomes problematic and unacceptable to mainstream science.

1 Like

The juxtaposition of the three terms, evolutionary creationism science, maybe confuses things, because the science aspect is pretty much contained in the first term, ‘evolutionary’. I am not particularly well-versed with an EC glossary, not that there is any such thing, but I found this, which may help with the thoughts underlying the question:

We do not propose a special Christian version of scientific facts…

1 Like

Just my opinion:

As far as science is concerned, they are the same. Same experiments, same methods, same professional conferences and literature, etc. The separate designation (to attempt to answer your question) is not to distinguish anything in regards to science, but in regards to theology. I use it to signal to my fellow theists that I affirm evolution as God’s secondary means of creating species diversity, and that it is/was never outside of his sovereign control.

1 Like

It is not. And certainly you are free to call it “materialistic” science if by that you mean that science can pretty much only investigate material phenomena. But what so many really mean by the phrase (hence my suspicions of its use) is that science is somehow inherently materialist philosophically (religiously) speaking. And to call it that is simply wrong - so I stay away from such potentially misleading labeling.

You’ll have to remind me what Collins’ premises ‘2’ and ‘6’ are again. Whatever they are, I can’t imagine them being something that mainstream science would have a problem with, since Collins prides himself on being attentive to science. Just because science generally wouldn’t make any use of Collins’ religious views (how could it?) doesn’t mean those views are somehow in conflict with understood science.

1 Like

Are you saying that science is not rational, because nature is not rational since it cannot think?

Is the methodology of nature rational or not?

Right. @bluebird1, @paleomalacologist et al. The state of Hoyle.

I’m aware of all the fine tuning = God arguments, as in Hoyle’s example above. As far as I’m concerned it just shows a lack of scientific imagination and curiosity; that Newton, Hoyle, Davies, Margulis, Flew, Polkinghorne, Craig, Dyson, Collins et al all gave up, ran out of genius, which is often pretty narrow to the point of savant. God is fair. I have none to lose.

I like the fact that the article shows that it is immensely complicated to deduce Hoyle’s brilliant induction from the anthropic principle, which blew his mind; it took over half a century and counting. That there is no basis whatsoever for claiming anomalous statistical significance for his state. I infer that we don’t have the data for a basis of comparison, but we will and it will show nothing significant, no ’ super-calculating intellect’ aka ID - not that God has to calculate anything, as that’s not possible in eternity for a start.

By analogy I don’t believe in fine tuning except as ergonomic self-tuning to explain c, e, G, h, mu zero and emm ee, the six measured as yet underivable fundamental constants. To invoke an infinite multi-verse of random variants to explain their anthropic values is as absurd as saying Goddidit.

Thanks Klax…but that in and of itself is a faith -based argument – and very dismissive of others’. Your thinking seems to be that anyone who believes in a Creator just ran out of intellectual juice. Is that how you see it?

When someone says the statistics are against the idea of an accidental Creator-less Universe (“it just happened by chance”), it cannot be because they have run the numbers for themselves? Do you use that same logic when you go out to your driveway and see a dent in your car? (“hmm… there is no basis whatsoever for claiming that someone or someTHING did this to my car”) Or when someone brings out a pie for dessert? (“How did THAT happen?”)
Did Francis Collins “give up, run out of genius”? Well, maybe. Ask him. Ran out of genius so they made him head of NIH! That would, I suppose, be the Peter Principle in action.
That astronaut who said, in an interview, that he wished everyone could go into space and see what he saw – because then everyone would know that God created it all — maybe that really was Imagination Burnout on his part, but it is also possible that he was hardpressed to deny the obvious, given the moment. (And no, he was not 81 and growing senile!)

Anyway…your view is your view, Klax. I guess we just disagree here.

You’re welcome Robin. Faith has nothing to do with science and rationality apart from evidence based faith in them. There is no such reason for doubting them. I [want to] believe in a Creator. Despite there being no evidence, no gap whatsoever in science and rationality; there is no equal let alone superior antithesis - which is dialectically necessary - to the synthesis of materialism. Absolutely none. I [want to] believe in a Creator for one ‘reason’ only, Jesus.

And no, no one has run the numbers. Hoyle certainly didn’t. There aren’t enough numbers of nuclear resonances. If anyone, anywhere had run the numbers, there would be no doubt whatsoever, God would have been statistically proven. And yes, of course I use the same logic. Your analogies utterly fail. They’re not even wrong. You won’t see it even when I analyse it out.

I don’t have to ask Francis Collins if he ran out of genius. He demonstrates it clearly, just as John Polkinghorne did. Genius isn’t omnidirectional. Its staggering ability doesn’t run far out of its bailiwick.

That astronaut, Eugene Cernan wasn’t it?, was demonstrating what he brought to the party.

No we don’t disagree, you haven’t said anything rational I can disagree with. In fact you cannot be disagreed with as we don’t share rational epistemology.

Fair enough. Secularists would still have a problem with this but I don’t necessarily.

Why not Brian?! What is secondary about evolution and how is it within God’s control?

How is it within God’s control.

I would say there is no way to tell if he intervenes or simply set the initial conditions. If he does intervene I would say (from my theology) that he does so according to plan, not to fix something unforeseen. He is either sovereign over all, or he is not god.

1 Like


There is a wondrous dynamic in how the timeless (or ‘timeful’ and omnitemporal) God interacts and intervenes dynamically and freely with his children ‘according to plan’ (a timebound word). (I am not a fan of Molinism.)

@heddle he has always set the initial conditions from eternity; He grounds being, that is His prime, continuous intervention. The only planned intervention is discrete incarnation when a world is ready. That is how He exercises His Sovereignty in nature. Otherwise He is Sovereign as if He weren’t, cares as if He didn’t, Loves as if He didn’t, creates as if He didn’t.