My concern here has always been with exaggeration, Klax, and extrapolation of one idea from one sphere and context, into another very different and “foreign” context, as if that “idea” means the same in different contexts, when it obviously doesn’t. It has been VERY difficult to get BioLogos to see the vast amount of evidence that exists regarding how “evolution” is treated across multiple fields, not just the natural sciences. Sy Garte started to become aware of the different uses of “evolution”, and has since accepted the distinction that I hold: the REAL problem is not with “evolutionary theories” in the natural-physical sciences, but with “evolutionary theories” foisted on the human-social sciences, as a form of reductionism.
Now, if a person either 1) doesn’t understand this “philosophical” language, or 2) denies ideological evolutionism is possible, they’re in a real pickle due simply to English language. They are effectively, they themselves, denying people the right to use a meaningful term “evolutionism”, without at the same time NECESSARILY being a “creationist”.
Since I am not a “creationist” and use “evolutionism” in a “technical” way to refer to the ideology of exaggerating the notion of “evolution” outside of natural-physical sciences into human-social sciences, and since it is rather obvious to anyone watching that this happens on a significant scale nowadays, Klax is caught in a conundrum of his own making. To Klax, I cannot exist; a non-creationist who identifies a HUGE problem with evolutionism in society today. Could Klax instea be missing something, perhaps a different “non-derogatory” understanding that leaves room to doubt universal evolutionism?
Notice how Sy Garte “converted” to a new understanding right here at BioLogos in 2015. He started with this:
“The word ‘evolutionism’ is an unfortunate one, as is scientism.” – Sy Garte
Later, after hearing “another side” that he hadn’t heard before, he changed his mind. To his credit, he has also attempted to correct his language.
“I mentioned this discussion to my wife who is a linguist and she basically agreed with you about the use of terms evolution and evolutionism, so (since she is always right) I hereby withdraw my comment regarding my unfortunate use of the word “unfortunate”.” - Sy Garte (10 Misconceptions about Evolution - #26 by Sy_Garte)
Let’s be clear about why this is important. The issue is not at all “Gregory is right, BioLogos is wrong.” The key issue is rather that Sy Garte saw his way through the error in his own thinking. Thanks to his linguist wife!
That’s all I’m asking you to consider also, Klax. It might help your philosophy, in the science, philosophy, theology collaborative conversation.
BioLogos attempts to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary biology (among other things, but that’s one of the main ones).
BioLogos attempts to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary ecology
BioLogos attempts to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary chemisty
BioLogos attempts to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary zoology
BioLogos attempts to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary geology.
BioLogos attempts to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary cosmology.
My question regards the distinction between Natural-Physical Sciences & Human-Social Sciences.
Should BioLogos attempt to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary psychology?
Should BioLogos attempt to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary linguistics?
Should BioLogos attempt to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary anthropology?
Should BioLogos attempt to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary political science?
Should BioLogos attempt to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary economics?
Should BioLogos attempt to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary sociology?
Should BioLogos attempt to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary cultural studies?
Should BioLogos attempt to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary philosophy?
Should BioLogos attempt to bring evangelical Protestants to accept evolutionary religious studies? That’s what I’m asking in this thread.
Klax may get around to addressing that. But for now, he’s not addressing evolutionism or evolutionary universalism, and seems to be denying it “even could be a problem”, so there’s a disconnect.
“the self congratulatory Templeton scientists are fallacious ”
As a strong supporter of BioLogos’ “pro-evolution” stance, you do realize that BioLogos Foundation exists thanks to the Templeton Foundation, do you not? It was Templeton money that got BioLogos going.
“The conflict is entirely in the minds of Christians, from Templeton on down.”
Yes, the main immediate questions then are: “which Christians,” “which tradition of Christians” or “which branch of Christians” went down the wrong path on this topic. Frankly, the “down the wrong path” community is largely non-mainline evangelical Protestants, according to surveys. You are aware of that, right Klax?
Personally, I found the Protestant tradition almost poisonous on the topic of “evolution”, “creation” and “Intelligent Design”. It almost forces people into conflict with each other the way the Protestant churches I attended “position” themselves on this topic. So much anger, pride, hatred, condescension … and argument, argument, argument between Christian brothers and sisters over the “movements” that have grown around promoting those three “ideas”. It’s quite a sad spectacle! : (
I have a busy day and may pop in, but another session overlaps and I won’t be attending the “evolutionary science and sociology” nonsense today. Good wishes discerning the wheat from the chaff if any of you so choose to attend.
The new link invitation is up – D.S. Wilson is ready to amaze people with smarm into “rethinking religion” through an “everything and anything from an evolutionary perspective”. Word to the wise, pray be cautious. 