That second definition has some potential.
1 Like
So psyches didn’t evolve? But evolution is a fact?
Reverse of what perspective?
The only bad conclusions from evolution are non-scientific, irrational ones starting from either accepting it or denying it. The far right were early adopters, typical of those perverting science through their distorted vision.
Are you suggesting that the theory(s) of biological evolution provides a meaning essential to our understanding of the Trinity?
1 Like
Guys, you will be here a long, long time. Make sure you turn your car engine over occasionally so the battery doesn’t die.
2 Likes
What theories? Phyletic gradualism without punctuated equilibria or group selection is the theory. Theory as in gravitation, germ, electromagnetic. And yes, of course, the essential, ontological, immanent Trinity uses human socio-biological terms which cannot be universal, unless every intentional life form of the infinite from eternity has fathers and sons which are physically dominant.
As a non believer, I do find this difficult. Scientific theories about the natural world are indeed just human constructs. Nature knows nothing about our theories nor does she ever show the answer book. We are guessing, as best we can, about what’s going on.
But it seems to me that Divine Revelation also fails to rise above this. I would argue that God is a human construct, along with the idea that he reveals himself in certain ways. If I accept the existence of God, I have no more than a human understanding of what that means. And doesn’t the interpretation of these revelations involve further human constructs? It is up to mankind to figure out what they mean and there is considerable disagreement. In fact most believers do not read their texts in the original language, rather they follow someone’s interpretation as a translation. And finally, isn’t the natural world itself a revelation of its creator? I don’t see how it’s possible to really escape the fallible limits of human knowledge
1 Like
Taking these from the end first…
It isn’t.
Amen to that!
Why or how should any human be expected to have anything more than a “human understanding” of anything? Isn’t that, by definition, impossible - divine revelation or not? It seems a bit of a canard against believers to think that, given a divine revelation, they will suddenly have comprehensions that their brains aren’t even designed to hold.
Theistic believers must part ways on that of course, if you insist that God is or can be nothing more than a human construct. But there is considerably more truth in your assertion than most believers are comfortably letting on … that indeed our images of God - even those images mediated by the Bible - will remain human constructs for us as much as they were for them - for better or worse. We can’t seem to get on much without something like a mental image to work with. The trick for us is to somehow avoid letting our mental images pass over into idolatry.
[think of our “God constructs” as being like what models are for scientists. It’s been said that all models are wrong, but some are useful. Just because I have an undoubtedly mostly false image in my head of what an atom is like; it doesn’t therefore follow that atoms are merely my own mental creations and nothing more. Or even that my wrong model was necessarily a bad one as regards helping me toward more accurate understandings.]
1 Like
To insist such would be to make a case for atheism which I am not attempting here.
What a thing actually is and what we can know about it are different things. The physical world is not a human construct but the Law of Gravity is. Like any and all human understanding we might have that wrong, at least in part. We can continue to refine and correct our understanding but we never escape the limitations of human knowledge and Nature does not publish the answer key.
Suppose I accept the existence of God, can I hope to do any better epistemologically? I am limited to a fallible human understanding of the matter and you don’t have have to look far to find profound disagreements among believers. An answer key would have helped here too :).
The TOE arose from a careful, intelligent examination of the natural world, which to a believer is an assessment of the handiwork of a creator. Although Darwin had serious doubts on the existence of God, such a theory could just as well have been formed in the mind of a believer.
I ask then, how does this differ from the understanding that a believer attains after thoughtful examination of scriptures and other matters. Even if I conceded that there are real revelations from a real God, your understanding of them is limited in the same way.
1 Like
Well yes in that there is disagreement about TOE and to some extent it has itself evolved. But this is about the details such as whether it operates by steady transformation or by “punctuated equilibrium”. The core of the theory, that the diversity of life is explained by random mutation and natural selection is not seriously contended.
But TOE is a biological theory. [Edit: To clarify, it is a theory about biology -about the real of living things. The theory itself is not, of course, biological rather a mental abstraction] It makes claims only about the diversity of life. It does not even attempt to explain how it came about in the first place. Any extension to culture or psychology while an interesting speculation, must be carefully justified and tested in the way TOE has been. That work hasn’t been done. IMO this is a worthwhile inquiry, ideas from TOE might be useful but for now it’s just a hunch.
1 Like
Amen to that. It would probably help to acknowledge that one’s mileage may vary for any given model. So we shouldn’t so much be arguing over which is the one true model but rather simply speaking up for what has made a difference for us.
It isn’t that there is no fact of the matter as that there is no simple way to describe it which can ever be entirely free of metaphor, myth or narrative. In any case every description is like a finger pointing to something else. That’s all we can do because whatever it is which gives rise to God belief is not a fact or an object and resists being pinned down.
2 Likes
The ultimate understatement when it comes to God.
2 Likes
A semantic question appears needed first, since otherwise it’s not clear to me what you’re asking.
If “TOE is a biological theory”, as you wrote it is (still in the singular “The TOE”), i.e. a theory specifically about biology, then why (on what basis) do you say TOE “to some extent [it] has itself evolved”, since a theory (in biology or any other field) is not itself a “biological” phenomenon? This seems to need unravelling if you wish to seek constructive proportion between science, philosophy, theology (or worldview).
Thus, are you currently either, 1) contending a “theory” is actually a biological phenomenon, or 2) in direct contradiction with yourself about what does and doesn’t “evolve”, since “theories” aren’t “biological phenomenon”, but you said “evolution” is a “biological theory”, or 3) changing your position to one that holds biology is (and other natural sciences are) not the exclusive field of “evolutionary theory”, and that “cultural evolution” is kosher too?
Forgive me, please, for not being able to see what you currently think “evolves” and in contrast, what I believe is vastly more important to know, what you currently think “doesn’t evolve”. It would be welcome if you could share your thoughts on this, which I believe over-laps directly with the questions in the OP.
“Evolve” means merely change (in anything ) with respect to time. (Or we could also talk about the other definition above. 
)
2 Likes
Bloat. This is a typical example of ideological evolutionism, which places NO LIMITS on “evolution”. It reflects weak and indefensible philosophistry that doesn’t actually “respect time”, only pretends to.
““Evolve” means merely change (in anything)”
Hmm, what then is “revolution”? “That’s just ‘evolution’ too, of course!”
Where does the fanatical “everything evolves” ideology end? Ideological exaggeration is no different for theistic evolutionism than it is for atheistic evolutionism; neither are helpful or sustainable. And both are easily visible when the proponent reveals they have a highly myopic vocabulary that they are stuck on.
Evolution is a fact of biology and a metaphor below and above. It’s not difficult is it?
1 Like
I find it sadly amusingly ironic that the culture that most rejects evolution is the one that enshrines freedom to, libertarianism, don’t tread on me, the cult of the individual, of ‘hard work’, meritocracy - unenlightened survival of the fittest.
1 Like
Revolutions evolve.
What’s fanatical is the 
insistence that every other use of the word besides Greg’s manically narrow prescription is ideological. Good grief.
1 Like
It is also ironic that that same culture makes a hero of Ayn Rand, and Atlas Shrugged, which with its glorification of self interest is closely related to social Darwinism, not to mention that she was against religion.
2 Likes