Good and bad conclusions from theory of evolution

Faith & Science Conversation
24

Darwin thought bears could evolve into dogs? That sounds very unlikely.

25

A little bit tangential, but one that I have seen frequently is that many popular-level texts (and biology textbooks, for that matter) do a very bad job of explaining the history of science prior to about 1900. Among the few that I have read that are accurate are the books by Martin Rudwick (I think I spelled his name correctly) on the subject. A tendency to promote the “science and the church have always been at war with each other” narrative is rather common among less well-done history of science works.

1 Like
26

I have seen that error rather frequently, like thinking that evidence for evolution should look like a modern coelacanth developing into a modern cryptobranchid.

1 Like
27

I’m checking with Cambridge. Watch this space.

Later, my follow up:

Ah!

“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p.184.)

Which, of course, does NOT say, ‘till a monstrous whale was produced.’. Although it could be interpreted that way.

Is it thought that that is what Darwin meant?

Keep watching!

Later!

No he didn’t.

My apologies for traducing him.

‘The Bear case has been well laughed at,’ he wrote to one correspondent, ‘& disingenuously distorted by some into my saying that a bear could be converted into a whale’

1 Like
28

Thanks, yes, this one better helped me to understand your views.

“I read quite a few BioLogos texts, but from my experience they are rarely about evolution theory per se, rather about evolution in the context of other issues.”

We are agreed, though they have an “evolution basics” series too. The Moderators are not evolutionary biologists or biologists, or most of them academics. While there are a few posts about evolutionary biology also, BioLogos would never be confused with being a biology research institute.

“theory of evolution written for biologist”

That helps me to understand. You’re with @Sy_Garte, @jammycakes & myself in limiting “theory of evolution” in the (possibly) “good” sense to biology and other natural sciences, and NOT allowing it any sort of credibility outside of that realm. Protecting against the widespread abuse of people (usually natural scientists) trying to use “evolution” outside of natural-physical sciences is what my attention is focused on here.

“I only aware of them, if they are appear in the public space. And you are right, I’m not interested in them, at least now.”

They’re active and fairly prominent in the “public space” of English language news and discourse. Likely you’ve heard of some of it. David S. Wilson’s “Darwin’s Cathedral”, “Evolution for Everyone”, and “Prosocial”, Yuval Harari’s “Sapiens” & “Homo Deus”, Jarred Diamond’s “Guns, Germs & Steel”, Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate”, “The Language Instinct”, and “Enlightenment Now”, Daniel Dennett’s “Freedom Evolves” and “From Bacteria to Bach”, Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” and “Waking Up”, Scott Atran’s “In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion”, Pascal Boyer’s “Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought”, Susan Blackmore’s “The Meme Machine”, Robert Wright’s “The Evolution of God”, etc.

To me, these reflect some of the many “bad conclusions from the theory of evolution” that you asked for, which are imho both negatively and significantly impacting the “public space” conversations and communications. E.g. quite a few people at BioLogos seem to “like” and even have recommended Jared Diamond’s views of human origins here, seemingly being ok with his agnostic “scientific anthropology” told in a pop culture way. At least, I haven’t seen any of the pro-Diamond anthropology supporters here recommend an alternative text written by a religious theist instead.

How about you? Do you have theological anthropologists, historians, sociologists, and philosophers that you turn to instead of the people listed above for your (a)theological anthropology?

1 Like
29

No, that would be philosophistic suggestion only, not a coherent philosophical position that could be defended in public with serious thinkers at the table.

However, neither could MNism have passed a decent graduate committee when Wheaton College ethicist and administrator Paul de Vries floated the idea in the 1980s. Someone at least should have stopped him in his tracks and asked: “have you thought of the consequences of promoting MNism?” That a few evangelicals and a LOT of atheists and agnostics have “run with MNism” since then doesn’t give de Vries’ ideology (philosophy) credibility that it never had to begin with.

Sociological interpretations of natural-physical sciences include studies of the scientists themselves acting in community; in laboratories, in the field, at the computer, in classrooms and faculty lounges, etc. Since science is largely a social process, it makes sense that a sociological analysis of (the) scientific process(es) would be possible (see Latour’s "Science in Action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society ", 1987, Harvard University Press). What’s Dale on about calling sociological “bad” here?

Those who contend “good science IS ideological” (i.e. “naturalistic”, inescapably) are on the sociological level (mainly in the USA, but remember Lysenko?) a curious minority who usually cannot explain their views, which don’t seem all that coherent after all, when looked at more closely than they have thus far done. IDists are typical examples of this, as are YECists, while TEists & ECists have their share of “good science is ideological science restricted by naturalism” proponents, it would appear.

30

What do you find objectionable about Guns, Germs and Steel? Is it the idea that Europeans through long exposure to cattle developed immunity to small pox and the like? I don’t recall much focus on evolution, just an honest, thorough attempt to explain the disparity of wealth between human cultures in terms of geography. A delightful and insightful read.

5 Likes
31

Gregory is on about as per usual, meanwhile not comprhending the use of scare quotes. No one was calling ‘sociological’ bad.

1 Like
32

“‘bad’ interpretations of good science (such as eugenics) may be more sociological and influenced by philosophical naturalism” - Dale

Bad interpretations are “more sociological”?

When the dichotomy is forced between “methodological vs. philosophical”, wise thinkers stop playing.

The view that “good science is (read: must be) ideological” is highly marginal, though sadly not invisible nowadays.

34

If you inferred that is what I was saying, you are mistaken.
 

Nothing is forced. It is obvious to those of faith. And wise.

35

Well, the fact is that you used de Vries’ chosen ideological terms, Dale. Do you first deny THAT is a fact?

Ronald Numbers traced the usage (via Wheaton College) of MNism through him to his 1986 article (apparently he’d first presented about it in 1983). That’s enough to show I wasn’t mistaken, and also reveals that you’ve embraced de Vries’ ideological approach to science by adopting his chosen language. Do you accept that “association” by “shared language usage” of MNism with de Vries?

Have you actually read de Vries’ paper, Dale: yes or no?

Inaccurate armchair commentary based on whim and opinion from a distance, instead of doing accurate and careful research with clear thinking, isn’t helpful here. That’s when “bad conclusions from (the) theory of evolution” arise, as the OP inquires about.

Sorry, Dale, good science does NOT embrace ideology, unlike the ideologically “naturalistic” requirement you would use to shackle science. Gently but firmly, sir, that’s a no-go zone worth putting one’s foot down in faith about with confidence that some boundaries shouldn’t be moved.

36

I deny that there is any profit in continuing a conversation with you. Your scholarship is too overwhelming, not to mention a few other things. :grin:

1 Like
37

Thank you for not reading well, nor understanding what ‘MN’ means. It means

good science does NOT embrace ideology.

 
That is exactly why secular scientists can work side by side with Christian ones.

38

(‘PN’ denotes scientism.)

39

It’s just that your “interpretation” of MNism neglects too much, Dale, and doesn’t recognize enough. MNism IS an ideology. That’s why the -ism is there.

It matters little if you don’t “like” this, due perhaps to whatever “evolutionary providentialism” means.

We can look at the terms directly:
Reason isn’t an ideology. Rationalism is.
Matter isn’t an ideology. Materialism is.
Science isn’t an ideology. Scientism is.
Nature isn’t an ideology. _________ is.

Would you care to fill in that blank, Dale, to the best of your knowledge and ability with English language? What IS “naturalism” to you? Would you care to define it alternatively, if you wish, for whatever reason, to avoid calling it an ideology?

“That is exactly why secular scientists can…”

Frankly, while I’ve done a PhD in sociology, with a particular study on sociology of science, I’ve never heard the term “secular scientist” used by a serious thinker. It’s either the subfield sociology of science, philosophy of science, anthropology of science or even psychology of science that would best address this topic involving “secularisation”, the “secular”, “secularism”, etc.

The term “secular scientist” seems largely to be only what evangelical “science/faith” apologists (e.g. Swamidass uses this terminological framing regularly on PS: “secular science” → what on Earth is that supposed to mean?!), YECists and IDists use. It seems they do this to intentionally distinguish themselves as defenders of some kind of “theistic science” in contrast with “secular science” for their donors, though it creates an “us” vs. “them” dynamic from the start. Wow, is that ever an avoidable trap!

Frankly, I have no idea what “secular science” or “secular scientist” means. Instead, “science” and “scientist” make sense to discuss in a way that hopefully doesn’t lead toward “bad conclusions from (the) theory of evolution”, but rather away from them.

40

Scientism and naturalism are often related. Naturalistic scientism is perhaps the most common kind of scientism. It’s usually natural scientists themselves who hold & promote (natural) scientism. You’re aware of that, right Dale?

Nevertheless, you forgot about this, Dale. It’s kinda like a wrench in the MNism framework for a religious theist to acknowledge:

the ideologically “naturalistic” requirement you would use to shackle science.

Thus, a peaceful solution is easily visible here. If you would drop the promotion of “theistic naturalism”, Dale, and stop claiming “MNism is good science”, which it obviously isn’t, but instead reflects a curious kind of theistic scientific ideology, then we’d have more peace. I do hope for that, Dale. :pray:

41

You need a holiday mate.

And what’s wrong with the ideology of scientism again?

1 Like
42

Take the suggested holiday. Your presumed erudition needs a rest. As do we.

43

“You need a holiday mate.”

If so, yes, from philosophistry that poses as entitled theistic naturalism.

“And what’s wrong with the ideology of scientism again?”

LOL, yeah, of course. Why would BioLogos likewise be against scientism, even without EVER properly calling “scientism” an “ideology” and addressing it as such? If they DO call scientism an ideology, then please LINK to that post by a BioLogos staff member, fair enough? I will gladly be proven wrong if you think you’ve seen BioLogos speak about “scientism” (properly) as an ideology.

Notice that I actually did answer the OP’s question. However, other commenters now hounding me about that here either, 1) somehow can’t answer the OP’s question, or 2) simply won’t answer the OP’s question. They want to instead make it about me directly and clearly rejecting their ideology (TEism/CEism), instead of actually facing the OP’s question. It would make for a better conversation here, however, if others would actually address the OP.

If they have reasons to avoid the question, then at least stop side-tracking the thread. Fair enough?

44

If you’d have had cards with evidence to prove your point, you’d have shown them by now.

I’m ready and willing to engage the literature and test your claims any day of the week whenever you step up to the plate and drop the colloquialisms.

You’ve somehow avoided the literature by scholars (not from Wheaton/Kings) as much as possible, Dale, seemingly in order to promote an ideology that you deny is an ideology. Oh, well, then. I don’t find that valuable or convincing.

This is the same thing that happens with “bad conclusions from (the) theory of evolution.” The proponents of ideological evolutionism surely don’t always rely on evidence to support their ideological frameworks. They are not “scientific ideological evolutionists”. This should be openly admitted and accepted based on many examples.