I misspoke. I should have said flaunted erudition, leaving us wearied and underwhelmed. Think whatever you like and inflate the issue however much you desire, speaking of “Oh well, then. I don’t find that valuable or convincing.” Peace (and silence).
We all believe what we have to don’t we mate? We all have ideology sensu lato and sensu stricto, depending on what happened to us. What happened to you? What are yours? Apart from ideologophobialism. What did happen to you?
The good and bad outcomes of the fact of evolution are the mixed bag of passions that war in our members and using reason to justify them.
I assume @Gregory is criticizing the naive use of evolutionary theory to justify income inequality and extol market forces, unchecked capitalism and libertarianism. It is one thing to simply note patterns of gradual change that we see and to describe them as evolving. But to insinuate that the science of evolution justifies the existence of those patterns or adds credence to the notion that everyone should attach significance to those patterns is not justified. But of course the idea that the Bible should be the final word in settling points of empirical fact is every bit as silly and illogical.
1 Like
Thanks Mark. I hadn’t noticed @Gregory preaching the gospel, glad you did. Aye, Fascists hijacked evolution early.
1 Like
The issue shouldn’t be inflated. Nor should it be left almost completely or very under-addressed. Under-addressed, that’s “evolutionary religious studies” at BioLogos, as you probably know.
What would be preferred, Dale, is if you would simply approach the topic with a learning heart and seek what is true, instead of misspeaking and refusing to grow based on what you don’t know because you haven’t studied. Simply put, have the humility to ask those who have done the studies. That’s what mutual respect and community learning is about. Is that somehow unfair to an “evolutionary providentialist”?
“I assume @Gregory is criticizing the naive use of evolutionary theory to justify income inequality and extol market forces, unchecked capitalism and libertarianism.”
Yes, that is one of the criticisms. Evolutionary economics and evolutionary political ‘science’ are the subfields in which scholars would do that, though “justifying income inequality” isn’t what you normally find among scholars in those fields. Unchecked capitalism, yes, evolutionary theory has been used for promoting that historically, and also is sometimes used for that today, across a range of social sciences.
“to insinuate that the science of evolution justifies the existence of those patterns or adds credence to the notion that everyone should attach significance to those patterns is not justified.”
Evolutionary ethics, evolutionary psychology, and evolutionary religious studies are ALL built upon analogies and shared assumptions with evolutionary biology. Historically, in terms of the formation of the subdisciplines (philosophy & religious studies), this cannot be avoided.
So, while I agree with you that “attaching significance to patterns is not justified” using “evolution” to do it in human-social fields, Mark, sadly that is exactly what has been done for at least 60 years, as well as IS currently being done now. Were you aware of this in any of its various forms?
This and the people who do “evolutionary social science” are in large part not visible here at BioLogos, Mark. Would you disagree? This is directly relevant to the OP’s question about “good & bad conclusions from (the) theory of evolution”.
Economics, politics, ethics, psychology, religion, philosophy, sociology all emerge from genetically hard wired human brains in feedback epicycles and synergies over tens and hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution. Let alone music from when we were fish.
I haven’t got as much testosterone invested in the topic as you, nor am I interested in your unpublished dictionary of definitions peculiar to Gregory. It is more than clear to most of us that methodological naturalism is not ideological but ‘mechanical’ since it only deals with the physical and material realm, while philosophical naturalism is ideological, since it denies the existence of anything supernatural. Shall we talk about Gregory’s definition of evolution.
I wonder if everyone would agree that credal Christianity meets the definition of being an ideology? If so then obviously something being an ideology isn’t in itself a bad thing. I would think that from the POV of Christians there just shouldn’t be any false ideologies, gold calves and so on, coming between them and the Bible’s God.
An ideology is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons that are not purely epistemic, in which “practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones.” Wikipedia
Certainly by Oxford’s definition:
a set of beliefs, especially one held by a particular group, that influences the way people behave
According to that definition, “a set of beliefs…”, I would think that from anyone’s POV, there just shouldn’t be any false ideologies, because anyone holding to a false ideology is believing something that is false! I would personally recommend against believing falsehoods, anyway.
Sure and I agree. I guess the difference is that whatever truths we unreligious think we’re operating under, they’re not comprehensive. There is no nonBible that sets out a creed which calls us not to accept other truths that run against it. I wonder if @Gregory’s objection to applying evolutionary theory where it doesn’t belong is motivated more by a Chrianity’s loyalty to the one true ideology or just because it is a mistake?
No I’ve mostly noticed it only in economics. In politics the notion that Marxism would be an inevitable reaction to the excesses of capitalism always struck me as way too mechanistic. In college I took a course in intellectual history from Martin Jay which came with an enormous collection of readings which included far too much on Marxism for my taste. Today it is the very idea of looking at humanity mechanistically which seems like the biggest mistake.
If you mean the articles and contributions of the people here at BioLogos do not seem to fall victim to misapplying evolutionary theory, then yes I do agree. I’m appreciating that there seems to be much openness toward examining ones epistemic position regarding big questions. I think every field of thought is improved by avoiding tying things up too neatly or sweeping doubts and inconsistencies under the rug. Frankly it has been my time here which has opened my eyes to how insightful and forward looking the Christian world view can be.
2 Likes
“I wonder if everyone would agree that credal Christianity meets the definition of being an ideology?” MarkD
This may sound curious to you, Mark, but people who don’t believe (creed) in anything can be amongst the hardest to speak with, even though they’re often good conversationalists who can and are willing to “openly talk about anything”. Why is this? Because since they believe in little to nothing, they also commit to nothing, even in terms of ideas. Ideas often just go ‘round & ‘round in conversational circles with such people, never reaching a destination or purpose, or oftentimes even “clarity”.
No, I just don’t think it’s right to talk the oxygen out of the room without giving thanks [to Creator] for breathing.
No, Christianity is not an ideology (though its opponents have sometimes claimed it is, and continue to accuse it now). True, there are “ideas” that are specifically “Christian”, iow, that come from the life and death (and if you believe, resurrection) of Jesus, son of Mary & Joseph, son of David, son of Abraham, son of Adam, son of Man, who was raised in Nazareth. Instead of ideology, one could rather speak faithfully of Christology, Mark, with a sense of accuracy given towards the “divine logoi”.
“I wonder if @Gregory ’s objection to applying evolutionary theory where it doesn’t belong is motivated more by a Chrianity’s [sic] loyalty to the one true ideology or just because it is a mistake?”
It’s a fair question, even with a faulty premise based on misunderstanding “ideology” and “Christianity”. The second part is correct: “because it is a mistake”. Exaggerating “evolutionary theory” from biology to culture “is a mistake”. Applying “evolution” to “religious studies” as an analogy to biology that stretches the scale of relevance out of all “Christian” sense of proportion “is a mistake”. Using “evolution” as a condescendingly absurd natural-scientistic conceptual smuggling into the social sciences and humanities where agency, purpose, goal, aim, reason, value, ethos, and intuition are involved “is a mistake”. Do you disagree?
In short, “applying evolutionary theory where it doesn’t belong … is a mistake” (Mark, Regular [agnostic, “unreligious”]). Are we not ALL here agreed on that (it’s kinda just definitional)? That’s a simple important question that I’m assuming even all Moderators at BioLogos, could conceivably answer in the affirmative. Frankly, who wouldn’t, except an ideological evolutionist trying to protect ideological evolutionism against any and all philosophical and theological costs and reason?
“I’ve mostly noticed it only in economics.”
Ok, well it turns out that I hold a bachelor’s degree in economics and have looked into this topic in economics. So, I’m willing to entertain your claim if you can back it up.
Please say who you’ve “noticed it only in economics” coming from (e.g. Veblen or Schumpeter)? Iow, who is speaking about “evolutionary economics” nowadays that you’ve noticed, where did you read it or hear it said, and what did you think of using “evolution” in “economics”?
Introducing BioLogos to “evolutionary economics” might help people to understand boundaries that they haven’t seen before. Unlike ERS, with eVoecon it is much easier for those soft on biologism and prone to scientism and highly rational “faith” to largely accept it. Would a discussion of “evolutionary economics” interest you, Mark, within the context of BioLogos’ “evolutionary creation/theistic evolution” worldview?
“I haven’t got as much testosterone invested in the topic as you, nor am I interested in your unpublished dictionary of definitions peculiar to Gregory.”
It isn’t clear how gendering the conversation with talk of testosterone offers a helpful resolution or any resolution based in truth or fairness, Dale?
It’s unnecessary to continue with these ad hominems, Dale, against me based either on false testimony or lack of awareness that won’t self-admit. My works have been published on this topic if you’re open to considering them; they’re not an “unpublished dictionary” as you assert. 
Likewise, “peculiar to a single author” is what’s called “novelty” in scholarship, i.e. making an original contribution, or “contributing to the literature". It’s usually invited and seen as positive, if done right and with good scholarship. Do you know much or anything about this, Dale, from having gone through the author-journal publishing process yourself, to be able to give a fair assessment of the literature on this topic?
Thank you for the compliment that you see such peculiarity in my writing! 
This also may explain the occasional reluctance of others to engage with my ideas here, having never faced such “peculiar” thinking before, especially not when coming from a North American –> @AntoineSuarez would be the one exception here, a European with some “theologically novel” ideas at BioLogos.
“Economics, politics, ethics, psychology, religion, philosophy, sociology all emerge from genetically hard wired human brains in feedback epicycles and synergies over tens and hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution. Let alone music from when we were fish.” - Klax
This is spoken as an “outsider” perspective, such as how a physicist might speak, not as how an “encultured” person would do. Why the lack of culture when talking about humanity, Klax?
Evolution uber alles is simply not how theologians speak. They don’t start with the kind of “objectivism” that a physicist would prefer (though humbly backing away from it each time, almost as in a cycle). Sorry if that disappoints you or confounds your “brain” about what interests theologians. Instead, they start with God first, and human beings, with people, with prosopon, not just Anthropos ; they start with our hearts (nous), not with our (hardwired) brains → minds. Try cosmic theology / theology of creation of St. Maximus the Confessor as a counter-weight to empiricist and mechanical tendencies.
That’s one reason why I don’t read W.L. Craig, while the Desert Fathers are available to read; over-rationalized (western) protestantism isn’t appealing to me anymore after seeking the (eastern) heart, instead of merely the hard-wired brain. McLuhan first awoke me to this alternative & folks like Craig haven’t held much appeal ever since then.
Your “let alone music from when we were fish”, Klax, thus might appeal to Craig. But it wouldn’t to McLuhan, and it doesn’t to me. Instead, we are interested in actual people’s hearts and minds here and now, not as mere abstractions using “evolution” as a placeholder for actual understanding. Once you admit that a boundary exists, then the “bad conclusions from [the] theory of evolution” can be fairly outlined by you, Klax, but likely won’t be until then.
Whether or not Christianity or any other religion is an ideology is not one of my issues. But then it isn’t a categorical term of aspersion for me as it seems to be for you. I suppose what would make a system of ideas worthy of aspersion would be when people insert them everywhere regardless of the fit or utility in doing so. YEC would be an example of one system of ideas, the estimate of dates of biblical patriarchs, being used as a constraint on the application of observation and measurement in science. But it does no good merely to condemn the practice. Either people’s perspective is widened enough to do justice to both fields or it is not, and this site honestly endeavors to do that.
No, I did not say the things you’ve quoted from me with the intention of casting aspersion on Christianity. I don’t look at Christianity as an ideology. Whether or not it meets the bare definition of being one is not what makes Christianity interesting to me. Likewise the examples we can find of the misapplication of biological evolutionary theory is not what is most interesting. Rather it is the questions it helps us answer. Whether it interests you to wonder how we evolved in such a way as to make religion compelling, it does interest me and some others here as well. I don’t see why what we may learn about it should threaten you or anyone else. The study of sexual drive in human beings does not make me lose all interest in my wife. Why should the study of the origins of religious experience cause anyone to walk away from their religious practice?
If you wish to expound more on the place of evolutionary theory in economics, perhaps you’d like to open a thread on it? I’ll leave that to you. My only brush with it was that one class I took in intellectual history. Personally there are no questions in economics which I find particularly motivating. So I wouldn’t be interested in such a thread but there is no reason you shouldn’t explore it with those who are.
Edited to fix the “dispersion” vs “aspersion” confusion I didn’t even know I had. Thank you @Klax for kindly drawing my attention to it in a PM. This is the bent toward kindness that puts flesh on the bones of the expression “the Christian thing to do”.
2 Likes
Could BioLogos please check this person for obsessive behaviour? What’s with Klax trying to possess my name by writing & re-writing it?
Bad theory in human-social sciences should be open to consideration and critical feedback, instead of just “colloquially” accepted by people “outside” the field. Is that in any way disagreeable, and if so, why?
Bad uses of “evolution” in the human-social sciences shouldn’t be protected by physicists, biologists or chemists, for ANY reason. None of their reasons (I’ve heard many reasons given) are “good” reasons!
Can anyone help it that Klax isn’t willing to face the “bad conclusions from [the] theory of evolution” except for himself? Lack of attention by a “guy on a blog” doesn’t change the fact that many “bad conclusions from [the] theory of evolution” have actually been made, and are currently available for people to face, if they only have the will to do so. Let not Klax’s lack of will (though he may say he “knows all about that already”, yet again) stop others from fairly considering the available evidence and following that evidence where it leads.
It’s absolutely NOT a surprise that, as a pro-evolution, anti-evolutionist, I’m willing to face @KZiemian’s post directly regarding “bad conclusions from [the] theory of evolution”, but that ideological evolutionists who’ve “eternally” wound up “evolution” into their protestant theology, cannot and WILL NOT face anti-evolutionism on a level playing field, since to them (in their local milieux) anti-evolutionism = YECism, and that’s been shown to be a dead-end street of miscommunication.
Why’s this addressed to me?
This is why, Klax. I’m asking you to please stop your obsessiveness.