Good and bad conclusions from theory of evolution

Faith & Science Conversation
66

In the future, if anyone notices a post that they believe violates our guidelines, please flag it by clicking the flag icon on the bottom of the post.

67

I believe that was his literary way of holding up a mirror for you to look into. You tend to address people by name a lot in your responses which either is - or at least comes across as patronizing and condescending. Not to defend Klax in all his practices around here - Lord knows he hears from us plenty and his stuff often gets deleted too. We are indeed a motley crew around here. It would be a pity if we only had room for one eccentric dissenter around here, right?

6 Likes
68

Thanks, appreciated :+1:

69

That’s exactly what I told him. As well as to block me.

70

The former, I believe. Or else we’re all princesses, as in The Princess and the Pea.

71

There are usually three reasons I use people’s names:

  1. Courtesy, it’s a conversation with someone, a person created in the image of God, who has a name, not just an avatar;

  2. To highlight or stress a point or question, so that the person knows I am highlighting it, as something I would like them to address with them specifically;

  3. So that others may know that I am intending NOT to address them with whatever message is being stated; so there is no confusion of who is being addressed, thus I identify the name of the person.

What’s your just right “name-using” policy, Merv? Does the above make sense to you and sound acceptable, or need some adjustment for your view of BioLogos’ typical rules of engagement?

72

“[‘ideology’] isn’t a categorical term of aspersion for me as it seems to be for you.”

Nor is it for me. It has both positive and negative meanings. My position on this is well-developed, so it’s likely that you’re only starting to see it still clouded with shadows.

“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”

Yes, we are agreed on this, though “nearly everywhere regardless of the fit or utility in doing so” would suffice for me. IDism & YECism are both in this category, as are TEism & ECism. IDists at the Discovery Institute REALLY don’t like being asked about the limits of their “ID theory / ideology”, for what are obvious reasons.

In the case of the term “evolution” being used “nearly everywhere regardless of the fit or utility in doing so”, this is so visible and widespread nowadays one would have to be pretty cloistered away from humanity, libraries, tv, and the internet to be unaware of it. The misapplications, misuses, and exaggerations of “evolution” interdisciplinarily are legion by now.

You said: “I don’t look at Christianity as an ideology.” That’s nice. We are agreed that “Christianity” does not constitute an “ideology”. Yet, you’d said, “I wonder if everyone would agree that credal Christianity meets the definition of being an ideology? If so then…”, which seemed to indicate you weren’t clear about it yet, and thought it might be. Glad that you’re now clear it’s not.

“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 believe you’ve got this backwards to most people here, Mark. Almost everyone else, including myself, is an Abrahamic monotheist, for which we thank God. It seems you’re instead sitting on the fence admiring “Christianity” from a distance preferring to be “unreligious”.

Question for you: Do you believe “belief in God evolved naturally without Divine Creation”, or that “without Divine Revelation, people wouldn’t believe in God, regardless of the process of ‘change-over-time’ in human history since Creation”? In addressing and answering this, if you will, I believe you’ll be able to see more clearly why “evolutionary religious studies” (ERS), as taught by it’s atheist & agnostic initiators, is so contrary to the historical teachings of the Christian Church. This one resonates with Galatians 1:11-19 & Luke 16:19-31.

“Why should the study of the origins of religious experience cause anyone to walk away from their religious practice?”

It shouldn’t, though belief in God involves more than practise only. When “religious studies” is done naturalistically (i.e. based on ideological naturalism) by an agnostic or atheist “practitioner” in academia, then yes, sociologically speaking, “no religious practise” by that person is typical and most common. Scientific naturalists are most commonly not religious theists unless someone uses a kind of thin, neutered definition of “naturalism” to try to make it palatable with “theism”. Do you disagree with this sociological analysis?

Distinguishing “naturalism” as ideology from technically being a “naturalist” as profession (outdated) also adds to the communicative challenge here. Likewise, however, the term “theism” denotes an ideology, which can be distinguished from genuine Christian faith in God.

“If you wish to expound more on the place of evolutionary theory in economics, perhaps you’d like to open a thread on it?”

Why would I wish to promote a vacuous and misused term in economics that threatens the field with irrelevancy due to reductionism and biological hand-maiden status? Yet for “theistic evolutionists”, it sure would make a LOT of sense to (eventually) come up with a “theistic evolutionary economics”, don’t you think, Mark?

Otherwise, where to draw necessary limits so that the concept of “evolution” isn’t “universalized” to apply to everything? It sounded like you were against attempts at universalizing evolution into ideological evolutionism, but just couldn’t pick out examples of it by name or case. Is that where it is for you now?

73

Every condescension is effectively an ad hominem (which term does not need to be italicized), is it not? And there are more than are reasonably countable.

74

Well, that’s language for you.

2 Likes
75

Well, that’s evolution for you. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
76

Yes, the word evolution has evolved.

2 Likes
77

Some are in denial, though.

1 Like
78

No rules about any such things here. Just letting you know how it appears to others, and it’s entirely up to you whether you want to let that be of any concern to you or not.

79

Rather, that is the danger scientist face when dealing with semantics dressed as a scientific theory. I suggest that any discipline of the natural sciences must be clear and rigorous when presenting a theory, otherwise it can be treated more as a belief/ideology. I think there a very few scientists who would fail to acknowledge the odd and often crazy conclusions presented from the theory of evolution as discussed in this exchange. I have on occasion mentioned on this site some of these matters discussed when I was a student (alas too many years ago).

80

what an odd response when discussing a theory of the natural/physical sciences. :crazy_face:

2 Likes
81

Conversations evolve… and digress. My freshman comp English 101 professor was a brilliant PhD from Princeton (his dud brother was, too, and became a seminary president), and I remember two things about his teaching style – he talked really fast so you had to really listen hard, and he didn’t talk in circles but helixes, because he digressed a lot but always got where he was going. :slightly_smiling_face:

ETA: Oh, I guess I wasn’t referencing the same reply as you… but I won’t present a soliloquy like we’ve come to expect here.

82

You may not be accustomed to non Christians who are not toxic in their communication. But coming on like this just drips with condescension and I don’t need to have this conversation. Instead of claiming an authoritative status you haven’t earned I suggest you climb down off that high horse and channel at least a trace of vulnerability. (Please don’t think I’m asking you about your scholastic accomplishments.) Otherwise I pass.

3 Likes
83

I too have very pleasant memories of my days in academia.

1 Like
84

@KZiemian, I think I know what you are talking about. Research into the basic realities of existence often raise questions about how we understand Reality. The truth is one of the “byproducts” of Darwin’s theory was a view called Social Darwinism, which at one time had many adherents in the English speaking world.

Doubtlessly, people who value evolution do not want to discuss Social Darwinism, but it did and to some extent still does exist, and please check it out. And of course there are people who say that evolution means that the Bible is wrong, God does not exist, and morality is relativistic.

The difference between the response to evolution and quantum is that evoluti0on raised questions about who we are as humans in our relationship to God and others (survival of the fittest) Quantum raises questions concerning the nature of reality, which I would say is still unsettled.

86

What you wrote revealed that what you thought I thought was actually wrong re: “ideology” as “a categorical term of aspersion.”

Thus, I responded,

“Nor is it [ideology, “a categorical term of aspersion”] for me. It has both positive and negative meanings. My position on this is well-developed, so it’s likely that you’re only starting to see it still clouded with shadows.”

Since you thought wrongly about what I thought, did you not want to come into the light, or rather to continue thinking wrongly in the shadows?

“I don’t need to have this conversation.”

No, you don’t. And neither do I. But the “great gulf” linked above doesn’t go away either way.

If you’re into having a conversation still, this is the question I’d prefer for you to address first, as above:

Do you believe “belief in God evolved naturally without Divine Creation” , or that “without Divine Revelation, people wouldn’t believe in God, regardless of the process of ‘change-over-time’ in human history since Creation” ?

Again, I think you’ve got this backwards to the rest of us here, Mark, but let’s hear if your answer might come as a surprise. It might be that you interpret “condescension” into my words that isn’t there. Or it might be that you have other reasons for not answering simple questions asked on fault lines that expose ideology from the respondent. I do not know.

What I do know is a question dodged when I see or hear one. (It might have been from all of the hours in discussions with academics trying to make “points” in response to questions.)