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.
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.
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.
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.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
119
Evolution is a fact of biology and a metaphor below and above. It’s not difficult is it?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
120
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.
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.
)
insistence that every other use of the word besides Greg’s manically narrow prescription is ideological. Good grief.