How many theories of evolution are there?

As I said, YMMV at best. I certainly don’t agree with anyone who says that the theory of evolution should determine our moral and ethical standards.

2 Likes

All good?! Again, we see the primitive language of “scientists” who don’t realise there are MULTIPLE EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES, not a singular “the”. (Natural-Physical) Scientists often are stubborn with their language, though, so we still have outdated resistant holdouts.

"Social Darwinism and “survival of the fittest” is among the worst conclusion that have been drawn from it "

Again, please explore if there might be a new perspective that you haven’t confronted before, instead of revealing a myopic “natural scientist” view of “evolution”, which really isn’t a problem in the natural sciences themselves.

See here, “Darwinism IS Social”. If you can’t download it, then send me a DM, since I have a copy of it, and it doesn’t seem to be on the radar at BioLogos. Chapter 21. Darwinism Is Social

“These days I see more and more thinking aligned behind the realization that cooperation is the most successful survival strategy.”

Ok, then see Kessler & Kropotkin from over a hundred years ago & learn about “mutual aid” (vzaimopomosh). Welcome finally to join the conversation, Mitchell!

You might be inspired by ditching the “scientific worldview” you’ve thus far been using to assess certain things that it shouldn’t be used for. If you’d like, I’m ready to help if you’ll actually try to read and explore new non-naturalistic ideas. Are you willing?

That’s simply because scientists have to work with very precise, unambiguous definitions. Also, it’s because the precise, unambiguous definitions vary from one discipline to another, sometimes in pretty subtle ways. So “the theory of evolution” may mean something very different to a biologist from what it means to a sociologist.

It’s a problem that we have all the time in the world of software development. Naming things is one of the two hard problems of computer science. (That, and cache invalidation and off-by-one errors.)

2 Likes

Yes, this is a nice way to say it. The issue that I’d like to raise as a possibility for others to consider here is that BioLogos has not made clear its “mileage” regarding “evolutionary theory” applied outside of natural-physical sciences. I’d be curious if you agree or disagree with that claim.

If BioLogos could / would make clearer the “mileage” of “evolutionary theory”, this would also save questions like the one @KZiemian asked in the OP. I’m thankful if this ambiguity can be cleared up, once and for all, at BioLogos, which does still come across as being supporters of “evolutionary psychology” (Barrett), if not also in a very strange way of “evolutionary religious studies” (people should be allowed/welcome to use “naturalism” in the study of religion, apparently is a BioLogos position), based on an atheistic or agnostic approach to “religion”.

I don’t speak for BioLogos. I’m just a participant on the forums, and the opinions that I express here are my own.

Again, thank you for saying this. We are in agreement. BioLogos obviously doesn’t want me to speak for it about “evolution” because they have “different” views than mine coming from the field called “sociology of science” (SoS). BioLogos frankly doesn’t do SoS very well! The question remains if they’re in any way interested in YMMV or not. If so, then maybe they’ll FINALLY explain themselves about the “mileage” limits of “evolutionary theory” and how it is or is not valid in social sciences and humanities. Will they respond do you think?

"So ‘the theory of evolution’ may mean something very different to a biologist from what it means to a sociologist.

It’s a problem that we have all the time in the world of software development. Naming things is one of the two hard problems of computer science. (That, and cache invalidation and off-by-one errors.)"

The topic in the other thread (from which this one was split by a moderator) asked about “Anyone that know something about reception of science in human society”. Yeah, that’s what my PhD studies were on: sociology of science.

It turns out that I work with software developers (not “evolvers”) regularly nowadays. They quickly understand and can uptake the language of “extension” instead of “evolution” quite easily and directly. It’s a different meaning of “change-over-time” in the two terms, after all, right James?

What I have encountered is people with a little knowledge of a particular science and equating that with reality itself. I am certainly familiar with this in the case of the natural science while Gregory has been demonstrating this in the social sciences. My reply to those confusing the natural sciences with reality is to explain that science is an activity, which people from all different cultures and religions can participate in. This is because it seeks procedures which give the same result no matter what you want or believe. But science is not life any more than it is a religion or an ideology.

So the fact is that people do not need to spend ANY of their time or attention on the natural sciences or the theory of evolution in order to live their life. Nor do they need to concern themselves with social science either. Some would rather spend their time on football. I spend a good deal of my time with the game of go, watching tournaments and studying the strategy of the game. I will never spend any of my time on game shows or reality television or spectator sports. I have some interest in psychology, but practically none for other social sciences. So I have no interest for any supposed “theories of evolution” in sociology any more than I have for sun gods in various ancient religions… less even.

Now this is interesting. It seems to blur the line between science and philosophy. I was interested to read, in Wikipedia, “Critics such as Thomas Henry Huxley, G. E. Moore, William James, and John Dewey roundly criticized such attempts to draw ethical and political lessons from Darwinism, and by the early decades of the twentieth century Social Darwinism was widely viewed as discredited.” I too would view talk of “evolutionary ethics” with considerable caution.

It is one thing to explore how some of our ethical mores have an evolutionary origin and quite another to say that such things have any bearing on the question of what our ethical mores should be now. Obviously we must not let the scientific nature of the former confuse us about the entirely philosophical nature of the latter question.

I’m beginning to believe it will be next to IMPOSSIBLE to remove the ideological naturalism from your language, Mitchell. It seems to me that you have “the nature of” intentionally ignoring non-naturalistic language. Or does that not properly represent your (non-naturalistic) character?

If by this you mean you will not get me to parrot the language of your ideological framework then you are quite correct.

Can you define this so called “ideological naturalism” in a different way than this?

I understand naturalism to be a matter of equating science to the limits of reality itself, which is something which I certainly do not do. As for language, there are many languages and you can use whichever are suited to the situation. For science, no other language than a “language of naturalism” is suitable. Theology and its language definitely has no place in science and never will. And no this does not mean that science must claim itself to be the limits of reality, but nor is it the business of science to acknowledge any other reality.

PLEASE go read Paul de Vries’ paper, “Naturalism in the natural sciences: a Christian perspective” (1986).

Reading this will help in the future. Thanks & good wishes, Mitchell.

Why all this foaming at the mouth at the simple, rational, common sense, entirely theologically neutral, irrelevant fact of naturalism?

Incorrect, since I defined naturalism as something different than science.

Naturalism equates science to the limits of reality itself.

But it should be more than obvious that science is the limit of science itself.

How can a person who imagines himself to be rational equate the following statements.
A bird is an animal.
An animal is a bird.
And yet that is precisely what Gregory is doing, equating…
Science is strictly naturalistic.
Naturalism is strictly scientific.

That Gregory thinks these are the same is a sad and telling gap in his rationality.

And we still haven’t seen Gregory’s definition of “ideological naturalism,” so I guess we can conclude his claim about me was indeed about conforming to the language of his ideological framework.

I can quote a dictionary definition of “naturalism” but it is just what I said above.

naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural . Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation.
Encyclopedia Britannica

This is instead a thread about “How many theories of evolution are there?”

Do you have a number to offer here to this question?

LOL, yup, naturalism is for ideologues, not Christians. As a profession? Well, let’s talk cuz most of “them” are unable to give a balanced story about how natural science doesn’t require allegiance to ideological naturalism, while that allegiance is assumed by many natural scientists nowadays.

How dare you tell Christians that they must not be intellectually honest?

Correct.

Nor does science require opposition to “ideological naturalism,” whatever that may be.

Nevertheless science is certainly naturalistic, built upon the assumption that there are laws of nature to explain the behavior of things in nature. Using to God or other supernatural things to explain the things of nature is contrary to what science is all about.

Huh? Intellectual honesty would seemingly require Mitchell to acknowledge that “naturalism” differs from “natural science”. He might even be able to put a name on what “naturalism” is, which he hasn’t done yet.

We have yet to see if Mitchell would use the term “ideology” for “naturalism”. It might be beyond his “natural scientist” pay grade, but we’ll see if he can do it.

No, this is wrong. It reveals philosophical impoverishment.