This is irrelevant. The issue under discussion was how “evolution” is commonly understood in public discourse. The fact is that it is so well understood with a common meaning, that all over the place, in public media and in other forms of public discourse, and by numerous Christian groups in completely different countries, it is used without qualification and without fear of confusion.
People like you, and the Disco Institute, and Ken Ham.
I see no evidence for this. On the contrary, I see scientists using it without any ambiguity, and without saying it is an ambiguous term. Once again the claim appears to be yours alone.
Then what you wrote was not relevant to the point I am making.
But I’m talking about the issue I raised. Yet another lengthy word salad from you won’t change the facts. There is no such confusion over the word “evolution” as you claim.
No. This is right back to where we started. This started when I pointed out that “evolution” is typically understood to refer to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which I have also described synonymously as “the modern consensus”. This is not a change of vocabulary, it’s exactly the word I have been using from the start, for exactly the reason I have already stated. Now you’ve forgotten what the whole point of this was. But as you’ve said “I’m not the slightest bit interested in the point you were making”. That comes through every time you have a discussion with someone.
Actions speak louder than words, and you are one of the foremost opponents of evolution on these forums.
The “theory of evolution” as expounded by biologists has always been understood as variation of species and natural selection. When it became apparent that this was inadequate, an addition was made which included inheriting traits with genetics, known as neo-Darwinian evolution (Mendel included).
The current controversy amongst well informed scientists and practicing bio-scientists is the ubiquitous use of natural selection.
This in a nutshell is what may be considered the consensus amongst relevant scientist. Some of the discussions/opinions in blogs such as this defy belief - some people should take a long breath, especially those who make the odd, nonsensical, comments about a “well understood” public meaning of the TOE. I cannot think of a single scientist that I have dealt with, who would take seriously the notion of evolution put forward in the public media, and in science fiction movies.
The “notion of evolution put forward in the public media, and in science fiction movies”, is not under discussion. The issue is whether not discussion of evolution in public discourse, by the media and by various Christian groups (internationally), habitually qualifies use of the word “evolution” out of concern that the audience will be confused as to whether pre-Darwinian, Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, Lamarkism, or something else is being referred to.
All evidence indicates that this is not true. The term is commonly used in public discourse without qualification, because regardless of their understanding of how evolution works, people have a common understanding of what “evolution” refers to. The average person on the street does not read the word “evolution” in public media and say to themselves “Now I wonder if they’re referring to pre-Darwinian Chamberism, or Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism, or Lamarckism, or the extended evolutionary hypothesis, or something else”.
Yet again, the discussion has devolved into a ridiculous nit-picking/defense of vocabulary choice. This, kind of thing doesn’t contribute. Feel free to roll your eyes at each other, but move on.
Since BioLogos is trying to CHANGE the popular notion of evolution by introducing God’s involvement (a distinctly UN-scientific element in a profession where more than 80% of scientists reject God’s role!) I think we can safely ignore this aspect of scientist’s bias.
What I am saying is that natural processes - purely natural process - unfold in a completely deterministic manner, constrained by the four fundamental forces. I am therefore talking about the process. And purely natural processes are devoid of purpose. Purpose requires intentionality. Intentionality requires choice contingency - the ability to choose from a list of real options. Choice contingency does not exist in natural processes. The TOE has always been presented as a purely naturalistic, purposeless process. Thus, we cannot believe that God intentionally Created life while at the same time claiming that He “used” evolution to do so.
A purposeless process cannot produce an intended result.
You should understand that every term or word has a meaning attached to it - you are simply ignoring this and instead appear to project a knowledge of the public as some super-insight given unto yourself. Surely you would understand that if the term “evolution” has attained a universally accepted meaning, that this would be what is meant in “Star Track”, Star Gate", “Star Wars” or any other program or public discourse. In which case, we would not be discussing neo-Darwinian, or Lamarckism (?), or any other matter - we would simply refer to this universal meaning found in every dictionary, and every sentence we speak and write.
The only charitable alternative I can think of, is that you have carried out an extensive survey of the public, and while with-holding the results, you have assumed the mantle of spokesman for the public to tell us what they “say to themselves”.
How odd - we begin with, “evolution must be true because there is a consensus amongst scientists”, and you now tell us [quote=“gbrooks9, post:48, topic:4944”]
we can safely ignore this aspect of scientist’s bias.
[/quote]
So if you like what scientists say, you judge that as true, but if not, your judgement is against scientists because they are biased.
My biology textbooks and my biology professors knew exactly what they meant by the TOE. From Darwin to Dawkins, the TOE has been presented - through all its iterations - as a blind, purposeless, and purely naturalistic process.
I am quite aware that there are different “shades” of evolution. People Like Denton, Behe, Shapiro, and others offer evidence to support their objections to the TOE, but make no mistake: these are objections to the theory, they are not recognized (save for in their own small circles) as anything but objections. The variation that probably received the most consideration was the punctuated equilibrium put forward by Eldridge and Gould, but it was never accepted and embraced as part of the TOE. Today, as never before, there is dissent within the ranks concerning the sufficiency of the mechanism. Nonetheless, the core remains intact and it is non negotiable that the TOE is wholly explainable by natural processes.
Would you like some quotes from the most popular biology textbooks?
Therefore, taking this back to my OP, what would you say to the Christian who, upon embracing the TOE, recognizing that the claims of the theory are mutually exclusive of the claims of the God he has come to believe in, regretfully concludes that the God he believes in must not exist?
What an odd response - you just indulge in nonsense - if you cannot trust scientists (and by implication science) than say so, and present your detailed version of evolution that faithless scientists refuse.
If your distrust of scientists is a faith based one, just how do you differ from those you treat with such scorn, who mistrust evolution (e.g. YEC), yet you trust scientists who present the same theory but you think can be trusted regarding faith in God?
Address it in youth group, by all means. But if you are going to assure your youth that evolution is compatible with the Bible, please understand that when your youth go off to college, they will be taught that this is not so. And they will be taught that the TOE is a FACT!
It seems you willfully ignore the message presented by BioLogos writings.
BioLogos does not teach atheistic evolution. We teach that God created humanity via evolution. We teach that God’s miracles, however you define miracles, INCLUDES the existence of moral primates - - humans.
You can repeat your accusation every day if you like - - it doesn’t make it true. BioLogos is about God being PART of Evolution - - not evolution as you seem to comprehend it.
The one thing about @deliberateresult’s interpretation is that he seems to be IMMUNE to the idea of multiple interpretations… he, as Jonathan predicts, is not asking WHAT KIND of evolution we all mean when we mention it … he thinks it is all one giant Unified viewpoint.
In a way, this is consistent with @Jonathan_Burke’s view - - which is not to say everyone has the correct view… but that only a relative minority are able to robustly imagine more than one kind of Evolution.
