Rejecting evolutionism and a proper apologetics

Faith & Science Conversation
12

“In modern usage, the term “evolutionism” is used by YECs to…” - James McKay

What about all of the non-YECists who use that term too? Have you written up an article on them from your research yet or are their reasons not elaborated so far? As a non-YECist, I use the “evolutionism” to identify the ideology, and carefully distinguish it from the various evolutionary theories available across a range of natural and social sciences, as well as the humanities.

What BioLogos says: “while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos emphatically rejects [e]volutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can in principle be explained by science.” How is Evolutionary Creation different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism? - BioLogos

The definition given above is satisfactory, but minimal. It doesn’t help, however, in distinguishing beteween “scientific evolutionary theories” and “ideological evolution”.

Likewise, “theistic evolutionism” is obviously not an “atheist worldview.” If BioLogos could willingly choose the term “ideology” to describe “evolutionism”, instead of “worldview” (close, but not enough), further progress from the conversation Darrel and I could ensure.

From a longer article:

"In what follows I propose a way out of the rift caused by fear, confusion, and ignorance between Christians and their critics, namely, the warfare of creationism and evolutionism. As it happens, not knowing better, in fact ignoring their own tradition, many Christians are convinced that their task is to uphold creationism, in whose name all things scientific should be discarded as useless and blasphemous. Likewise, not knowing better, in fact ignoring the scientific principles which supposedly guide them, critics reject Christianity as anachronistic and useless, being convinced that their task is to uphold evolutionism. I focus on this conflictual situation because of its emblematic character. Indeed, this conflict is the clearest illustration of the chronic fear and confusion that paralyse our culture. Here is how I propose that this obstacle be overcome, through discernment, awareness, and clarification.

Against the confused views of our time, creation and creationism are not the same. Similarly, evolution and evolutionism are not the same. Christian and secularist fundamentalists alike seem unable to discern what truly belongs to them. Christians do not believe in creationism; they believe in creation. Scientists do not believe in evolutionism; they believe in evolution. I hope that you will not rush to accuse me of complicating the situation with semantics! Let me explain."
Terra Lucida or Free of the Mists of Confusion |

13

Yes, and we would undoubtedly disagree on who constitutes an “evolutionist.”

14

“People who insist all scientists who make profitable use of the theory of evolution in their scientific work are subscribing to a materialistic ideology on par with a religion are not representing reality correctly and are just speaking out of their own biases and misconceptions.”

Agreed, except for there’s more than one “theory of evolution”. In this, I agree also with Pope John Paul II, “rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution.”

15

Well put! That is the clearest statement I have read on the term recently. Thanks

1 Like
16

““evolutionism” is unscientific.”

Yes, I agree. Yet this is only the negative side; what evolutionism is not. What’s the positive side?

One example: “evolutionism is ideology”.

I’m very curious: would you suggest another positive side term?

17

"In turn, creationism is a supernaturalist ideology which unscripturally, untraditionally, and untheologically concerns itself with how things have been and are made. The customary creationist answer to the question how things have been and are made is that God made and makes everything by the greatness of his power, regardless of the natural potential of the created universe. Interestingly, creationism’s concern corresponds to the evolutionist question. Evolutionism is a naturalist ideology concerned with how things came to be and still do, the explanation provided referring to the natural potential of the universe and life, regardless of the divine energy which permeates everything. But, as much as creationism differs from the doctrine of creation, so much does evolutionism differ from the theory of evolution. The latter is a scientific description of reality concerned with what happened in the past and what unfolds in the present concerning the universe and everything within it, including life. Evolution means movement and change, a natural phenomenon which does not require the naturalist dogma of evolutionism." - https://aiocs.net/terra-lucida-or-out-of-the-mists-of-confusion/

18

Dear @jammycakes,
I totally agree with you! the term “evolutionism” is unscientific. As it denotes a false theory.
And yes, I use it derogatorily. As it denotes a false theory.
All the rest is just complains about other people’s behavior. Perhaps, they are as you paint them. But don’t blame me for it, please.
BTW, on my display it is:

Evolutionism - Wikipedia

Evolutionism - Wikipedia

Evolutionism is a term used to denote the theory of evolution. Its exact meaning has changed over time as the study of evolution has progressed. In the 19th century, it was used to describe the

19

My view is that “evolutionists” are defined as “those who promote the ideology of evolutionism”. In what way(s) do you “undoubtedly disagree” with that?

20

What you mention is compatible with the Intelligent Project theory, for example. Which seems harder to falsify, BTW.
I’m not able to answer the question of: how could it happen, that we see the biosphere, as we see it. But it is easy to show that Darwin’s theory (random changes + survival of the fittest) is wrong.

21

Then enlighten me, please.

Fortunately, science has nothing to do with majority conceding this or that.

22

Since I haven’t mentioned any specifics, how could you know that? More to the point, are you aware or not that there are many scientifically useful applications of common descent? What exactly are you claiming here?

Since random genetic changes and natural selection – and their role in adaptive evolution – have extremely strong evidence behind them, and since they are vitally important parts of modern biology, you would appear to be claiming something that isn’t correct.

23

I do not see a use for it at present.

1 Like
24

Could you clarify please? When you say you do not see “a use for it at present”, do you mean that 1) you do not use the term “evolutionism” at all, as very rarely do you notice “evolutionism”, 2) you see no meaning to “evolutionism” (i.e. outside of the YECist “debate”), &/or 3) you do not consider “evolutionism” as an ideology, and therefore do not invoke that “positive side” term? If 3), that would mean your definition of “evolutionism” is purely negative, i.e. defining it by what it is not, i.e. “unscientific”. Thanks.

25

Maybe not. But definitely a kindred spirit.

2 Likes
26

What theory does evolutionism denote? I think it denotes an ideology. Theories (in the context of “evolutionary theory”) are scientific models. Evolutionism does not denote a false scientific model.

5 Likes
27

Thanks. That’s an interesting idea. @Christy would do better at this than I, and I’d like her critique. From what I understand, the original concept (per the Wikipedia quote) was the espousal of the evolutionary theory, and investigation of its implications. Since it’s well accepted now, it would be almost redundant to say a scientist is an evolutionist. So, I don’t use it, nor do I find it useful.

I read a book called “Science Held Hostage,” by Van Till, Young, and Menninga. I felt that their use of the term “evolutionism” unnecessarily labeled a previously secular term as an ideology of excluding the supernatural. I don’t think that is what it means, though I understood their intent. They were trying to take the fear of the word “evolution” away from folks who had been taught to fear it as an ideology of secularism. I think that “extreme secularism” or something similar would be more helpful. So, I don’t use “evolutionism.” There is too much cultural baggage. Thank you.

28

This is taken out of context!

The exact quote back in context is…

Evolutionism is a term used (often derogatorily) to denote the theory of evolution. Its exact meaning has changed over time as the study of evolution has progressed. In the 19th century, it was used to describe the belief that organisms deliberately improved themselves through progressive inherited change (orthogenesis). The teleological belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution. In the 1970s the term Neo-Evolutionism was used to describe the idea “that human beings sought to preserve a familiar style of life unless change was forced on them by factors that were beyond their control”.

The term is most often used by creationists to describe adherence to the scientific consensus on evolution as equivalent to a secular religion. The term is very seldom used within the scientific community, since the scientific position on evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. (Wikipedia on “evolutionism”)

The theory of evolution is not an ideology. It is a scientific theory with the factual status of being a regular tool both in scientific inquiry and in routine technological practice including medicine. The rejection of this theory is a rejection of science and medicine tantamount to advocating a return to the dark ages. Furthermore this callous refusal to listen to the objective evidence is beginning to sound a lot like the current epidemic of terrorists who advocate violence against innocent people for failing to support their delusional version of reality.

Anyway, showing the fact, that creationism is unscientific, is as easy, as showing that theology (the so called queen of the sciences from the dark ages) is not a science. And we have many more examples of delusion in our modern world. Their common denominator is the refusal to acknowledge the objective evidence derived from written procedures which give the same result no matter what you want or believe. It is a question of whether Christians will become like the Islamic terrorists with no interest in rationality or civilization.

29

Thanks in reply. For background, Randy, I’m a sociologist, rather than a linguist. My PhD included the sociological study of ideologies specifically.

This is the first time I’ve seen moderator Christy say she thinks “evolutionism” “denotes an ideology”. Looks like finally progress at BioLogos!!

If Christy has studied ideologies as a linguist, I’d be curious to hear which ones specifically she has studied, since up until today, she was apparently in “undoubted disagreement” with me about “evolutionists” and that “evolutionism is an ideology”. That’s why it’s welcome that she’s changed her mind, or at least expressed that view for the 1st time above. No shame in changing one’s mind for clarity! Now her view seems a closer match to what I’ve been saying at BioLogos for years (even before Christy was here!).

“the original concept (per the Wikipedia quote)”

Not a great source, and it doesn’t provide “the original concept”. You’re getting better than a Wikipedia article in this discussion, Randy, and in the links above. = )

Fr. Costache makes it pretty simple and clear in the link provided above, don’t you think? You certainly don’t have to be an Orthodox Christian to agree with him. But if you do disagree with him, then please explain where/how.

In case this might help, from a previous discussion here in 2015:

“The word ‘evolutionism’ is an unfortunate one, as is scientism.” – Sy Garte (10 Misconceptions about Evolution)

In that thread, both Sy Garte & Steve Schaffner began by opposing anyone’s use of the term “evolutionism”. To his credit, Sy Garte changed his mind during the conversation, and now seems to accept it’s valuable and specific meaning. The next step will enable gaining wider awareness of the impact of ideological evolutionism on not a small number of fields.

“I think that I entirely agree with you, and I think (other than in the lingusitic sense) so does Steve. I mentioned this discussion to my wife who is a linguist and she basically agreed with you about the use of terms evolution and evolutionism, so (since she is always right) I hereby withdraw my comment regarding my unfortunate use of the word “unfortunate”.” 10 Misconceptions about Evolution

Does that also help with your resistance to proper and meaningful usage of “evolutionism”, even while we are both not YECists?

“folks who had been taught to fear it as an ideology of secularism. I think that “extreme secularism” or something similar would be more helpful. So, I don’t use “evolutionism.” There is too much cultural baggage.”

Well, isn’t that how BioLogos labels in on the Questions – which it calls an “atheist worldview”? Is it that you’re instead simply uncomfortable with the term “ideology”, rather than just “evolutionism”?

I believe the reason most people who support TE/EC go quiet about ideological evolutionism is because a number of them don’t wish to label as “supporters of theistic evolution”, but rather as “theistic evolutionists”. Thus, it makes perfect sense that theistic evolutionists don’t like being called ideologues. The cost of refusing to label “evolutionism” as an ideology comes with an inability to identify ideology when it is being presented as good science.

We’re all in agreement, apparently, that “evolutionism” is not good science. What seems still open is whether “theistic evolutionism” also counts as an ideology or not. That issue makes this conversation difficult, though not without possibility of graceful dialogue.

30

If there is such an “ideology” it is not in common usage and therefore incapable of communicating anything. If you want to use this word for an ideology then you need to define it, because I don’t see how the scientific theory is sufficient for doing so. I think some other ingredient is being added to do this such as naturalism… but then… how is that different from naturalism. We already have a word for such an ideology. This sounds like empty rhetoric to me.

No…

Sounds to me like saying “rederelitism” is not good science. Without a definition the claim is simply meaningless and suspiciously like a tactic of deception. Or is this referring to some kind of myth? The myth of an ideology called “evolutionism.”

How about I suggest a possible definition…

Evolutionism is the treatment of evolution as a theory of everything, where it is inappropriately used to explain things far beyond the scope of the scientific theory.

P.S. researching this topic is not helped by the link to 10 Misconception about Evolution because the link to the original topic is broken. Still not finding a definition of “evolutionism” there as I don’t find it on the internet more generally. …like looking for fairies and unicorns – harder even.

31

That’s not what I think we disagree with. I think we disagree with who or what merits the label. I think you see some sort of pernicious encroachment of “evolutionary ideology” where there is none. Like when linguists refer to the evolution of language and use similar metaphors like phylogenetic trees. I would not say that the discipline of linguistics has therefore been taken hostage be “evolutionism.”

“Science” is determined by consensus. It’s not some objective reality. So, yes, it has everything to do with the majority (of competent experts) conceding something.