Then enlighten me, please.
Fortunately, science has nothing to do with majority conceding this or that.
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.
I do not see a use for it at present.
1 Like
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.
Maybe not. But definitely a kindred spirit.
2 Likes
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn’t ‘evolutionism’ merely a pejorative coined or at least adopted by YECs, closely akin to the legitimate word ‘scientism’?
1 Like
As long as you’ve now acknolwedged that “evolutionism” “denotes an ideology”, Christy, that’s enough for me.
Well, then you apparently diagree with BioLogos, which states:
“Evolutionism, 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
Are you now suggesting that “so often accompanies” actually implies “there is none”, and thus that whoever wrote that at BioLogos is wrong?
“merely a pejorative”
No. See Costache above. He is not a YECist. Neither am I. Yet together with BioLogos, I and many others reject “evolutionism”. It would sure be helpful if more space was made availble to discuss this because ideological “creationism” is as bad as ideological evolutionism. Sometimes, it’s even worse!
1 Like
Its really interesting that this word doesnt exist in my language. Whats all the fuzz about? Dont we all agree that evolution happened and God was behind it? Do we really need to get caught up with words and meanings?
1 Like
No, I don’t. I disagree with your application of the term “evolutionism” to specific examples. We can agree on a description of what a dog is, but if you want to go around labelling cats dogs, then we’re going to disagree. There is nothing about saying that all Indo-European languages have evolved from an ancestral language that implies “evolutionism” as an ideology.
1 Like
“I think you see some sort of pernicious encroachment of “evolutionary ideology” where there is none.” - Christy
“Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion.” - BioLogos
Looks like a gap. “there is none” vs. “so often accompanies”. How about “at least some,” Christy?
Btw, have you read any of my published papers on this before, Christy, since you are accusing me of studying something that you, as a linguist, don’t think exists sociologically?
Look above, Costache defines “evolutionism”. It would surprise if you simply wished not to find any non-YECist, professional definition.
“If there is such an “ideology” it is not in common usage”
There’s considerable literature on this, but you’re right that “evolutionism” is not very well known in the USA except for in association with YECism. A Canadian sociologist (not me) has made a significant recent contribution about this with a broad study of evolution and atheism.
Non-YECists who reject “evolutionism” usually get either out-shouted by YECists, or ignored. Most of the attention goes to the “easy target YECists” who are statistically under-educated for the topics they’re addressing, and usually offer simplistic views that they have a hard time backing up. Trying to overcome YECism is a cottage industry for both atheists and theists these days, as you likely are aware.
Otoh, both TEists (theistic evolutionists) and AEists (atheist evolutionists) tend to throw constant shade on ANY usage of the term “evolutionism”. They argue it’s not a useful or fair term to describe their views. The “don’t you dare call us that!” or invoke “non-evolutionary or transevolutionary change” approach creates significant tension too.
“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.”
You’re right about both parts. Scientific theories of evolution differ from ideological evolutionism, as Costache pointed out above, so “science” is not where defining ideology should come from. I’d rather start a new thread if trying to define “evolutionism” and related terms, especially given the recent trend of invoking “evolutionary science(s)” in much too broad a sense. Does “evolutionary political science” count as “evolutionary science? Etc.
[quote=“Gregory, post:12, topic:44800”]
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? - Common Question - BioLogos
thanks. for this. I think that I’d be interested in what @jstump has to say on this. However, I have to correct myself–it may have been “scientism” that Vantill, Young and Menninga referred to. I still don’t find “evolutionism” a helpful term as many use it, as it’s too nebulous (thus this discussion), in my opinion. I’ll stick with smaller terms that this family doc can use.
1 Like
It’s obnoxious to keep telling me what I think when you do such a bad job rephrasing my thoughts for me. I think some people believe science can provide the answers to everything and that some people do not represent the proper epistemological limits of scientific inquiry when they are making pronouncements about what is true and real. However, in multiple discussions I have seen you ascribe what is in your mind a dangerous “evolutionist ideology” to people who are applying concepts and ideas from science to their disciplines in what I think are appropriate and ideologically neutral ways.
No, I have not read your papers because my discussions with you have not led me to believe that I would share your concerns or assessments. I have a very long reading list of things I’m highly interested in that I’m never going to get through.