That’s certainly your perogative, Randy. The odds of “evolutionism” being relevant in a family doc conversation is very low. = )
This topic overlaps philosophy, sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, and indeed, theology. Jim Stump has my book: Human Extension: An Alternative to Evolutionism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design where I address this topic at length. Ideology is not something people should be scared of, but should instead seek to better understand.
Note however that in this BioLogos article, when the comments were still active, I asked Thomas Burnett if he would consider calling “scientism” an ideology. He answered “No” because he thought “ideology” was a boo term. There is indeed a serious lack of engagement with what ideology is an isn’t that could be improved upon for mutual edificatio of all “sides” involved. What is Scientism? - Article - BioLogos
Sorry, Christy, nothing obnoxious intended. I was trying to reframe “there is none” to what you actually meant, since the BioLogos page clearly disagrees with your statement “there is none”, noting that “Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion.”
You say “there is none” and they say “so often accompanies”. I agree with them and disagree with you.
I’ll just keep defending their statement, as it is indeed close enough to the current sociological landscape nowadays as I see it from having studied it. Since you haven’t done the sociological studies, Christy, it would not be a surprise if you missed some things, and there would be nothing obnoxious in suggesting so, just prudent and careful.
The “where there is none” referred to the example I gave from linguistics after witnessing you throw a fit over linguists seeing processes analogous to biological evolution in linguistics. It specifically related to your assessments of evolutionism and seeing it where there is none. It was not a universal assessment of the existence of “evolutionism” in general as your out of context quoting implies. I don’t think anyone would read it as such in context. Why are you twisting what I said?
Well science has become a religion in some way. Its called scientology. The church of scientology is the group advocating for it. Now i dont know if its the same with scientism but thats what i understand when i hear both terms
Found the link to the article written by Costache, but I do not see an actual definition of “evolutionism” given there. The best I can do is infer a definition from what he said and maybe you can check whether that is the definition you are using.
Evolutionism is the ideology that that all we see is a result of natural processes. This is distinguished from naturalism in that there is no effort to claim that reality is limited to what science has discovered, but only limits the causes for what we observe to the operation of natural law.
This is a very fine distinction from metaphysical naturalism and suggests itself as a companion to Deism for belief in a God who simply observes but does not involve himself in our affairs. In fact, it strongly suggests that one is talking about methodological naturalism – for I am finding it difficult in pinpointing a distinction there. All in all one has to wonder if such a fine distinction is even worthy of a name, especially since this particular name lends itself to creationist rhetoric.
However, as for… “creationism emphasises supernatural energy to the detriment of the natural one, whereas evolutionism emphasises natural energy and ignores the supernatural one.” That is very hard for a physicist like me to make any sense of. I have no idea what definition of “energy” he is using for such a statement. Does he mean causes? That makes a bit more sense: creationism emphasizes supernatural causes to the detriment of the natural one, whereas evolutionism emphasizes natural causes and ignores the supernatural one. But then I still have a problem with the word “ignores” here, since there is simply no evidence of a supernatural cause by which you expect anyone to agree that there is such a thing. I do believe in a supernatural cause involved but I cannot expect anyone to agree with such a belief when there simply is no objective evidence for this whatsoever – so I will not speak as if there can be any such expectation.
You mean a number of religions have been devised which use the word “science” in their rhetoric. One of the oldest is Christian Science. Science certainly has not become a religion and never could – that is just a nonsensical thing to say.
Dale answered to this so no need to . I was confused with the two terms. I was refering to the scientology cult which yeah they use the word “science” and have elevated it into Godhood status
This was quoted from Fr. Costache above (you just found it in the edit):
" 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."" Rejecting evolutionism and a proper apologetics - #17 by Gregory
I wouldn’t include naturalism in a definition of evolutionism, but the two are often related an used together. The notion of “theistic evolutionism” is a defeater treating “evolutionism” as only a “naturalist dogma”.
No thanks, not going down the MNism vs. MNism (by some ethicist at Wheaton who later regretted it) route at this time. I appreciate that you see it as a “very fine distinction”.
He’s talking about “energy” from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Several Orthodox physicists have written about this. Cf. St. Gregory Palamas vs. Barlaam.
“It specifically related to your assessments of evolutionism and seeing it where there is none.” - Christy
Let’s start with a fresh slate, ok Christy? I’ve been quite patient, careful, and rigorous in my sociological research over the years, and am not at all troubled by what you say against me or it. Please try to speak graciously, rather than throwing shade on my life’s work, ok? Saying “there is none” over and over again won’t make it true, and I’d rather side with the truth.
I’ve collected enough evidence and quotations from serious and devout thinkers across a range of fields who reject “evolutionism” in a responsible, non-YECist way to show that “there is none” is simply a false claim. If you don’t wish to retract that claim, however, it won’t bother me at all either.
Nevertheless, I wish you patience and thoughtfulness in reading through what is available that you haven’t read yet about “evolutionism” by non-YECists before passing judgment. BioLogos says evolutionism “so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion.” Obviously, they didn’t mean “at BioLogos”!
Saying I said “there is none” over and over again to mean something I clearly didn’t mean won’t make that true either. I’d be more gracious if you would be less manipulative in your “dialogue” style.
