Rejecting evolutionism and a proper apologetics

Faith & Science Conversation
143

“What I said is that theory of evolution is the only reason I could see any truth in Christianity.”

Yeah, that’s not normal and is extremely, exceedingly rare.

The vast majority of Christians don’t look to biology as “the only reason they could see any truth in Christianity”. They look instead to Jesus of Nazareth. Do you doubt or discount this?

Ironically, “natural science” is actually NOT “natural”. It is instead “artificial”. It is “human made.” Do you disagree? “Science grows on trees”, kinda thing?

“This is in the context of the book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn which is complete nonsense when it comes to the physical sciences but is a better fit with the social sciences.”

Yeah, & funny enough, Kuhn who you now mock held a PhD in physics, your field of “expertise”. He modelled “scientific revolutions” after the field of physics, which is partly why, and I agree with you about this, his “philosophy” was nonsense. Sadly, yours now seems as nonsense as his was then in depending on a “physicist’s eye-view” of “reality”. So limited & partial.

In the canon of philosophy of science, Kuhn’s views are by far the most myopic, compared with Feyerabend, Lakatos, Popper, Polanyi, Ziman, et al. Ziman was a physicist too, from UK, though much less myopic than Kuhn.

Kuhn’s much more interesting work was published before TSS, in 1977 (1951). “The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change”. It’s not an “evolutionary” view he puts forth there, though some would wish to “evolutionize” that too.

“the paranoia of an inferiority complex.”

Yes, this is exactly what biologists like David S. Wilson display in their attempts to “evolutionize” the social sciences and humanities. Many physicists have “cultural studies envy” because only a small # of people read their works in specialist journals, while no one else pays them any attention. It’s no surprise then that a few of them seek “public understanding of science” attention, just like evolutonary biologist Dawkins, his “selfish gene” nonsense & his conceptual garbage of now collapsed “memetics”.

No, Mitchell, I’m not equivocating as you suggest. You repeat a singular “THE” as if there is only ONE ‘scientific method’, rather than multiple, as if the mere say-so of a physicist changes reality. This shows philosophical naivety typical of “nonsense” pushed by HARD & loose natural scientists when it comes to studies of “humanity”. They want to be “authorities” because of their “objectivism” (ala Rand, but actually as physicists who speak outside of their fields of understanding). It’s showing again here, without scholarly humility, thus using condescending language.

Mitchell, I’m not a “creationist”, but you keep repeating that refrain. It seems like a fixation of yours. Why?

144

So what is your point? That most are Christians just because they were raised that way? I do not doubt this. But why in the world should a non-Christian look to Jesus? And… normal? LOL really? Are you speaking of statistical norms? Is that a preference of social scientists?

Yes. I disagree with this, just as I disagree with those who say science is simply out there to be discovered. Both of these are exaggerations and the truth is somewhere in-between. We impose a rational order on the universe but this is only possible because it fits. The universe is rational. It is wrong to assume that science (and math) is some universal language with which we can communicate with aliens – not because they will find different answers to the same questions, but because they may very well ask completely different questions.

That is ONE of my fields of expertise. I have a BS in mathematics, an MS in physics, and an MDIV from theological seminary.

mock??? Yes I disagree with the philosophical opinion of many physicists just as you disagree with the opinions of many social scientists. go figure… ???puzzled as why you would think such things are of any relevance to this discussion??? The point is that Kuhn was wrong and the reason is that while the popular ideas or paradigms may change, the accumulated evidence remains the same.

It is good to know that you are not a creationist despite the way you keep attacking the same things they always do. Were you recently a creationist?

You did. It is in the discussion above for all to see. You switched from “more than one theory of evolution” to “competing hypotheses” as if these were the same thing. If this is not a habit from a creationist past then what? carelessness?

1 Like
145

Yes. I disagree with this, just as I disagree with those who say science is simply out there to be discovered. - michellmckain

You don’t think the disciplines of the natural sciences are “human-made”? Who “does science” then?

“The universe is rational.”

That’s a philosophical statement. You agree, right? (It happens I agree that “the universe is rational”, but of course don’t call that a “strictly scientific” statement.)

“puzzled as why you would think such things are of any relevance to this discussion?”

Because your responses sound much like Kuhn’s, in that Kuhn confused “evolution” with “revolution” & didn’t clearly distinguish them, except Kuhn was not a religious monotheist.

That said, I agree with Thomas Kuhn about this:

“The analogy that relates the evolution of organisms to the evolution of scientific ideas can easily be pushed too far.” – Kuhn (1970)

What appears to be almost total refusal on your behalf to allow for a meaningful definition of “evolutionism” while acknowledging and accepting that its a very widespread ideology held in English-speaking countries nowadays, makes it seem like you not actually looking closely.

Regarding “expertise”, sadly, I don’t think training in mathematics will help you think “reflexively”, instead of “positively”, like in your physics training.

“theory of evolution is the only reason I could see any truth in Christianity.”

All of the people I know who “see truth in Christianity”, and are even Christians, look first to theology, not to biology. I trust their priority above yours, no offense meant to your own personal journey.

“you keep attacking the same things they always do. Were you recently a creationist?”

No, I wasn’t. Above in this thread I explained why I think mislabelling people as “creationists” when they’re not can do much damage. I explained how I reject creationism as an ideology, and linked to the work of Fr. Doru Costache, who distinguishes “creation” from “creationism” and “evolution” from “evolutionism”. Though you seem to disagree, I still find that the clearest and most accurate way to communicate, even if both creationists and evolutionists themselves find it problematic for their “position”. If it means you’re going to call me a “creationist” because you’re so accustomed to speaking with YECists or OECists in the USA, then likely you won’t be able to learn anything from me, who was not raised in, nor values that “creationist tradition”, the way your usual interlocutors seem to.

As for my anti-evolutionism (since BioLogos also rejects evolutionism, they just work at it differently), I will continue to do so, engaging with anyone who wishes to have a “fair” conversation that doesn’t priviledge ideology over good science, philosophy or theology.

Regarding hypotheses &/vs. theories, go fish. It seems we’ve run out of time in this thread. Thanks for the “wrestling”, Mitchell.

146

Please don’t mess with gravitational theory. It sticks me to this planet and keeps an atmosphere around so I can breathe. And other good things.

1 Like
147

Yes, to mess with gravity would be a very grave mistake. I think I will always be a gravitationalist.

4 Likes
148

I’m glad you appreciate the gravity of the situation.

2 Likes
149

You can graduate more precisely to being a relativityist without rejecting the former.

1 Like
150

No, no. Give me that old time gravity, that old time gravity. It was good enough for my parents and its good enough for me.

2 Likes
151

Maybe the new heaven and new earth will not have gravity. That way, if you fall off a cliff, you won’t get hurt. No doubt that is why it is portrayed as hanging around on clouds and flitting around with angel wings. :innocent:

1 Like
152

Microgravity is totally fine, but when it comes to macrogravity, it’s best to refer to it as “intelligent falling.” </ sarcasm >

6 Likes
153

exactly!

Evangelical Scientists refute gravity with new Intelligent Falling theory.

4 Likes
154

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in one God (YHWH, the Trinity, Allah,) but define Who God is in three different ways. I do not think that this is silly or pointless. We know of at least one other theory of evolution besides that of Darwin and that is the on of Lamarck.

Darwin’s theory has two basic aspects, Variation based in genetics and Natural Selection, based on survival of the fittest. There are roughly three variants that can exist. 1. Evolution by Variation only. The genetics of evolution are much better understood than Natural Selection . 2. Evolution by Natural Selection as the struggle for survival. 3. Evolution by Natural Selection as adaption to the environment. So would say that there are three versions of the evolution theory that should be discussed.

This is the definition of scientism that I am using. Let me put it this way. If science cannot detect the existence of God, than God must not exist (even though God is not a “thing” that science is equipped to detect.

You are right about this, but this is not the issue, except that maybe they claim to be objective observers when they are not.

I think you give Dawkins too little credit. The Selfish Gene is not just another book on evolution. It was a scientific best seller that shaped the understanding of evolution for millions of people.

The philosophy of Dawkins is not added. It is front and center from p.1 of the book. It should be noted that Dawkins is the leading voice of the New Atheism, which is much more vocal and aggressive than the “old” atheism. To that end he and his people have tried to silence critics. Michael Ruse, agnostic and Darwin scholar, reported that Dawkins tried to coerce him to not publish his book on the feud between Dawkins and James Lovelock.

Richard Dawkins wrote: “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” This is scientism in that it rejects all but the physical, even though the thought process which produced it was not physical. It has the appearance of being a statement based on “scientific” observations, but digging deeper it is not.

So is the idea that all biota are “survival machines” and the thought that we “dance to the tune of our DNA.” BioLogos should feel free to critique the science of Richard Dawkins ,just as he felt free to criticize our theology, but of course do a better job of it.

155

One thing is certain; I’ll never again think of the Fall in quite the same way…

3 Likes
156

Before the fall people floated and lived forever!

2 Likes
157

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.