What are views at BioLogos of “Evolutionary Religious Studies”?

Faith & Science Conversation
33

“What I don’t understand is why you restrict the meaning of “evolution” to the biological kind.” - MarkD

Why? Balance, careful discernment, and because there are better terms available for studies of “change-over-time” that make it convincing that we should NOT use the term “evolution” for human-social change. And precedent. There’s a long history of rejecting “evolutionary” thinking outside of biology by scholars, meaning by non-creationists.

Hopefully the following will help you to understand, in case you haven’t conducted studies or independent research in cultural fields of thought. In short, “cultural change” and “biological evolution” are fundamentally different type of processes and it’s a category error to conflate them. Human beings have choice, intention, aim, will, purpose, and make plans. None of those is part of biological evolutionary thinking; they belong in a different realm. Whether or not one accepts the theology of imago Dei doesn’t change this generalization. One simply needs to include “teleological” thinking, rather than “ateleological” thinking, if they wish to be taken seriously when (the study of what) human beings (make, build, construct, etc.), rather than “merely biological entities”, are involved.

You seem to be missing the same thing one of the moderators here continues to go on missing or avoiding: social scientific rejections of “evolution” in cultural fields. Unless you dig in and check these out, you’ll perhaps come away continuing to think “there is no criticism of evolution in social sciences & I can use it as liberally and widely as possible, and no one will object on reasonable and convincing grounds”. That would simply be a sad mistake.

Here’s a practical example. Do you know who Sy Garte is? A retired NIH biologist & openly “evangelical” Christian. Sy Garte is well respected here. He and I are in full agreement about aiming to restrict the metaphor “evolution” to biological & other natural sciences. Iow, 75+% of the Academy, of KNOWLEDGE as a whole and in parts, is actually best to explore outside of an “evolutionary” paradigm. https://youtu.be/PC94hDBRu8k

“I refuse to humor your silly contention that the word evolution can only rightfully refer to a biological mechanism.” - BioLogos moderator

“cultural evolution is NOT the same (or even related) to actual biological evolution.” - Sy Garte

It’s actually anything but “silly”, so please BioLogos moderator, consider speaking more graciously about it, rather than with condescending tone. What Sy says is definitely agreeable here (75/2 likes = validation), and takes an important stand against the exaggeration of evolution, which BioLogos does not seem to have much concern or at least voice about anywhere in the Academy. I go farther than Sy to openly reject the notion of “cultural evolution” as a misnomer, since both “cultural development” and “cultural extension” are richer & more widely applicable and reasonable paradigms.

Sy Garte at least is making an attempt to help limit evolution to biology and thus move people away from ideological evolutionism, for which I respect him. He “gets” the cultural threat of ideological evolutionism (from a bird’s eye view distance), which BioLogos is only starting to hint at, and still only in one Common Questions section on the website.

34

How would you like to rephrase “the evolution of automobiles” or “the evolution of the computer”? They are succinct, straightforward and communicate readily.

35

Thanks for your fair question, asking about alternative vocabulary. I’m currently working together with 4 software developers (they all know “languages” I have little knowledge of) on a project. Do you wish me to call them “software evolvers”? No, we are “developing” a project, with intention, aim, plan, purpose, and goal (winning a prize & recognition for our build, in this case).

The term “development” is far more powerful than “evolution” wrt “human-made things”.

Would you consider ceasing to speak of anything “evolving” by human hands (mostly intentional), and instead speak of human-made things as “developing”, “changing” & “extending” (from people choosing)?

I’m a huge fan of “university extension” and “agricultural extension”, rather than anything “evolutionary” spoken about in those realms. It’s amazingly liberating to think non-evolutionary wrt culture & choice!!! :pray:

36

“Development” is more particular in its usage, though. The development of a particular automobile or a particular computer or software project is what would more typically be inferred.

37

United Nations Development Programme & Goals are “more particular”?

38

Ridiculous. Darwin did not purchase the trademark on that word.

Egad are you trying to elevate this to a conspiracy theory. You need to get out from your own field more often. It’s a big world out there.

39

Why is that necessarily analogous? Words have different usage in different contexts.

1 Like
40

Of course Darwin doesn’t have a trademark on “evolution”. (!)

The first usage in English (according to Pelikan) of “evolution” was by the Cambridge Platonists in the 16th century. Obviously I’m not attributing that to C.R. Darwin!

Your world is tiny & myopic compared to the interdisciplinarity I’ve been involved in, MarkD. Sorry. True. Do you wish to challenge this?

41

The evolution of programmes and goals in a more general sense is not a confusing, misleading or ideological use of the term. You’ve heard of grammar Nazis? Guess why that came to mind. :grin:

42

Ooh, the condescension of the maybe erudite!

43

Programs change and develop, sure. No argument there from anyone. Yet notice what BioLogos has trouble admitting?

There is an ideological desire to call “ANY kind of change” as “evolution”. Emergence? No, that’s called evolution. Development? No, that’s just “evolution” too. So, where does it all end, this exaggeration of “evolution” into a Monopoly over change?

Why else would a person even feel a need to do so, when the term “development” is obviously better, more specific, more accurate, and more meaningful to more people?

Please, Dale, put “grammar Nazi” against “grammar fascist”. ERS is grammar fascism, front and centre. ALL Christians, Muslims, Jews & Baha’is should stay away from “evolution of religion” grammar, for GOOD reasons. If you haven’t yet recognised those reasons, I hope you eventually do.

44

I have been put in my place, and I bow.

1 Like
45

When this is thrown at me: “You need to get out from your own field more often. It’s a big world out there”?

Mere self defence.

46

Forgive me the added barb, as it came after your “bow”. Respectfully. Thanks.

47

I agree. But the English word ‘evolution’ has a semantic range and can be used appropriately to talk about both.

3 Likes
48

Yes, but…

Ok, now’s your perfect opportunity, linguist Christy. An opportunity to clarify yourself, as you’ve never done it before, since you’re obviously marginal in thinking that “religion evolves naturally from conception”.

What is the “semantic range” (as you call it) of “evolution” in your “applied linguist’s” view?

Tell us please, what “evolves” and what “doesn’t evolve” - what’s this “range” you speak of? Or, more closely, which fields properly study “evolution” and which don’t? And please, NAME those fields that don’t, so we know that you know that they don’t use evolutionary language. That would be helpful to hear from an evangelcal missionary linguist.

Don’t skimp on specificity please, as this is a golden opportunity for you to finally become a “theorist.” Thanks.

49

Forgive me, but I am concerned that BioLogos moderator Christy will display wrath, anger & disbelief, rather than grace, patience, love, and listening in a way that comes across as “trying to understand” something that is clearly very new to her.

At BioLogos, I fear “theistic evolutionism” will be used to trump rational reasonable balance contra scientism, and intentionally exclude generous, kind, gentle “anti-evolutionism”. Hoping that will not play out here.

50

Gregory, it is often frustrating to talk to you because you consistently misrepresent my ideas and then ask me to defend them. Where did I say anything close to this?

(There is no such thing as applied linguists, only applied linguistics.)

From Cambridge Dictionary.
Primary sense: a gradual process of change and development

Secondary sense: In biology, the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear.

Sounds about right. Notice the PRIMARY sense is a word applicable to many, many, things.

Any field that studies gradual processes of change or development can talk about evolution. So, that’s pretty much all of them.

You made up “evolutionary language.” I don’t believe it is a thing. Using the word “evolution” is simply using English, not using “evolutionary language.”

My big theory is that anyone communicating in English has the English lexicon at their disposal. Included in the English lexicon are lots of good words like evolution, mutation, adaptation, variant, ancestor, extinct, etc. that can be used to talk productively about many things other than the biological process of evolution. I don’t understand why you find this so difficult to grasp or how anything I am saying is not completely obvious and fairly banal.

2 Likes
51

You are afraid of many things you don’t really need to be afraid of.

2 Likes
52

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