“The invalidation is entirely yours by making up ideologies that don’t exist.”
If it’s in “the Literature”, it “exists.” 
Every ideology I’ve quoted here is established in “the Literature”. Just a bit of reading will cure those anti-realism issues. Cheer up! 
Which of these is it?
Many of these ideologies, sets of beliefs and philosophies, will be predicated on the assumption of, the belief in, the simplistic theory, the two line drawing of, Malthus. Having an ideology based on his idea does not make the idea an ideology. It makes the ideology based on his sub-ideological idea. Like Darwinism as shorthand for ideology based on actual Darwinism, the rational conclusion of the scientific work by Darwin, which is not an ideology any more than Malthus’ cave wall population dynamics is, which informed Darwin of course. It all blurs you see. Making them synonymous is a deliberate, chosen, disingenuous error. Like making Darwin’s regret at the opportunity cost of science a regret at the science. Like pretending that he missed something spiritually significant. He didn’t. No contemporary had it, no one before in Western culture for 1700 years had it and you don’t have it. It was there of course, plain to see.
Martin, well said. I totally agree.
I also dismiss this whole ideology trope. This is so often alleged of science and scientists by people, it seems to me, who have little real understanding of science or scientists.
This all ties into the idea, which is most pronounced in creationist circles, that the scientific establishment is essentially a huge conspiracy to try to deny god or remove god from the world. Although this site represents acceptance of evolution per se, it seems that there still remains a belief in some quarters that Darwin and others perhaps were driven by an ideology to find non-supernatural explanations, rather than being driven by the evidence. You need to understand that science simply cannot entertain supernatural explanations because there is no mechanism available through which we can establish these. Thus is it outside the purview of science to begin with. This is not an agenda but a feature of the pursuit of knowledge that cannot be avoided if one is to investigate the natural world in the first place.
If one were to assert that god is a factor in all natural phenomena with causal agency, then one is making a claim which might be represented mathematically.
Take Newton’s famous equation for example:
F = MA
Lets say that the is also a supernatural force involved which we will represent here as §, so this might give us
F = MA + §
Since our measurements show that M (mass) x A (acceleration) gives the correct value for F, we would quickly find that § must equal 0.
I don’t wish to be glib here, but I am trying to make a point. The point is that it is not the fault of scientists that their investigations of the natural world produce correct results without a god factor. What do you expect them to do exactly?
Natural selection and survival of the fittest are simply phrases designed to best encapsulate some of the simple ideas that are part of the explanatory framework of evolution. Neither of these terms are ideologies nor to they reflect ideologies of their proponents or originators.
I wish all this talk of ideologically driven scientists and conspiratorial science would become a thing of the past. Time to move on to more honest and productive forms of discussion.
Hi again Peter,
Your two recent messages to me or about my words in two different threads don’t seem consistent. In one you praise, in the other you mock.
Well, let’s compare “real understanding” at the start then. Do you hold a masters or PhD degree in a natural science? If so, which one? That would help the conversation.
Let me be forthright; I’m not a natural scientist, but have worked with many natural scientists. My closest current collaborator is a natural scientist. Your “prick” of condescension towards me should thus have some qualification to back it up; do you have any qualifications in natural science and if so, in what fields? Thanks.
You have drawn conclusions about my words that are wrong, totally inappropriate and that do not reflect my thinking. I am reluctant now to continue with you. Similarly, you called “ideology” a “trope”. This is nonsense.
Should I also assume that since you do not use capitalization, “If one were to assert that god is a factor”, that you are an atheist or agnostic, rather than an evangelical Protestant, which is the main audience of the BioLogos Foundation & this website? Please excuse the questions, as we haven’t met before and I’m trying to understand who is praising/mocking me here for highlighting some of the ideologies involved in science, philosophy, theology discourse.
Klax is working hard to dismiss the work of people like Denis Alexander, who wrote about biology and ideology, not about politics and ideology. Denis Alexander = not on Klax’s “know-it-all” radar?
Which of these is it?
Wrong label. Ideology is not just about politics, though the N. American discourse involving ideology outside of political thinking is highly impoverished. One guy who works as editor for a political philosophy journal, who used to post here at BioLogos and now posts at Peaceful Science, made the same mistake in trying to restrict ideology to “only politics”. Thus, he simply would not allow that “Intelligent Design theory” could be exaggerated into an ideology, as many IDists (hence the name) do. Of course, others can skip these myopic thinkers and dig deeper, looking more closely.
Rationalism, empiricism, altruism, individualism - these are not merely “political” ideologies, right?
Above I stated how I distinguish “Darwinism” and “Darwinian”. It’s a helpful way to distinguish ideology from science. Klax skipped over the suggestion, & now wants to lecture about his own, which makes little sense.
Here again:
“Darwinism” = ideology, not natural science. When people call “Darwinism” a “science” it’s a misnomer.
“Darwinian” = natural scientific theory (Darwinian theory, Darwinian evolution), not ideology … except for those ideological features of Darwin’s own work.
Clear, simple, easy to understand, consistent with standard English language usage that applies to other names and concepts as well.
Perhaps a different question will help our theistic and atheistic “Darwin’s regrets mean nothing suspicious” advocates: Were ANY of Darwin’s ideologies visible in his works? Yes or No … which ones?
Again, if you’ve got any quotes from Alexander’s Evangelical bibliography, fire away.
Darwinian = adjective, Darwinism = noun. Please link to your ideolectic usage unknown sources.
We might be getting closer here.
Darwinian = adjective that denotes natural scientific theory/ies from Darwin himself.
Darwinism = noun that denotes ideology.
Yes?
Denis Alexander’s a decent guy. I had the honour to interview him in 2015. The Faraday Institute is imho making a valuable contribution to “science and theology” discourse. Of course, addressing Lewontin’s 1991 “Biology as Ideology” would have allowed Martin to avoid a felt need to slag Alexander with “Evangelical bibliography”. He chose instead to slap Alexander, rather than face Lewontin. Oh, well!
No you’re nowhere near consensus with your idiolect. Interesting that you rightly regard Evangelicalism as deeply intellectually flawed from the beginning.
[And your misusing a Marxist to justify magic is amusing.]
I wouldn’t be surprised if @Gregory thought thermodynamics was an ideology, especially if a physicist spoke about disliking jazz music later in life.
We can observe natural selection affecting living populations. HOW IS THAT AN IDEOLOGY???
There is no “or”. It’s just the anthropomorphizing part. This happens a lot in scientific literature, and it isn’t an ideology. At most, it is a quirk of human communication that people like yourself will try to take unfair advantage of and twist the meanings of words. Darwin never thought nature had agency, but he understood how people could twist his words to give this false impression.
What we don’t accept is the conclusion of design because the claim lacks evidence.
As Pascal observed 350 years ago:
“Hence it comes that almost all philosophers have confused ideas of things, and speak of material things in spiritual terms, and of spiritual things in material terms. For they say boldly that bodies have a tendency to fall, that they seek after their centre, that they fly from destruction, that they fear the void, that they have inclinations, sympathies, antipathies, all of which attributes pertain only to mind.”
It is a quirk of human communication, as you said, to use anthropomorphic language to describe natural events.
The leap from what Darwin actually said to what Gregory proposes is substantial and so far unsupported.
@Peter,
First, you accuse me of saying that Dawkins misuses science solely because I disagree with his point of view. Now, by implication you say that just because I disagree with Darwin and Dawkins in concerning the science of natural selection, I am driven by an anti-science ideology to find an supernatural explanation for evolution.
Let me say first that I do recognize that the issue of how Natural Selection works is not simple or easy. If it were we would not be debating it over all these years. Part of the problem is that both sides insist that the solution is obvious, when it is not. That is why I wrote a book on the problem, Darwin’s Myth: Malthus, Ecology, and the Meaning of Life, because the book format enables people to dig deeply into problems in an orderly manner.
One of the original argument against Darwin’s Theory was that fact than Survival of the fittest conflicted with John 1:1. This is not a argument used today by YEC, but as far as I can see nothing has changed. Jesus is still the Logos and evolutionists still claim that Natural Selection is powered by the struggle for life. On the other hand the New Atheism powered by the Selfish Gene of Richard Dawkins claims that evolution proves that God did not create humans because the Survival of the fittest is incompatible with the character of God.
It is my intent to show that Survival of the fittest, natural selection based on enmity, is contrary to the way evolution really works, and natural selection based on mutual need, or ecology is the way that evolution really works, and it is compatible with the fact that God created the universe.
Now I do not expect you to agree with all this, but before you attack it, it would better to read the book to make sure you really understand the ideas pro and con.
Ecology also incorporates predator/prey relationships. Ecology also incorporates competition for resources between members of the same species. You can do simple experiments with bacteria in the lab to illustrate these points.
Just think about it. E. coli can divide every 20 minutes. If we start with a single E. coli bacterium we should have enough bacteria to equal the mass of the Earth in just a few short days, so why don’t we? What stops E. coli from from growing? Obviously, they run out of resources. There aren’t enough resources to support the number of descendants they produce. There will be winners and losers in the race for resources, and they are determined in part by genetics. That’s natural selection.
Please @T_aquaticus, open your ears. Predatory relationship is NOT survival of the fittest. It is making the most of all the resources available among all the species.
If I can do it when I do not have a lab, you can do it and send me a report. Maybe you will get a Nobel for the first proof of Survival of the fittest. You are mistaken as the examples below affirm.
So where is the competition. Do the bacteria start eating each other when other resources are exhausted? No, they have enough sense to limit their reproducing. Who are the winners and who are the losers in this scenario? There are no winners and losers, so there is another misstatement. How does genetics affect the “race for resources” on this experiment? It does not, so that is another non-sequitur.
In a well known e. coli experiment some of the bacteria cultures were able to thrive in an oxygen rich environment by adapting so they could digest citrate where they could not before. I am not sure that I got that exactly right, but you surely must know this experiment and if you do not you can google it. It seems to me that you should be sharing it with me, rather than I with you.
The point being that the e. coli evolved not by chance, but in a manner consistent with adaption to the environment and there was no competition. There were no winners and losers in each culture. Everyone was a winner so to speak, or every stood still, did not change or changed in a way less favorable. (Some cultures learned how to manage their resources better than previously. That is also symbiosis. )
Then you don’t know what you are talking about.
For example, the coat color of mice in the wild is determined by predation.
https://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5268
That statement is flat out false. Bacteria with mutations that allow them to reproduce faster in a given environment will have more offspring than slower reproducers.
Going back to the citrate utilizing E. coli, how did that mutation end up dominating the culture? At one point there was a single bacterium out of trillions that had the mutation, and after several passages in culture the descendants of that single bacterium came to dominate the culture. How did this happen? Why did the other bacteria without the mutation lose out?
It is my intent to show that survival [sic] of the fittest, natural selection based on enmity, is contrary to the way evolution really works, and natural selection based on mutual need, or ecology is the way that evolution really works, and it is compatible with the fact that God created the universe.
Piotr Kropotkin already did this in 1902. His work was based on Karl F. Kessler’s notion of “mutual aid” (vzaimopomosh). What can you tell us from what is written in your book about vzaimopomosh, Roger? Did you write anything about it or have you left it out of your works so far?
Your imbalanced and perpetual hammering at people about what comes across as loose ideological “ecologism”, a kind of ecological apologetics by a non-ecologist and non-scientist unfortunately has not ceased.
It would make sense that you’ve missed out on a lot IF you aren’t trained as a natural scientist to actually do anything within natural science itself. Thus, yours should be interpreted as basically an “armchair philosopher” position in the conversation, is that right? Thanks for jogging my memory of your position or role in this conversation, since the OP is about Darwin’s regret, to which you are invited instead to return away from some such illusion like “ecology made Darwin regret”.
@Gregory, my friend, I am glad that you are proud of the contributions of Russian scientists. However, the writings of a prince and anarchist which are more than 100 years old and which I do not think are widely available, I did not think would help me make my case, although I did look into it. I will leave it to you to make that con5tribution to the West. I would note that the ecologist Lynn Margulis has rescued the work of Russian/Soviet scientists from neglect and given them the ecological importance they deserve.
I remember now that you had a very bad experience with people who were extreme “ecology” ideologues, which has colored your view of the science. That is unfortunate. As I hope you know the world is facing a serious challenge because climate change is altering the environment making the many problems we have more serious.
It would be good if all people of good well would come together to work against this threat and stand for ecology and the general good. Sadly it seems to me that we are too often distracted by our personal pet issues to unite to stand for the general good. I put Dawkins as one of those who is guilty of this.
Darwin became caught up in the survival of the fittest, which is about struggle and death. That seems to me to be the opposite of poetry which is about life and beauty. Ecology is for me about the joy and diversity of life. I feel sad for him… .
“I remember now that you had a very bad experience with people who were extreme “ecology” ideologues, which has colored your view of the science.”
Sorry, Roger, but in this case, you remember wrong. I didn’t have such an experience. Would you like to find or specify what you think you remember?
It’s not really about being “proud of the contributions of Russian scientists”. The point is that we’ve (the world scientific community, to speak broadly) already been where you repeatedly keep telling people that “we” need to go. If no one is listening to your “ecology preaching”, as one of the moderators here recently suggested, then perhaps it might be time to change your focus, shift attention, try another field or topic, so as not waste such time when you’re not making progress.
Roger, could you possibly remind me please what educational training you have in “ecology” (or ecological science), how long, at what level, and where? Thanks.
I wish to be friendly with you, Roger, while at the same time realistic. If you’re asking for anti-realism, then no further conversation with you will be needed or desired. Come back to reality, away from your fantasy ecology theory!
Roger,
even if I were to sympathize with your ideas around John 1:1, or indeed agree - which I do not - it would not and should not make the slightest difference to the situation. Your argument that ecology equates to some system of mutual cooperation or benefit, needs to be supported by evidence. But when I say evidence, you need to do better than refer to a couple of obscure references, and claim that anything out there that pushes natural selection is merely a product of the prevailing ideology of Dawkins etc. It is so easy to just throw words around like ‘ideology’ to discredit your enemies but this is a diversion allowing you to attack the man and not play the ball.
I really am trying to be polite Roger, but I must say that your comments and responses to T-aquaticus are confused to say the least.
Natural selection is so completely and comprehensively supported by mountains of evidence, that you also have to show that all of that is wrong. Frankly, all you have done is talk in vaguely scientific sounding ways in something like the way that Deepak Chopra does. I really don’t wish to sound offensive Roger, as overall you sound like a nice, thoughtful and intelligent man, but you have a massive blind spot on this, sorry to tell you.
My point about ideology here is that it is your belief about Dawkins and others being ideologically driven to their conclusions that is itself an ideology, because you have no evidence whatsoever that this is their thinking. You cannot possibly know what goes on in their minds. Indeed, all evidence is to the contrary in that these people seem very honest and sincere in their attempts to explain the evidence and put their reputations on the line when they publish their findings, data, and methodology in peer-reviewed journals available to the public. Perhaps if you were to become a scientist and do proper research and publish all your results and methodology for others to critique, then you would understand that being accused of ideology and not basing your work on evidence is not just offensive but absurd.
I have see nothing in your writing to suggest you really have any solid evidence at all or have done any scientific work of any kind.
Lastly, it would not be much of a God that could be so easily disproved by natural selection a la Dawkins et al as it is represented in the literature. If your faith hangs on discrediting natural selection and those that work on it, then I think you have bigger problems my friend. Surely God is greater than that? Surely the problem here is your inability to wrap your head around how God works through evolution and natural selection? Surely, we are simply dealing with your personal difficulties in making sense of things? Surely this is a case of ‘Roger can’t make sense of it so natural selection must be wrong!’? Surely this is all just a huge argument from ignorance problem? I think that rather than devoting a large part of your life to discrediting the work of others, perhaps have a closer look at yourself and the basis of your faith?
“natural selection is merely a product of the prevailing ideology of Dawkins”
I agree with Peter, as Paul was sometimes wont to say. NS isn’t just a Dawkinsian machination. Dawkins’ most prized ideology was memetics, which is now (thankfully!) removed from him via the meaning of “viral media = meme”. Dawkins lost his “memes” and his ideology of “memetics” failed. Of course, “memetics” isn’t the only ideology Dawkins has held or holds, right Peter?
“Natural selection is so completely and comprehensively supported by mountains of evidence, that you also have to show that all of that is wrong.”
Yes, with the obvious caveat that NS isn’t a “universalist” theory or even a universal “fact”. There are thus indeed entities, things, aspects (whatever you choose to call them) of existence that are not “naturally selected” or “selected by nature” (a “natural process of selection”, as Patrick Matthew stated in 1831). Do you disagree with that?
There is a limit, of course, to “natural selection” thinking (cf. “selectionism”), and sometimes, certain persons among natural scientists or commentators on natural science, have unfortunately, while oftentimes intentionally, “exceeded their grasp” by using terms within the British-first “evolutionary” tradition (Malthus, Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Wallace, et al.) outside “natural science” proper. Making this distinction clearer from the side of biologists, which Roger is not, would likely go some distance to assuage Roger’s deep and heavy personal non-scientist doubts about natural science and “evolution” today.
“It is so easy to just throw words around like ‘ideology’ to discredit your enemies but this is a diversion allowing you to attack the man and not play the ball.”
Yes, this is well-stated. Roger too often speaks in vague generalities, about Dawkins, “natural selection” and Darwin. He does not appear to be trained in philosophy, other than as autodidact.
I wish to humbly submit that my meaning and understanding of “ideology” appear to be categorically distinct, and clearly distinguishable from Roger’s. I would submit that Roger seems quite confused about ideology as demonstrated in lack of clarity, and seems totally unqualified to speak about ideology as a “professional voice” in the science, philosophy, theology discourse in N. America. Thus, he’s sitting on the bench regarding “ideology”, even while getting some “sentiments” right in worrying about the current dangers of neo-Malthusianism and (though I don’t recall if he’s mentioned it) neo-Hobbsean thinking.
This is where the pushback comes, with more scholarly rigour than Roger’s, Peter. It doesn’t appear that you’re “up-to-speed” on contemporary understandings of “ideology” either, at least, not outside of a rather minor post-Marxist “Frank Farted” bubble. This isn’t going to get the job done either.
“My point about ideology here is that it is your belief about Dawkins and others being ideologically driven to their conclusions that is itself an ideology, because you have no evidence whatsoever that this is their thinking.”
Roger is ideologically driven, Peter. I agree with you. The thing is, Peter, and this might make you pause over your porridge this morning (or evening), you are ideologically-driven also. Yes, you are. So am I. So are we all. Why? Because people can’t escape from ideology no matter how hard they try, as long as you and I and everyone around us is functioning in the realm of “ideas”. Ideology, in it’s simplest meaning, is about the “logic of ideas”. Linguistically and personally, it simply isn’t possible to avoid ideology in one’s life.
Who do you think are the “types” of people who try to avoid this feature of themselves the most? Who between the natural scientists and the social scientists (comparably sizes of students in the contemporary academy) is more likely to be aware of and/or “in tune with” their own ideologies?
“being accused of ideology and not basing your work on evidence is not just offensive but absurd.”
In regard to not basing work on evidence, of course we are agreed that is amateur and weak. It isn’t a “credible witness” to God’s creation to operate continually refusing or failing to provide evidence, and think that is sufficient to “persuade” people in science, philosophy, theology discourse. Roger doesn’t seem to recognise this weakness in his position or approach, daily and repeatedly.
About Dawkins though, Peter, it seems you might have popped out the other side of credibility. Are you actually defending and framing him as being entirely “non-ideological”, and “just a natural scientist”? Really!? What haven’t you read by that man that’s not dripping with ideological grease, rhetorical muster and rationalistic bluster? He’s an “enemy of faith, emotion & intuition” (contrast with his televised “enemies of reason” series), which to some people does translate as a kind of a “rationalist” monster. And of course he’s quite pathetic (as an egoist among his peers), almost totally ignorant in the fields of philosophy and theology, the latter which he mocks. Is that a kind of “good writer” and “clear thinker” who you would look up to as supposedly “non-ideological”? As for me, there are other role models I prefer far ahead of Dawkins (which it wastes breath to talk about him, unlike Roger does).
Let’s be clear and open here, if possible. It is likely that you would only suggest he’s “non-ideological” (if that’s what you’re suggesting), Peter, if indeed you share certain ideologies with him. Likely one is either agnosticism (scale of 7?) or atheism. Are either of these ideologies you hold about the world, and whatever may come after it, Peter? I don’t mind if you don’t say which one, but openly admit I’d like to know either/or or otherwise, if you don’t mind sharing it here.
As shared above, we should remember that, “All words, in every language, are metaphors.” The linguistic turn impacts “us”. This takes time to sink in. “The user is the content”. What do you really think this is about, Peter? Just natural science alone? Naturalism by itself? Or science & faith? Or science, philosophy, theology discourse? Or (re)turning to God … for the first time?
Once you take ownership of being ideologically driven yourself, Peter, that’s when the real conversation can begin between us. Atheism, theism, realism, anti-realism, naturalism, idealism, materialism, rationalism, symbolism, scientism, etc. etc. Until then, you appear content to hold your own high ground and let not anyone slip it out from under your own feet, not even your own Creator.
“Surely God is greater than that?”
Yes to your question, Peter, Amen. 
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.