Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[BCP1928]

I've finally met someone from a different planet! Where is it? Is it some sort of anti-Earth we don't see, where everything is the opposite of what we see here on good old Terra Firma?

Evolutionary theory is, of course, not an actual religion but a functional one. Philosophical materialism - which is indeed the equivalent of religious dogma - leaves no room for anything but some form of evolutionary theory. The tactics used by the keepers of the neo-Darwinian paradigm are precisely those used by the creationist community to preserve the creationist paradigm from challenge, which is why the "dialogue" ends up being mostly irrational. In those scientific disciplines where evolution is most relevant, it is an article of faith considerably out of proportion to the actual evidence and many problems. Try telling the scientists in the ID movement that evolution doesn't have the status of quasi-religious dogma.

I, of course, don't know about your Christian experience, but certainly a high level of skepticism toward evolutionary theory exists within much of the Christian community. I would say it's more "doubt about evolution" than "rabid creationism." I find that large numbers of Christians, like me, sense that current evolutionary theory is missing some critical explanatory link. It would help, of course, if there were anything like a scientifically plausible theory of the origin of life - that now being a bigger mystery than it was thought to be 50 years ago. I find some of the "math" to be most compelling - i.e., 4.5 billion years, which seems like a long time when you're stuck in the checkout line at Safeway, not being nearly long enough for life to have arisen and evolved in the manner that evolutionary theory posits.

It's not that I find evolutionary theory threatening to my biblical worldview, because I really don't have a creationist biblical worldview. It's that I find it an inadequate explanation that seems increasingly outdated as other disciplines like cosmology and physics advance. The fact that the scientific community clings to it, kicking and screaming, seems like precisely what Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Maybe you are right about the theory of evolution being outmoded. The problem is, that there is no better theory to replace it with.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Evolutionary theory is, of course, not an actual religion but a functional one.

You might want to think about pursuing this line of dialog.

From here: Addition to the Statement of Purpose

Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up.
​

{Emphasis added}


De facto, or otherwise, I should think.

 

[Fervent]

No, there is still no opinion. There is nothing for science to have an opinion about. Just an account in a book, no physical evidence to examine to determine the nature of the event, no examinable evidence that the miracle occured at all.

The issue is, as some of the atheists in this thread have shown, that inability to examine is taken to be evidence in favor of falsity. And its not as if there's anything particularly unusual historically about there being no physical evidence to examine, as physical evidence is not the type of evidence that historians tend to deal with. Physical evidence in history is the exception, not the rule. So while we can't explore it as a scientific question, we can explore it as a historical question to a certain degree. We can establish mundane historical facts using that text, and from those mundane historical facts we can compare explanatory theories on the basis of non-arbitrary heuristic tests. Science is not the only academic discipline, nor is scientific evidence the only type of evidence that members of the academy deal with.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've finally met someone from a different planet! Where is it? Is it some sort of anti-Earth we don't see, where everything is the opposite of what we see here on good old Terra Firma?

I'm from a land they call the Midwest.

Evolutionary theory is, of course, not an actual religion but a functional one.

Not even a functional one. Are you sure you know what religion is?

Philosophical materialism - which is indeed the equivalent of religious dogma -

It's a philosophical position, not a religion. (I renew my question above.) It also isn't the operating paradigm of science.

leaves no room for anything but some form of evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory is a highly successful explanation for the speciation patterns of biological organisms.

The tactics used by the keepers of the neo-Darwinian paradigm are precisely those used by the creationist community to preserve the creationist paradigm from challenge, which is why the "dialogue" ends up being mostly irrational.

Speaking of irrational, I don't know what you are even trying to say here.

In those scientific disciplines where evolution is most relevant, it is an article of faith considerably out of proportion to the actual evidence and many problems.

Nope. (Calling science faith-based or a religion is not permitted here by rule.)

Try telling the scientists in the ID movement that evolution doesn't have the status of quasi-religious dogma.

ID is not a science and they are the ones making the false claims of "doctrine".

I, of course, don't know about your Christian experience, but certainly a high level of skepticism toward evolutionary theory exists within much of the Christian community.

I was in the church until I finished grad school or there abouts. I never heard a single word about "creationism" in church or religious education. Not one.

I would say it's more "doubt about evolution" than "rabid creationism."

What you have expressed so far is not mere doubt.

I find that large numbers of Christians, like me, sense that current evolutionary theory is missing some critical explanatory link.

Most are likely poorly educated on evolution. The fanatics work hard to make teachers cautious about teaching the science of evolution in this country.

It would help, of course, if there were anything like a scientifically plausible theory of the origin of life - that now being a bigger mystery than it was thought to be 50 years ago.

It's not a "bigger mystery" and it is not relevant to the question of evolution.

I find some of the "math" to be most compelling - i.e., 4.5 billion years, which seems like a long time when you're stuck in the checkout line at Safeway, not being nearly long enough for life to have arisen and evolved in the manner that evolutionary theory posits.

And yet it did. (there was no math presented, compelling or otherwise, just incredulity.)

It's not that I find evolutionary theory threatening to my biblical worldview, because I really don't have a creationist biblical worldview.

Then why did you attack it so harshly and falsely?

It's that I find it an inadequate explanation that seems increasingly outdated as other disciplines like cosmology and physics advance.

Nothing about modern physics voids evolutionary theory nor requires it.

The fact that the scientific community clings to it, kicking and screaming, seems like precisely what Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

"cling", really? It works, that's why it is used. As for philosophizers... "you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all tears.."

 

[Hans Blaster]

The issue is, as some of the atheists in this thread have shown, that inability to examine is taken to be evidence in favor of falsity. And its not as if there's anything particularly unusual historically about there being no physical evidence to examine, as physical evidence is not the type of evidence that historians tend to deal with. Physical evidence in history is the exception, not the rule. So while we can't explore it as a scientific question, we can explore it as a historical question to a certain degree. We can establish mundane historical facts using that text, and from those mundane historical facts we can compare explanatory theories on the basis of non-arbitrary heuristic tests. Science is not the only academic discipline, nor is scientific evidence the only type of evidence that members of the academy deal with.

This thread isn't about historical things, but science. "No physical evidence" does not apply to the science of evolution in any way, shape, or form

 

[Fervent]

This thread isn't about historical things, but science. "No physical evidence" does not apply to the science of evolution in any way, shape, or form

I make no objections to evolution, other than that atheist polemicists and Christian fundamentalists have twisted it into an either/or decision between belief in God and acceptance of evolutionary theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nor me. There are more Christians concerned with the Gospel of Christ instead of a literal Genesis.

How long do they plan to be parked in one spot?

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.

 

[BCP1928]

The issue is, as some of the atheists in this thread have shown, that inability to examine is taken to be evidence in favor of falsity. And its not as if there's anything particularly unusual historically about there being no physical evidence to examine, as physical evidence is not the type of evidence that historians tend to deal with. Physical evidence in history is the exception, not the rule. So while we can't explore it as a scientific question, we can explore it as a historical question to a certain degree. We can establish mundane historical facts using that text, and from those mundane historical facts

That may be, but they are not scientific facts.

we can compare explanatory theories on the basis of non-arbitrary heuristic tests.

What explanatory theories are you talking about?

Science is not the only academic discipline, nor is scientific evidence the only type of evidence that members of the academy deal with.

But it is generally the only kind that science uses.

 

[BCP1928]

How long do they plan to be parked in one spot?

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.

Nothing in there about the literal inerrancy of Genesis,

 

[BCP1928]

I make no objections to evolution, other than that atheist polemicists and Christian fundamentalists have twisted it into an either/or decision between belief in God and acceptance of evolutionary theory.

And you have no idea how little I am interested in that dispute because it is a false one. There is no dispute between God and the theory of evolution.

 

[HBP]

You might want to think about pursuing this line of dialog.

From here: Addition to the Statement of Purpose

​

Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up.​

​

{Emphasis added}


De facto, or otherwise, I should think.

Actually, if you had read more of my posts (not that I blame you for not having done so), you would see that I am a great defender of science and of the need to interpret Scripture in light of scientific truths. I am ANYTHING BUT someone who suggests science is a myth. If you got that out of my posts, you'd have to explain to me how you did.

Philosophical materialism, as opposed to methodological materialism, is indeed an atheistic commitment that is indistinguishable from a religion: there is no spiritual dimension, period. Any scientist would agree with this - it isn't me calling anyone names. Philosophical materialism is prevalent in modern science. A designer or creator is simply ruled out - off the table. If this isn't the functional equivalent of a religion, I don't know what is.

I think it's been pretty well exposed by the reaction of the scientific community to the Intelligent Design movement that the proponents of neo-Darwinism do have a philosophical commitment to the theory. The same has been exposed by the difficulty of purely secular scientists who question the theory in presenting their concerns. I'm not breaking any new ground here.

Apart from those - and they are many - who have a philosophical commitment to it, I don't say that neo-Darwinism is a myth or religion. For thos who have a philosophical commitment to it, it functions as a religion. In the abstract, neo-Darwinism is simply a scientific theory and the currently governing paradigm. It is increasingly being exposed as flawed and untenable, and the reaction is precisely as Thomas Kuhn described when a governing paradigm starts to crumble.

As Francis Collins and the BioLogos folks argue, there is nothing inherently un-Christian or un-theistic about evolutionary theory unless one couples it with philosophical materialism, which is by definition atheistic. I simply say that neo-Darwinian theory is seeming increasingly outdated and unlikely. Chemical evolution as the theory for the origin of life is seeming even more outdated and unlikely.

The truth, for all I know, may be some variety of evolution not too dissimilar from neo-Darwinian theory together with a creator God. Ditto for the origin of life. Literal creationism seems impossibly unlikely to me, as I have clearly stated on other threads.

The emotional responses I've received here, to what I thought were pretty innocuous observations, seem to me to speak volumes and to underscore that, for many, a commitment to neo-Darwinism is indeed the functional equivalent of religious dogma.

 

[Fervent]

That may be, but they are not scientific facts.

Never said they were, but the discussion started over statements about evidence not simply "scientific facts".

What explanatory theories are you talking about?

Specifically in this instance, "natural" explanations like psychological explanations and appeals to legendary development compared with acceptance of some genuine resurrection event occurring.

But it is generally the only kind that science uses.

Sure, but as I said science is not the only field that deals with evidence in a broad sense, and physical evidence is a vanishingly small form of evidence as we move down the hierarchy of academic disciplines.

 

[Fervent]

And you have no idea how little I am interested in that dispute because it is a false one. There is no dispute between God and the theory of evolution.

I agree, but it is clear from this thread that there are numerous atheists who treat setting aside theological questions and limiting the scope of inquiry as a positive denial. So pretending that the question isn't relevant in this setting is, at best, naive.

 

[BCP1928]

Actually, if you had read more of my posts (not that I blame you for not having done so), you would see that I am a great defender of science and of the need to interpret Scripture in light of scientific truths. I am ANYTHING BUT someone who suggests science is a myth. If you got that out of my posts, you'd have to explain to me how you did.

Philosophical materialism, as opposed to methodological materialism, is indeed an atheistic commitment that is indistinguishable from a religion: there is no spiritual dimension, period. Any scientist would agree with this - it isn't me calling anyone names. Philosophical materialism is prevalent in modern science. A designer or creator is simply ruled out - off the table. If this isn't the functional equivalent of a religion, I don't know what is.

The you are bringing coals to Newcastle, as the saying goes. Everybody on the pro-evolution side here, atheists and theists alike, already understand the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturals,

I think it's been pretty well exposed by the reaction of the scientific community to the Intelligent Design movement that the proponents of neo-Darwinism do have a philosophical commitment to the theory. The same has been exposed by the difficulty of purely secular scientists who question the theory in presenting their concerns. I'm not breaking any new ground here.

Certainly they have a philosophical commitment to preserving their work from junk science like ID. IDists like to whine that science rejected ID without examination because it might lead to God. ID was thoroughly examined and found to be worthless.

Apart from those - and they are many - who have a philosophical commitment to it, I don't say that neo-Darwinism is a myth or religion. For thos who have a philosophical commitment to it, it functions as a religion. In the abstract, neo-Darwinism is simply a scientific theory and the currently governing paradigm. It is increasingly being exposed as flawed and untenable, and the reaction is precisely as Thomas Kuhn described when a governing paradigm starts to crumble.

As Francis Collins and the BioLogos folks argue, there is nothing inherently un-Christian or un-theistic about evolutionary theory unless one couples it with philosophical materialism, which is by definition atheistic.

So don't. Problem solved.

I simply say that neo-Darwinian theory is seeming increasingly outdated and unlikely. Chemical evolution as the theory for the origin of life is seeming even more outdated and unlikely.

The truth, for all I know, may be some variety of evolution not too dissimilar from neo-Darwinian theory together with a creator God. Ditto for the origin of life. Literal creationism seems impossibly unlikely to me, as I have clearly on other threads.

There is, in the theology of Traditional Christians, who need neither to change their theology or the theory itself in order to accept it.

The emotional responses I've received here, to what I thought were pretty innocuous observations, seem to me to speak volumes and to underscore that, for many, a commitment to neo-Darwinism is indeed the functional equivalent of religious dogma.

It's the character of the rhetoric more than the content.

 

[BCP1928]

Never said they were, but the discussion started over statements about evidence not simply "scientific facts".

Specifically in this instance, "natural" explanations like psychological explanations and appeals to legendary development compared with acceptance of some genuine resurrection event occurring.

But those can never be taken as any more than speculations.

Sure, but as I said science is not the only field that deals with evidence in a broad sense, and physical evidence is a vanishingly small form of evidence as we move down the hierarchy of academic disciplines.

That was my fault. In general, when one speaks of evidence in this, a science forum it is generally assumed that scientific evidence is what is meant, an assumption that I shouldn't take for granted.

 

[HBP]

The you are bringing coals to Newcastle, as the saying goes. Everybody on the pro-evolution side here, atheists and theists alike, already understand the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturals,

I would bet large sums of money they don't.

Certainly they have a philosophical commitment to preserving their work from junk science like ID. IDists like to whine that science rejected ID without examination because it might lead to God. ID was thoroughly examined and found to be worthless.

Say no more. I believe you said something about the "character" of my "rhetoric."

I rest my case.

 

[Fervent]

The you are bringing coals to Newcastle, as the saying goes. Everybody on the pro-evolution side here, atheists and theists alike, already understand the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturals,

I'm not sure this is entirely true, as it seems to me among many atheists there is a refusal to acknowledge they have made a metaphysical commitment. And for a decent segment of atheists science fills a pseudo-religious role as they look to it to provide their lives with meaning and morals, and during difficult moments in their lives emerse themselves deeper into their commitments. Rather than recognizing that science cannot even begin to answer questions about God they take the restrictions of science to be a reflection of reality in general. So perhaps there is lip service paid to such a difference, but as a pragmatic function any distinction is often lost.

 

[HBP]

Oh, dear.

I just forced myself to read the first five pages of this thread.

"Scientific discussion." Ya think?

On it goes.

 

[BCP1928]

I would bet large sums of money they don't.

Not on the creationist side, although it is apparent that they realize that there is some kind of a difference.

Say no more. I believe you said something about the "character" of my "rhetoric."

I rest my case.

LOL! Here, I'll say it nicer: ID has been found to be entirely without merit as science by both atheistic and theistic scientists and many Christian communites--including the Roman Catholic Church--have found it without merit as theology.

 

[Fervent]

But those can never be taken as any more than speculations.

Sure, as is true of any circumstantial case. The thresholds for positive appraisal depend on the field in question, and any historical question is ultimately a matter of speculation to some degree.

That was my fault. In general, when one speaks of evidence in this, a science forum it is generally assumed that scientific evidence is what is meant, an assumption that I shouldn't take for granted.

Which is exactly why declarations about a purported lack of evidence for the supernatural is inherently flawed, as the field of evidence has been restricted to a range in which no comment can be made either way. In such statements, science is made to speak on an issue it cannot address.