Popular Evolutionism

[lucaspa]

This could have fit in the Evolution is Not Atheism thread, but maybe it is more appropriate to post the data in a new thread.  In the March 7, 2003 issue of Science, Michael Ruse has an article relating to the evolution as a secular religion. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5612/1523

His conclusion:
"So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism--often an alternative to religion--exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time."

Now, let me emphasize that, in this forum, we have been very, very careful to distinguish between professional evolutionism the scientific theory from popular evolutionism.  In general, evolutionist posters who move from professional to popular evolutionism are challenged by the evolutionists on the forum. In the popular scientific literature, some scientists do not exercise the same care.  And a scientist can do both. As Ruse illustrates:

"This all meant that by the 1940s and 1950s the study of evolution was of two sorts. There was serious empirical work, very professional, containing few or no direct exhortations to moral or social action. Along with this, almost all of the leading evolutionists were turning out works of a more popular nature, about progress and the ways to achieve it. By the 1950s, evolutionary works, such as those by the Darwinian paleontologist G. G. Simpson, discussed democracy and education and (increasingly) conservation. In 1944, Simpson published Tempo and Mode in Evolution: straight science about natural selection and the fossil record. Then, in 1949, he published The Meaning of Evolution: science for the general reader, packed with all sorts of stuff about the virtues of the American way over communism. (Remember, the Cold War was then settling into its long winter, and Trofim Lysenko was destroying Russian biology.) Finally, in 1953, came Simpson's The Major Features of Evolution, and we were back to straight science."

I submit that one of our jobs as evolutionists is to help train Christians to distinguish between professional evolutionism and popular evolutionism so that they can recognize when scientists are speaking as individuals with their individual beliefs and when they are speaking as scientists without beliefs.

 

[joelazcr]

Ruse admits:

"But, if we wish to deny that evolution is more than just a scientific theory, the Creationists do have a point."

He then fails to mention any leading evolutionist by name, living or dead, who could be considered a good model of a scientist who kept to the laboratory without using evolution as a platform for moral messages about democracy, education, religion, or conservation.

His message seems to be, if you believe evolution is not a religion, then you had better stick to observable, repeatable, laboratory science.
Stop relying on imagination and wishful thinking about how a tooth or bone might shed new light on evolution.

No more stories or extrapolations beyond what the
data indicate.

The analogy about industrial chemistry is forced, because chemistry deals with observable, repeatable laboratory work.

Is he sincere?  Does he really want separation of
church (popular evolutionism) and
state (professional evolutionism).

He seems a bit harsher in this criticism:

"Why should science journals give space to intelligent design (ID) or any other crackpot pseudo-theory, manufactured to cover the nakedness of biblical literalism in scientific dress to get around the U.S. Constitution’s separation of church and state?"
 
The waters are muddied further with his review of David Sloan Wilson's book, Darwin’s Cathedral:Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society.

"Can Selection Explain the Presbyterians"

He speculates on how evolution explains group behavior, like religion.  He acknowledges the divide
between Darwinists regarding the explanation for altruistic behavior.

 

 

[lucaspa]

What you have here is a prominent evolutionist calling for the suppression of popular evolutionism because it oversteps the bounds of science into religion.  Yet you complain about it.  I think you would complain if you were hung with a golden rope.  Or is it that the strawman that all evolutionists are atheists is just too valuable to give up easily?

Today at 12:41 PM joelazcr said this in Post #2

Ruse admits:

"But, if we wish to deny that evolution is more than just a scientific theory, the Creationists do have a point."

He then fails to mention any leading evolutionist by name, living or dead, who could be considered a good model of a scientist who kept to the laboratory without using evolution as a platform for moral messages about democracy, education, religion, or conservation.

Ruse didn't mention them because 1) it wasn't his point and 2)there are so many, starting with Darwin.  Darwin never used evolution as a moral message.

A list of those I can think of off the top of my head are:
Asa Gray
Joseph Hooker
Lyell
Sewall Wright
Charles Walcott
Douglas Futuyma
Francisco Ayala
Phillip Kitcher
Kenneth Miller

His message seems to be, if you believe evolution is not a religion, then you had better stick to observable, repeatable, laboratory science.
Stop relying on imagination and wishful thinking about how a tooth or bone might shed new light on evolution.

How did you get that messsage?  What passage specifically imparted it to you?

No more stories or extrapolations beyond what the
data indicate.

Scientific extrapolation beyond the data are allowed, but not extrapolations beyond science.

The analogy about industrial chemistry is forced, because chemistry deals with observable, repeatable laboratory work.

So does evolution. Even in paleontology, the work of cleaning and measuring the parameters of the bones is observable, repeatable laboratory work.  The phenomenon happened in the past, but then, it does so for chemists, too. 

Is he sincere?  Does he really want separation of church (popular evolutionism) and state (professional evolutionism).

Oh yes.  So are several other evolutionists. That sincerity led Eugenie Scott, herself an atheist, to get the NABT to drop the words "unsupervised" and "purposeless" dropped from their definition of evolution because it was popular evolutionism, not science.

He seems a bit harsher in this criticism:

"Why should science journals give space to intelligent design (ID) or any other crackpot pseudo-theory, manufactured to cover the nakedness of biblical literalism in scientific dress to get around the U.S. Constitution’s separation of church and state?"

Because professional evolutionism and popular evolutionism are separable and evolution is a valid theory. ID is a falsified theory so the only reason to pretend it is valid is to get around the separation of church and state.

Now, if a teacher in public schools would teach evolution as a worldview or atheism, then you have a legitimate complaint that the teacher is promoting a religion/faith. If the standards or curricula were drawn up in that fashion, you would have a legitimate complaint.  Know of any examples of either?
 
The waters are muddied further with his review of David Sloan Wilson's book, Darwin’s Cathedral:Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society.

"Can Selection Explain the Presbyterians"

He speculates on how evolution explains group behavior, like religion. 

That explains the behavior, but it doesn't explain why people believe in God to begin with, does it?  Ruse was very even handed in that review.

He acknowledges the divide between Darwinists regarding the explanation for altruistic behavior.

Example?

 

[Cantuar]

Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students.

Yep, that would be nice. Trouble is, I wonder if the extrapolators even know that's what they're doing. I've been round this with my dad so many times, and he really doesn't see that by saying that science implies atheism he's extrapolating.

 

[Micaiah]

Here are some suggested ways for professional evolutionists to buy back some credibility:

1. Ensure that your theories align with observable facts. If you want your theories to be accorded the same regard as the industrial chemist, then be prepared to limit your speculation.

2. Don't make claims that your theories are conclusive before you have the evidence to support those claims.

3. Don't expect people to believe you just because you know some scientific jargon that no one else can understand, or because you are accorded the title scientist. Intelligent people resent those who suggest we should accept their arguments because they sound like experts. There is only One Being in the universe who is entitled to make that kind of demand. Present your evidence simply and clearly and allow the eidence to speak for itself.

4. Don't play games with semantics. Yes there is evidence to show that mutations occur and somtimes these mutations can be beneficial. To assert evolution has been conclusively demonstrated (speaker refers to micro evolution, but knows they will be understood to refer to macro evolution) is deceptive. That kind of argument sound clever but breeds distrust.

5. Be prepared to admit your lack of knowledge and the holes that exist in your theory. You should have no trouble finding plenty of these as you attempt to reassure your reader that you are not too arrogant to admit you don't know everything. Attempts to explain origins are highly speculative. There was only One who witnessed what occured during Creation, and as an expert witness, His word should receive more respect than all the scientists that ever have and will exist.

 

[chickenman]

1) they are accorded the same regard, you obviously don't read scientific journals

2) can't remember making that claim

3) ignorant people resent people who actually know what they're talking about (experts, if you like) disagreeing with them

4) its not supposed to sound clever

5) holes and problems are acknowledged.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 11:24 AM chickenman said this in Post #6

1) they are accorded the same regard, you obviously don't read scientific journals

2) can't remember making that claim

3) ignorant people resent people who actually know what they're talking about (experts, if you like) disagreeing with them

4) its not supposed to sound clever

5) holes and problems are acknowledged.

Great, proceed to the scientists hall of fame. The Christians are having a party , but the organisers provided a special room for the evolutionists complete with cups and a tub of chemicals. They know these guys have unfinished work, and wouldn't be happy till they'd discovered how life came from a tub of chemicals.

 

[chickenman]

is there a special room for newton, for him to discover how gravity actually works?
is there a special room for pasteur, for him to discover how bacteria actually infect human beings, or are some of the "evolutionists" going to explain it to him?

science is always an unfinished business, and I doubt any scientist is ever satisfied that he knows all there is to know

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 12:05 PM chickenman said this in Post #8

is there a special room for newton, for him to discover how gravity actually works?
is there a special room for pasteur, for him to discover how bacteria actually infect human beings, or are some of the "evolutionists" going to explain it to him?

science is always an unfinished business, and I doubt any scientist is ever satisfied that he knows all there is to know

No need to make these guys a special room. They proved their point and we enjoy the benefits of it today!

 

[CommonAncestor]

Here are some suggested ways for professional evolutionists to buy back some credibility:

1. Ensure that your theories align with observable facts. If you want your theories to be accorded the same regard as the industrial chemist, then be prepared to limit your speculation.

2. Don't make claims that your theories are conclusive before you have the evidence to support those claims.

3. Don't expect people to believe you just because you know some scientific jargon that no one else can understand, or because you are accorded the title scientist. Intelligent people resent those who suggest we should accept their arguments because they sound like experts. There is only One Being in the universe who is entitled to make that kind of demand. Present your evidence simply and clearly and allow the eidence to speak for itself.

4. Don't play games with semantics. Yes there is evidence to show that mutations occur and somtimes these mutations can be beneficial. To assert evolution has been conclusively demonstrated (speaker refers to micro evolution, but knows they will be understood to refer to macro evolution) is deceptive. That kind of argument sound clever but breeds distrust.

5. Be prepared to admit your lack of knowledge and the holes that exist in your theory. You should have no trouble finding plenty of these as you attempt to reassure your reader that you are not too arrogant to admit you don't know everything. Attempts to explain origins are highly speculative. There was only One who witnessed what occured during Creation, and as an expert witness, His word should receive more respect than all the scientists that ever have and will exist.

Are you kidding? This is the most hypocritical thing I've seen in a while, especially #2. You yourself should enforce that before you say things like:

There was only One who witnessed what occured during Creation, and as an expert witness, His word should receive more respect than all the scientists that ever have and will exist

OR:

There is only One Being in the universe who is entitled to make that kind of demand.

Your 5 points are excellent and YOUR theories should be held unto it as well.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 12:52 PM CommonAncestor said this in Post #10

Are you kidding? This is the most hypocritical thing I've seen in a while, especially #2. You yourself should enforce that before you say things like:

OR:

Your 5 points are excellent and YOUR theories should be held unto it as well.

Your argument is not we me, my interpretation, or my theory, it is with the word of God.

 

[chickenman]

no, its with your interpretation
unless you claim to know the mind of god

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 12:15 AM Micaiah said this in Post #11

Your argument is not we me, my interpretation, or my theory, it is with the word of God.

So, you are claiming to be God?

 

[Cantuar]

Here are some suggested ways for professional evolutionists to buy back some credibility:

Well, thanks and all that, but we'll never have credibility with creationists whatever we do, and to be honest I don't think evolutionary scientists should try jumping through hoops to gain credibility with a group that exists for the sole purpose of discrediting them.

1. Ensure that your theories align with observable facts. If you want your theories to be accorded the same regard as the industrial chemist, then be prepared to limit your speculation.

The whole point of theories is that they align with observable facts. That's as true for evolutionary science as any other. The science would start to show signs of extreme strain if the theories and facts were badly misaligned, and so far none of those signs are apparent.

2. Don't make claims that your theories are conclusive before you have the evidence to support those claims.

Major scientific theories are never conclusive. Evolutionary biologists don't make that claim; it's creationists who say that evolutionary biologists make that claim. I trust you can see the difference?

3. Don't expect people to believe you just because you know some scientific jargon that no one else can understand, or because you are accorded the title scientist. Intelligent people resent those who suggest we should accept their arguments because they sound like experts. There is only One Being in the universe who is entitled to make that kind of demand. Present your evidence simply and clearly and allow the eidence to speak for itself.

"Accorded the title scientist"? How condescending. People become scientists after years of scientific training and practice. They are specialists in a field that the rest of us know precious little about. Why should we not assume that they know more about that field than other people do? It would be a sorry state of affairs if they didn't. If you want to know about the best way to treat cancer, you ask an oncologist. If you want to know about evolution, you ask a biologist working in hat particular field. If that biologist starts using technical language, you can ask for a translation into plain English, but you have to understand that these technical terms have actual meanings, they don't exist simply to confuse the uninitiated. And it isn't impossible for the rest of us to pick up some of those terms if we exert a bit of effort.

4. Don't play games with semantics. Yes there is evidence to show that mutations occur and somtimes these mutations can be beneficial. To assert evolution has been conclusively demonstrated (speaker refers to micro evolution, but knows they will be understood to refer to macro evolution) is deceptive. That kind of argument sound clever but breeds distrust.

You're blaming scientists for a lot of things they don't do but that creationists claim that they do do. It's creationists who keep harping on about this difference between microevolution and macroevolution - that's a good example of playing games with semantics.

5. Be prepared to admit your lack of knowledge and the holes that exist in your theory. You should have no trouble finding plenty of these as you attempt to reassure your reader that you are not too arrogant to admit you don't know everything. Attempts to explain origins are highly speculative. There was only One who witnessed what occured during Creation, and as an expert witness, His word should receive more respect than all the scientists that ever have and will exist.

Again, it isn't scientists who claim to know everything, it's creationists who say that scientists claim to know everything. That's a very different matter. No general scientific theory is ever the last word in watertight certainty. Theories depend on data and change accordingly. We know that; you're the ones who seem to have problems with it. As far as all your claims about God - science is neutral with respect to claims about supernatural entities so those claims are irrelevant.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 01:17 PM chickenman said this in Post #12

no, its with your interpretation
unless you claim to know the mind of god

Since you identify yourself as a Christian I invite you to join the discussion on the Christian Evolution/Creation forum to discuss this point under the thread "A matter of interpretation". I trust this exercise will help you in your quest to differentiate truth and opinion on these matters. Hopefully you will recognise what you label a matter of opinion is in fact the clear teaching of Scripture.

In particular I am interested to hear how you interpret the first two chapters of Genesis, and your Scriptural support for your interpretation. As noted previously, the Christ and the writers of Scripture clearly viewed Genesis as a historical document. Anyone who attempts to establish a basis for another method of interpretation has a monumental task. I suggest you simply accept the clear teaching of Scripture, and discontinue making false statements about personal interpretations.

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 10:18 AM lucaspa said this in Post #1  Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry.

The religion is secular humanism. They use to call themselves heathens a lot time ago, but that took on sort of a bad image, so they got better public relations and started to call themselves huminists.

I submit that one of our jobs as evolutionists is to help train Christians to distinguish between professional evolutionism and popular evolutionism so that they can recognize when scientists are speaking as individuals with their individual beliefs and when they are speaking as scientists without beliefs. [/B]

What you should do is police your own ranks, because the majority of stuff out there being passed off as evolution is either nonsense or a misrepresentation of what evolution is suppose to be.

I have tried to get you to address this before, but you seem to want to ignore how much of a problem this is. It took me a while to realize that all the stuff I was considering nonsense the scientific community considered nonsense also.

 

[wblastyn]

What you should do is police your own ranks, because the majority of stuff out there being passed off as evolution is either nonsense or a misrepresentation of what evolution is suppose to be.

Bwahahaaha a layman telling a biochemist he doesn't know what evolution really is. It's statements like these than make me wish I was another animal, then I wouldn't have to listen to the mindless drivel some humans come off with.

 

Didn't you say before that you didn't know what evolution is, now you're claiming the scientist who work in evolution do not even know what it is?  Why do you say things like this....

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 06:41 PM Cantuar said this in Post #4



Yep, that would be nice. Trouble is, I wonder if the extrapolators even know that's what they're doing. I've been round this with my dad so many times, and he really doesn't see that by saying that science implies atheism he's extrapolating.

Oftentimes they don't.  However, that is getting better by having people like Ruse and Scott point it out. Dawkins, for instance, has become much more muted the last couple of years in his remarks.

The issue is not whether they stop, but that others recognize when the transgression of boundaries occurs.

Scientists do that now.  For instance, when I read The Blind Watchmaker I simply filtered out Dawkins' atheism without even realizing it.  When some posters quoted from the book, I had to go back and find the passages.  They had nothing to do with the science so I had ignored them to the point of not even noticing. 

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:20 PM Micaiah said this in Post #5

Here are some suggested ways for professional evolutionists to buy back some credibility:

1. Ensure that your theories align with observable facts. If you want your theories to be accorded the same regard as the industrial chemist, then be prepared to limit your speculation.

That's already been done for common ancestry and natural selection. Read Origins and look at all the observable facts in it.  The only reason you and other creationists don't accord evolution the same regard due to your inability to separate science from religion and your mistaken belief that evolution threatens Christianity. 

2. Don't make claims that your theories are conclusive before you have the evidence to support those claims.

Again, within the science -- professional evolutionism -- that is done.  What Ruse is saying is that popular evolutionism doesn't do that. But we aren't asking you to accept popular evolutionism.

3. Don't expect people to believe you just because you know some scientific jargon that no one else can understand, or because you are accorded the title scientist.

You'll have to give some examples here.  If you are referring to popular evolutionists, that is a valid criticism.  But you stated you were referring to professional evolutionism, you have to give examples of where authority is being misused.

 Present your evidence simply and clearly and allow the eidence to speak for itself.

LOL!! And when I do that, such as the threads "Evolution of feathers -- evolution of novelty" or "new hominen fossil" where I post the actual data from the paper, or the thread "Protcells -- life from non-life" guess what?  You never dispute it.  Of course, you don't give up your belief based opposition to evolution, either.  The evidence does speak for itself; you just choose to ignore it because you don't want to accept it.  Clean up your own house first.

4. Don't play games with semantics. Yes there is evidence to show that mutations occur and somtimes these mutations can be beneficial. To assert evolution has been conclusively demonstrated (speaker refers to micro evolution, but knows they will be understood to refer to macro evolution) is deceptive. 

Common ancestry has been conclusively demonstrated. So has natural selection as the cause of biological design.  You are just ignorant of the evidence.  So, don't hide behind ignorance and try to tell us evidence doesn't exist when anyone capable of looking on PubMed or reading an evolutionary biology textbook knows about the evidence. 

5. Be prepared to admit your lack of knowledge and the holes that exist in your theory.

Science works in layers.  Answer one question and 3 or 4 new ones pop up out of the answer.  So, at the fringe of any science investigation, there will be unanswered questions.  However, that doesn't translate to "holes that exist in your theory" 

This is another place where you need to clean up your own house.  Arguing about whether most speciation is allopatric or sympatric doesn't translate to a "hole" in evolution.

Attempts to explain origins are highly speculative. There was only One who witnessed what occured during Creation, and as an expert witness,

Here is where creationists should learn not to keep repeating arguments that are already refuted.  Studying the past is just as sure as studying the present as long as the past events leave evidence we can study today.  The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. 

His word should receive more respect than all the scientists that ever have and will exist.

Once again, science is looking at God's word -- the word He left in His Creation. That is more reliable than following a frail, faulty, human interpretation of an inspired work that is only indirectly God's word.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:51 PM Micaiah said this in Post #7

They know these guys have unfinished work, and wouldn't be happy till they'd discovered how life came from a tub of chemicals.

Already know a couple of ways it can happen.

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html