Theistic Evolution is Weak Scientism

[Job 33:6]

I think you have missed the point of the thread. I do not read the bible literally, nor does my tradition. The issue at hand asks a theological question. At what level of scientific confidence ought we to make scripture subject to current ephemeral scientific claims. How far is too far? Moreland mentions three i.e., the soul, genders, and homosexual acts. There are others.

For example, the evo's Tree of Life would make good Father Occam roll-over in his grave. The vast diversity of life that the evos claim departs from the biblical kinds of living beings to the point of absurdity. The basis for the evo's Tree of Life are accidental differences rather than kinds of difference.

This error allows microevolved life forms to beget branches as if these horizontal changes were vertical. "Kinds" refers to essential differences. The Tree of Life would be better described as the biblical Forest of Life. It seems to me that classical categories (for the most part, biblical as well) of germ, vegetative, sentient, and rational life are better trees than the evo's. Gain of function as a special act of intelligent creation rather than a random event of nature.

Now I expect the evo's to react with "hair on fire" posts. But they, as theistic evo's, they admit an intelligent creator exists. But even if all the data point to Him as an intelligent designer, they exclude such a hypothesis from science because it is not naturalistic.

Most theistic evolutionists aren’t trying to build a concordist model where the Tree of Life must map neatly onto biblical “kinds,” nor are they claiming that evolutionary mechanisms exhaust divine causation.

Theistic evolution is primarily a hermeneutical position, not a biological one. It starts by asking what kind of text Genesis is and what claims it intends to make, rather than assuming it’s offering an ontology of biological kinds that science should recover.

So critiques of the Tree of Life as violating essential categories don’t really land unless we first agree that Genesis is operating at that level of biological classification. Many TE proponents, Walton is a good example, would say it isn’t.

 

[o_mlly]

The video is only 6 minutes long, providing a useful resource that compliments one of my points above. That the text is written through the contextual background of an ancient near east cosmology. See, I'm both making my points and giving you supplemental information.


I did end up reading that article, and it didn't provide any information on what these alleged reptile trackways were. Did you ever figure that one out? Remember, that was your claim, not mine. So it's not my responsibility to verbally justify it.


It's perfectly relevant because it's about the hermeneutics of theistic evolution. Which you don't seem to actually be interested in.

How is it that you plan to critique something that you aren't first familiar with?

If you don't know the first thing about theistic evolution, and you don't even want to talk about the core hermeneutics of theistic evolution, how we understand the Bible, then of what value is it to critique theistic evolution as scientism if you don't even know what theistic evolution is?

You were just asking what "scientific concordism" is, and it doesn't appear that you've even heard of figures like John Walton. Which is like theistic evolution 101. It's like trying to criticize young earth creationism and not knowing what answers in Genesis is.

I hope your fire extinguishers are in working order.

 

[Job 33:6]

I hope your fire extinguishers are in working order.

The point here is that, the question is what Genesis intends to say, not whether the Tree of Life violates later biological categories.

It's about hermeneutics, it's not about biology.

And until you catch onto that, the conversation isn't going to go anywhere.

But it's fine, I'll just let your topic be then, and we'll see how far you get with your talking points on gender and homosexuality. But the point is that, these are downstream topics. If you really want to engage the topic, you have to engage hermeneutics. You have to engage the Bible.

And that's ultimately where all of these side conversations will take you in the end anyway.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you have missed the point of the thread. I do not read the bible literally, nor does my tradition. The issue at hand asks a theological question. At what level of scientific confidence ought we to make scripture subject to current ephemeral scientific claims. How far is too far? Moreland mentions three i.e., the soul, genders, and homosexual acts. There are others.

One thing you need to keep in mind is that a Critical Realist approach to the Bible ISN'T and should not be seen as being equivalent to a Progressivist approach to the Bible. While there may be some minor or moderate overlap with either Christian Progressives or Christian Fundamentalists, this doesn't mean that Critical researchers such as myself are advocating the same two-bit, half-baked critical analyses of the Bible that both Progressives seem to do with their so-called 'deconstructing' of the Bible on one hand, and that some more conservative fellow Christians (or apologists) seem to do with their attempts to buttress an unneeded concept like "biblical inerrancy."

What do I mean by this and what is the outcome? I "mean" that morally, no one is off the hook where sin is concerned. However, it might mean there are some re-qualifying analyses that will be applied to biblical texts, despite whatever contestations come from the mouths of more literalistic readers of the Bible. Of course, then again, the outcome of fuller critical analyses via Hermeneutics can go the other way as well.......................... so like I said, no one is theologically off the hook, at least not in the way that so many would like to be.

For example, the evo's Tree of Life would make good Father Occam roll-over in his grave. The vast diversity of life that the evos claim departs from the biblical kinds of living beings to the point of absurdity. The basis for the evo's Tree of Life are accidental differences rather than kinds of difference.

I couldn't care less about Occam's Razor. I think Occam is overused and misunderstood, and I think some modicum of Gettier Problems blunt the supposed explanatory incisive sharpness of his alleged razor (---I say alleged because he didn't coin the term himself, someone after him did.) I instead prefer to rely on plain ol' "inference to the best explanation," rather than on the "supposed" simplest excuse for an explanation. Accuracy, not simplicity, should be our categorical calling card when attempting to construct applicable explanations of the world around us, whenever conceptually and rationally possible.

This error allows microevolved life forms to beget branches as if these horizontal changes were vertical. "Kinds" refers to essential differences. The Tree of Life would be better described as the biblical Forest of Life. It seems to me that classical categories (for the most part, biblical as well) of germ, vegetative, sentient, and rational life are better trees than the evo's. Gain of function is better explained as a special act of intelligent creation rather than a random event of nature.

What? I don't care about either the scientific Tree of Life or the concept of Natural Selection. And I don't have to. Neither do I care about 'biblical kinds' as the only alternative to Darwinian species. Neither position can demonstrate that it, itself, inhabits some sort of absolute metaphysical position for all of us to deem as comprehensive.

However, I do care about the biblical Tree of Life as a sacred symbol for what is to come......... this much is theologically non-negotiable for me. And why do I? The answer to this should be obvious to anyone who can realize they survive moment to moment by merely a succession of human heartbeats. Biological, Darwinian Science has nothing existentially to offer in answer to this realization. ....Nothing. Nothing at all.

Now I expect the evo's to react with "hair on fire" posts. But they, as theistic evo's, they admit an intelligent creator exists. But even if all the data point to Him as an intelligent designer, they exclude such a hypothesis from science because it is not naturalistic.

The only actual application of Methodological Naturalism that is fully tangible, and for very good reason, is within the areas of Experimental Science. And why? Essentially, at rock bottom, this is because no one--- not you, not me, not Christian scientists nor Skeptical Scientists --- can control God as a variable in an experiment. It just can't be done. But oh, the cries of those who think they can. They can stuff a sock in it!

So, yeah, as a part of 'method' but not as a part of worldview, God isn't included in mainstream scientific hypothesizing or theorizing-----unless of course, we think we're 'god.'