Theistic Evolution is Weak Scientism

[Fervent]

Thank you. Of course, Moreland is concerned with the latter.

All evolutionary science being inferential is necessarily provisional, i.e., the veracity of present claims is dependent on the next observation or the application of more cogent reasoning.

Ten years after Bacon published The New Organon, Descartes published three short works describing and applying the “correct” method for generating knowledge of nature. Descartes championed a mathematics-intensive, deductive approach that assigned a central role to mind and only a marginal role to experiment. Bacon claimed that the human mind was an obstacle to knowledge of nature—the problem, not the solution.

For Descartes, the mind is the solution, not the problem, as it was for Bacon. Moreland, I think, sees Bacon's point on the fallibility of the human mind.

Moreland recognizes the overwhelming temptation for theistic-evolutionists to fall from sometimes ambiguous biblical truth into scientific tentative untruth.

Yeah, rationalism and empiricism were set at odds to one another. Personally, I find neither particularly compelling and remain a Pyrrhonist/pragmatist about such things. There may be some path to knowledge, but I haven't found it yet. Though I've had many who tried to tell me they had it, but they could not answer my questions.

 

[o_mlly]

Having listened to morelands lecture, he never actually touches on the subject of scientific concordism at all.

? "How the Bible and science intersect" is Moreland's main theme. He makes the argument that theistic-evolutionists are quick to give primacy to science's tentative claims over the bible.

 

[Fervent]

? "How the Bible and science intersect" is Moreland's main theme. He makes the argument that theistic-evolutionists are quick to give primacy to science's tentative claims over the bible.

I probably could have phrased that better, scientific concordism is the expectation that the Bible and scientific exploration have to coincide. So Moreland's argument is tangentially related, but not directly addressed.

As to his point, it's not necessarily the case as it is possible to keep the two as separate domains. The Bible teaches theology, not science. Science teaches mechanistic operation, not ultimate reality.

 

[Job 33:6]

? "How the Bible and science intersect" is Moreland's main theme. He makes the argument that theistic-evolutionists are quick to give primacy to science's tentative claims over the bible.

Scientific concordism is about how they interesect, but that's not simply what it is.

Morland is a philosopher, he isn't an old testament scholar. Not that his role isn't important, but we aren't at the right starting point.

 

[Job 33:6]

? "How the Bible and science intersect" is Moreland's main theme. He makes the argument that theistic-evolutionists are quick to give primacy to science's tentative claims over the bible.

Here, I know you don't seem to be interested in video lectures, but here is a more simple rundown of the issue at play. Just give it a shot and see if it makes sense to you or if you disagree:

 

[o_mlly]

Scientific concordism is about how they interesect, but that's not simply what it is.

What else is it?

Morland is a philosopher, he isn't an old testament scholar. Not that his role isn't important, but we aren't at the right starting point.

It's the starting point of this thread ... which is not about biblical concordance. Feel free to start a new thread if you like.

Here, I know you don't seem to be interested in video lectures, but here is a more simple rundown of the issue at play. Just give it a shot and see if it makes sense to you or if you disagree:

It's an hour long! I'm interested in your take on the video's main points and how they relate to this thread.

 

[Job 33:6]

What else is it?

It's the starting point of this thread ... which is not about biblical concordance. Feel free to start a new thread if you like.

It's an hour long! I'm interested in your take on the video's main points and how they relate to this thread.

So you've created a thread critiquing theistic evolution, in which when people discuss the hermeneutics of theistic evolution in response, you recommend we go and create a new thread?

Scientific concordism is basically about hermeneutics, or the lens we use when approaching Scripture. It asks: from what cultural or intellectual perspective are we interpreting the Bible? For example, think of the word “café”: are we imagining a French coffeehouse, or an American-style place where people buy coffee?

In the same way, concordism asks whether we read biblical terms about creation from a modern, scientifically informed perspective, or from the ancient Israelite worldview that the text originally addressed. It’s essentially about whether the text is expected to align with modern science. This is different from word studies or using a Strong’s concordance, which just tracks where words appear in the Bible without imposing an interpretive lens.

This video could be a helpful way to catch up on some of the groundwork before diving further into the discussion. Especially since this doesn't appear to be a topic that you've worked through.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Having listened to morelands lecture, he never actually touches on the subject of scientific concordism at all.

He also doesn't really lay out the epistemological nuances of what supposedly composes "weak scientism." Of course, then again, what do I expect from a 10 minute video segment?

 

[River Jordan]

? "How the Bible and science intersect" is Moreland's main theme. He makes the argument that theistic-evolutionists are quick to give primacy to science's tentative claims over the bible.

It's not "primacy", it's seeing how the Word of God and the reality of God's creation are complimentary rather than in competition.

For example, when Amos 4 says God creates mountains and wind, most Christians don't take that as a reason to deny plate tectonics, volcanoes, temperature gradients, etc.

 

[Job 33:6]

He also doesn't really lay out the epistemological nuances of what supposedly composes "weak scientism." Of course, then again, what do I expect from a 10 minute video segment?

Yes. There are many things they never touch on, and I suspect that they never will. Because if they did, it would only mean the collapse of their own position.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's an hour long! I'm interested in your take on the video's main points and how they relate to this thread.

Here, this video is only 6 minutes:

Is that brief enough?

 

[o_mlly]

I probably could have phrased that better, scientific concordism is the expectation that the Bible and scientific exploration have to coincide. So Moreland's argument is tangentially related, but not directly addressed.

As to his point, it's not necessarily the case as it is possible to keep the two as separate domains. The Bible teaches theology, not science. Science teaches mechanistic operation, not ultimate reality.

Yes, the bible and science must coincide because Truth is singular and independent of either domain.

The question under examination is at what level of confidence may the theistic-evolutionist abandon the literal interpretation of the bible for the tentative claims of science. Moreland gives examples (in his opinion) of literal abandonment that is not warranted, e.g. the existence of souls, genders, and homosexual acts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, the bible and science must coincide because Truth is singular and independent of either domain.

The question under examination is at what level of confidence may the theistic-evolutionist abandon the literal interpretation of the bible for the tentative claims of science. Moreland gives examples (in his opinion) of literal abandonment that is not warranted, e.g. the existence of souls, genders, and homosexual acts.

I think what you may be failing to realize is that a number of us---or at least I'm speaking for myself---don't approach the Bible in a woodenly literal way because we assume a different view of Historiography and the Philosophy of History as being representative of the nature of the biblical writings. In other words, our more scrutinizing view of the Biblical literature, particularly that of Genesis chapters 1-3, is due to implications other fields of study and not to evolution per say. Due to those, I'm moved to read and evaluate the Bible through a different Hermeneutic than you do, essentially, a critical one.

The Theory of Evolution has little directly to do with it, and it isn't the sole culprit all by itself.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, the bible and science must coincide because Truth is singular and independent of either domain.

The question under examination is at what level of confidence may the theistic-evolutionist abandon the literal interpretation of the bible for the tentative claims of science. Moreland gives examples (in his opinion) of literal abandonment that is not warranted, e.g. the existence of souls, genders, and homosexual acts.

In order to really get to the heart of the topic, you have to be willing to engage on hermeneutics. If you cannot do that, then your position will simply be concluded to be a strawman or a misunderstanding of what theistic evolution is really about. You have to start by asking people what they believe, rather than listening to some random philosopher rant about gender and homosexuals.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, the bible and science must coincide because Truth is singular and independent of either domain.

Truth is singular, but that doesn't mean it can't be approached through different lenses or operative conditions. Science is a way of modeling the universe, it's truth is contingent upon the truth of the underlying assumptions. The Bible is multifaceted, and there are numerous hermeneutical questions for every passage.

The question under examination is at what level of confidence may the theistic-evolutionist abandon the literal interpretation of the bible for the tentative claims of science. Moreland gives examples (in his opinion) of literal abandonment that is not warranted, e.g. the existence of souls, genders, and homosexual acts.

The question under examination requires a false dilemma built upon theological developments that happened as a reaction to evolutionary theory and German liberal theology.

 

[stevevw]

Theistic evolution is not soft science. It often disagrees with science. In fact it leaves open to some extent the naturalistic ways in which life evolves. For example theistic evolution allows teleology within evolution.

Or other third ways or extended synthesis that incorporate agency and non genetic factors that allow life to adapt or are built with developmental systems that are designed to evolve only certain phenotypes. Or have plasticity in adpating. All pre programmed laws of nature from the beginning.

Theistic evolution is really the recognition that evolution or the way life was designed to live on planet earth has some design to the mechanisms as well as making the center of that creation humans.

Humans who can control their environments and direct their own evolution. An active causal influence on life itself. Which is what we would expect to find with Gods creation reflecting Gods methods of design to produce conscious beings who can have relationship with God. With their creator for which they see his handiwork all around them.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't believe the Neo-Darwinian account, however, his dismissal of "theistic evolution" as "not taking the Bible seriously" is disappointing and intellectually scandalous.

 

[o_mlly]

Is that brief enough?

Weren't you the poster to whom another complained the he wasn't interested in your ongoing use of AI instead of writing a reply in your own words? Can you not articulate your arguments?

And I believe it was you who would not take the time to read the ICR article and examine its footnotes in that same thread on the myth of the tiktaalik but jumped on the summary of the article points which, as summaries do, truncated "reptile-like" to "reptile"? And then gloated along with some other evo's that no "reptile" trackways predated the tiktaalik. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Your youtube video is irrelevant. The thread is about evolution of the diversity of life ... not cosmology.

 

[Job 33:6]

Weren't you the poster to whom another complained the he wasn't interested in your ongoing use of AI instead of writing a reply in your own words? Can you not articulate your arguments?

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.

And I believe it was you who would not take the time to read the ICR article and examine its footnotes in that same thread on the myth of the tiktaalik but jumped on the summary of the article points which, as summaries do, truncated "reptile-like" to "reptile"? And then gloated along with some other evo's that no "reptile" trackways predated the tiktaalik. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

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.

Your youtube video is irrelevant. The thread is about evolution of the diversity of life ... not cosmology.

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.

 

[o_mlly]

I think what you may be failing to realize is that a number of us---or at least I'm speaking for myself---don't approach the Bible in a woodenly literal way because we assume a different view of Historiography and the Philosophy of History as being representative of the nature of the biblical writings. In other words, our more scrutinizing view of the Biblical literature, particularly that of Genesis chapters 1-3, is due to implications other fields of study and not to evolution per say. Due to those, I'm moved to read and evaluate the Bible through a different Hermeneutic than you do, essentially, a critical one.

The Theory of Evolution has little directly to do with it, and it isn't the sole culprit all by itself.

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 is better explained 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.