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.'

 

[The Barbarian]

. P. Moreland makes the case that theistic-evolution is merely a weak form of scientism.

"Theistic Evolution is a revisionist treatment of the Bible based on the idea that if the Bible is going to be even partly credible, it must be constantly revised to keep up with what contemporary science says. Thus, Theistic Evolution supports scientism, the view that the hard sciences are the only or vastly superior way of knowing reality."

It's always fascinating how YECs feel compelled to invent ideas for the rest of Christianity. In fact, no theistic evolutionist or evolutionary creationist says such things. You would think that a proclaimed Christian would at least obey the 9th commandment. Edit: It might be that he is merely ignorant or deluded, and is not trying to deceive people.

Evolutionism is a belief system that needs a lot of work

The idea that rocks, dust, gas and sunlight will eventually come up with a rabbit is the story of evolutionism as long as you add "a sufficient mass, and sufficient time and chance". It is a fairy tale of epic proportions

And this illustrates that YECs are largely swinging wildly in the dark against science. In fact, evolution is just the way living populations change over time. Nothing whatever about the origin of life. If they knew something about the phenomenon they'd be more effective in fighting against it.

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

Moreland is (perhaps in complete ignorance, rather than malice) peddling untruths. He might as well rant against plumbers for not bothering to exorcise demons of blockage.

 

[The Barbarian]

Theistic evolution is not soft science. It often disagrees with science.

I don't see how. At least not the sort we see here. It's a religious belief, but it doesn't disagree with science.

The thread is about evolution of the diversity of life ..

So show us any step from prokaryotes to vertebrates that could not have evolved by natural processes. What do you have?

 

[BobRyan]

In fact, evolution is just the way living populations change over time. Nothing whatever about the origin of life.

Naturalism's religious statement about the origins of life is all about "change over time".
The salient point in evolutionism is always "assumed" rather than demonstrated. This is true in imagining abiotic origins for life and it is also true for the imaginary sequence where the prokaryotes father the rabbit.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't see how. At least not the sort we see here. It's a religious belief, but it doesn't disagree with science.

Indeed. it ignores the demonstrated fact of mutations diminish capability over time instead of inventing ways to climb up the ladder of taxonomy from amoeba to human brain

So show us any step from prokaryotes to vertebrates that could not have evolved by natural processes.

"could not have evolved" is the magician's sort of story telling.

Science deals with demonstrated fact not myths about the extent of what one "could possibly imagine"

If you want an actual science answer then get out your chemistry set and demonstrate it. If your answer is "I can't do that" then show all the intermediate forms interacting with each other in a single contiguous column. Either reproduce the event you claim or show a bullet proof example in the fossil record, or artificially create the environmental pressure that supposedly produces the change.

Recall that "punctuated evolutionism" claims that change is very rapid, so rapid it cannot be captured in the fossil record, yet can't reproduce much imagined process.

 

[AaronClaricus]

then show all the intermediate forms interacting with each other in a single contiguous column. Either reproduce the event you claim or show a bullet proof example in the fossil record, or artificially create the environmental pressure that supposedly produces the change.

It's rare to excavate sequences in a single "column." geological formations are huge with various amounts of erosion in different places. Much easier to dig where strata are exposed. We have core samples showing the strata exist buried so it's not an issue of possibility it's practicality. How many paleontologists do you know with a bagger 293?

 

[Job 33:6]

Indeed. it ignores the demonstrated fact of mutations diminish capability over time instead of inventing ways to climb up the ladder of taxonomy from amoeba to human brain

"could not have evolved" is the magician's sort of story telling.

Science deals with demonstrated fact not myths about the extent of what one "could possibly imagine"

If you want an actual science answer then get out your chemistry set and demonstrate it. If your answer is "I can't do that" then show all the intermediate forms interacting with each other in a single contiguous column. Either reproduce the event you claim or show a bullet proof example in the fossil record, or artificially create the environmental pressure that supposedly produces the change.

Recall that "punctuated evolutionism" claims that change is very rapid, so rapid it cannot be captured in the fossil record, yet can't reproduce much imagined process.

I'd say that tiktaalik is a good case or instance from the fossil record that supports the theory of evolution:

 

[BobRyan]

I'd say that tiktaalik is a good case or instance from the fossil record that supports the theory of evolution:

tiktaalik is a great example of "no change over time"

It is a wonderful case where the environmental (supposedly evolutionary) pressure that supposedly got fish to see that being on land would be much better than staying in the ocean results in the same species unchanged over time.

It begs the question of whether tiktaalik even has "a prior ancestor" without legs. The solution in evolutionism is to "assume it". To assume the salient point

Evolutionism's stories speak of what appears to be "the closest' or "nearest" ancestor... but even in the story telling they can't show the "immediate" or "direct" ancestor since the fossil record provides no such info.

 

[o_mlly]

Neither do I care about 'biblical kinds' as the only alternative to Darwinian species.

The question Moreland puts to us is not one as to which hermeneutic is better or best with which to interpret scripture. Rather he questions under what criteria do we elevate scientific claims over and against literal scripture interpretations (St. Augustine's question). Scientific claims always lack certainty.

However, some claims are beyond a reasonable doubt and pass Augustine's threshold. Theistic Evolution is not one of those claims. Nor does thesitic evolution pass muster on lower levels of certainty ,i.e., prepoderance of evidence, all experts in agreement, no evidence in disagreement.

Is theistic evolution simply a milder form of athesitic evolution made to be more palatable for believers to swallow? The two theories remain deep in the realm of doubt and so do not warrant a reinterpretation of Genesis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The question Moreland puts to us is not one as to which hermeneutic is better or best with which to interpret scripture. Rather he questions under what criteria do we elevate scientific claims over and against literal scripture interpretations (St. Augustine's question). Scientific claims always lack certainty.

.... when I refer to Hermeneutics, I'm not merely speaking of 'biblical hermeneutics.' This means that actually, yes, Moreland's question about which criteria we choose to apply to any phenomena of study in life is part and parcel of the overall field of Hermeneutics, as well as residing firmly within the overall purview of Philosophy. And Bible scholars and evolutionary scientists will just have to readjust to this fact. Their individual powers of interpretation in either theology or science don't escape this fact, even if they are unaware of it. It's just the way it is.

And no, not all scientific claims lack certainty, even if certain nuances within any one scientific theory are held provisionally. Remember, scientific claims and scientific theories are two different things and we want to avoid the fallacies of both composition and its converse, the fallacy of division.

If I make the following scientific claim, "The Moon is a sphere," I'm not just whistling dixie and I have no fear than anyone will scientifically prove this claim to be false in any way, shape or form. And if I look at portions of the Geologic Column, I can be similarly assured that those portions are indeed older than 10,000 years, even if some smaller aspects of the explanation may be provisionally true and later updated to more accurate statements, all of which will likely STILL affirm the deep time embedded within the Column. .... the Bible, on the other hand, is chock full of need for question asking............................................................. on almost every level imaginable. And that's just the way it is.

However, some claims are beyond a reasonable doubt and pass Augustine's threshold. Theistic Evolution is not one of those claims. Nor does thesitic evolution pass muster on lower levels of certainty ,i.e., prepoderance of evidence, all experts in agreement, no evidence in disagreement.

No one has to put Augustine first as a source by which to define presuppositions. In fact, I'd eschew the idea and cavalierly assert that no one has to run their scientific theories through the Matrix of Augustine before they can use them. Augustine is no final authority. We all should know that..................by now.

Is theistic evolution simply a milder form of athesitic evolution made to be more palatable for believers to swallow? The two theories remain deep in the realm of doubt and so do not warrant a reinterpretation of Genesis.

I'm pretty sure from what I've seen from the discourse among Theistic Evolutionists that the theory isn't being used to be "more palatable" for believes to swallow. No, they 'believe' it because they think both the Theory of Evolution and the general narratives of the Bible are both true in different senses of the word: 'TRUE.'

The real problem here isn't in whether or not certain theists think evolution is contending with the Biblical narratives of Genesis; no, the real problem is that there is a contest here----mainly posited and overextended by you and others who think like you ----over what the nature of TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE is. And truth be told, no one has to study reality (whether scientific or historical) by starting with the Bible only.

 

[o_mlly]

If I make the following scientific claim, "The Moon is a sphere," I'm not just whistling dixie and I have no fear than anyone will scientifically prove this claim to be false in any way, shape or form.

Already addressed as a claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I repeat the thread is not about cosmology.

And if I look at portions of the Geologic Column, I can be similarly assured that those portions are indeed older than 10,000 years, even if some smaller aspects of the explanation may be provisionally true and later updated to more accurate statements ...

Same as above ... diversity of life; not cosmology. As an aside, do you not see the internal contradiction in the above?

... the Bible, on the other hand, is chock full of need for question asking ... on almost every level imaginable. And that's just the way it is. ...

Your post does ramble on. Please try to stay focused on the thread's topic.

... the real problem is that there is a contest here----mainly posited and overextended by you and others who think like you ----over what the nature of TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE is.

If the thread causes you some emotional discomfort then I suggest you end your participation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Already addressed as a claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I repeat the thread is not about cosmology.

The scientific fact that the Moon is a sphere is not cosmology, and I say this because I do not equate the fields of Astronomy and Planetary Science with Cosmology. Why? Because I don't bite into the fallacies of either Composition or Division.

Same as above ... diversity of life; not cosmology. As an aside, do you not see the internal contradiction in the above?

Nope, and I don't see any contradiction for the reasons I've given already in previous posts. There is no contradiction in my thinking here. However, there may be some conceptual and philosophical confusion and dogmatism on your part in this thread which contributes to your inability to understand what I've so far, laid out in opposition to your assertions.

Your post does ramble on. Please try to stay focused on the thread's topic.

Can you do anything other than produce derogatory comments on other people, even fellow Christians? Is this possible for you?

If the thread causes you some emotional discomfort then I suggest you end your participation.

What you're mistaking for emotional discomfort is....................rather, bold confidence, or zeal due to knowledge (and education).

I suggest you adjust to it.

As for my suggested epistemic 'starting point' of inquiry, I'm going to suggest folks check out Malcolm A. Jeeves over either St. Augustine or J.P. Moreland.

 

[o_mlly]

...

What you're mistaking for emotional discomfort is....................rather, bold confidence, or zeal due to knowledge (and education).

I suggest you adjust to it.

As for my suggested epistemic 'starting point' of inquiry, I'm going to suggest folks check out Malcolm A. Jeeves over either St. Augustine or J.P. Moreland.

Umm, hmm. Enlarged font, bold text, all caps, and underlined? Of course you are.

I didn't notice that you hail from "Space Mountain". That explains a lot.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Umm, hmm. Enlarged font, bold text, all caps, and underlined? Of course you are.

Yep, the enlarged font is effective in bringing attention to those ideas that I think people need to notice, even if they do tend to misinterpret this emphasis for anger.

I already am aware the the ongoing conventions of e-moting are taken as anger, but again, I think people need to learn to adjust to other people's style, even such as mine.

I didn't notice that you hail from "Space Mountain". That explains a lot.

No, it really doesn't.

 

[o_mlly]

What do you have?

I'll tell you what I didn't have. My granddaughter delivered our great-grand child last week. We are all glad that we didn't have a macroevolution event.

So, tell us more about that spontaneous macroevolution lab event you claimed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll tell you what I didn't have. My granddaughter delivered our great-grand child last week.

Well, congratulations! I sincerely mean that. May she be blessed.

 

[Job 33:6]

tiktaalik is a great example of "no change over time"

It is a wonderful case where the environmental (supposedly evolutionary) pressure that supposedly got fish to see that being on land would be much better than staying in the ocean results in the same species unchanged over time.

It begs the question of whether tiktaalik even has "a prior ancestor" without legs. The solution in evolutionism is to "assume it". To assume the salient point

Evolutionism's stories speak of what appears to be "the closest' or "nearest" ancestor... but even in the story telling they can't show the "immediate" or "direct" ancestor since the fossil record provides no such info.

Tiktaalik fits well in the broader succession of fossils. I'm not sure what your point is. You can't argue "no change over time" when the fossil record depicts a succession over time.
From the PNAS Paper, the axiel skeleton of tiktaalik rosaea:

The transition is pretty well self evident. You don't have to acknowledge it, but it's there, plain as day.