[_ Old Earth _] Evolution; mechanism or worldview?

[Grazer]

This seems to have generated a lot of heated discussion on another thread so thought I'd give it one of it's own.

Before we can begin to answer the question, I think we need to define evolution and what it is. The best place to look at definitions is the dictionary:

1) The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

2) the gradual development of something:
the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution

3) Chemistry the giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat:
the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process

4) [count noun] a pattern of movements or manoeuvres:
flocks of waders often perform aerial evolutions

5) Mathematics, dated the extraction of a root from a given quantity.

Origin:
early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n-) 'unrolling', from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ manoeuvre in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense 'development'

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evolution?q=evolution

With the exception of definition 1, which I'll come back to in a moment, all the others simply mean 'change over time' in various contexts. First we had state a, now we have state b. Changes in species have been observed albleit in smaller organisms. Some viruses have evolved to now be resistant to most anti-biotics which I will refer to later.

Now definition 1 is generally what is meant by the theory of evolution. The view that life on earth has evolved from something to what it is now over a long period of time (note that it has to pre-suppose the existence of something to evolve, it offers no explanation for where that came from, a point to which I return) At this point I need to bring in the concept of common ancestry. I will be quoting defintions from chapter 5 an article by Dr Allan Harvey (http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature):

This is central to what scientists usually mean by “evolution.†Common ancestry (or common descent) means that life has branched out, so dogs and wolves are distant cousins, dogs and cats are more distant cousins, and if you go back far enough dogs and fish, or dogs and trees, had a common ancestor. You can put humans in the family tree as well – related to chimpanzees, more distant from other mammals, and so forth. This says nothing about how or why this occurred, merely that life has branched out in this way. Sometimes people distinguish between evolution as “fact†and as “theory,†and the distinction is between common ancestry as the “fact of evolution†and the “theory of evolution†that tries to explain how it happened. Many people don’t appreciate that the evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming. It might have been reasonable to question it 50 years ago when it was just based on things like fossils and anatomy, but now DNA technology has provided powerful independent confirmation

For a readable overview of common ancestry, I recommend The Language of God by Francis Collins, former director of the human genome project.

Coming back to the fact that viruses have evolved, another definition involves the mechanisms behind this:

This refers to specific natural mechanisms (first proposed by Darwin, although in a primitive way because genetics was not yet understood) that cause species to change. Genetic variation is the fact that (due to mixing of parental genes and to mutations) children have different genes and different traits. Natural selection refers to the fact that the traits will make some children more likely to survive and pass their genes on to future generations. This is clearly correct on some scales, as it can be directly observed (for example, the evolution of bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics) or studied at the level of individual traits (for example, a recent study traced the evolution of lactose tolerance in humans as milk-producing animals were domesticated in different societies).

So now that we have established some definitions (change over time, common ancestry, evolutionary mechanisms) lets look at what is meant by the theory of evolution:

Mechanisms account (physically) for common descent. This is typically what scientists mean by “the theory of evolution.†We know these mechanisms produce changes in species, but do they account for all the evolution (in the common ancestry sense) that has happened through the history of life on Earth? Most biologists, including most Christians working in these areas, would say “yes,†but it is certainly not as 100% established as the previous meanings. It is very important to note the word “physically†in our E-4 definition. When we say the mechanisms account for what happened, that is at the physical level – it says nothing about whether this is nature acting by itself (of course for a Christian there is no such thing as nature acting by itself!) or whether God is working through nature.

Essentially it brings together the 3 established previous definitions of evolution and offers a theory to explain them.

The last sentence of the previous definition brings us onto the world view known as Evolutionism:

I use that term to refer to a meaning that is not science at all, but rather an ideology that sometimes masquerades as science. This starts with the philosophical position that natural explanations exclude God. Since science has produced these natural explanations for life, those with this ideology claim to have pushed God out of the picture. Of course these metaphysical conclusions are not science in any way – those who advocate this meaning are simply pushing atheistic philosophy, and it is wrong to try to claim it is a result of science.

The age of the earth is a different question and the evidence for which will not be found in biology.

We need to be extremely careful in being clear in what we mean when talking about evolution. Are we referring to changes over time, the theory of evolution, or the evolutionism world view? They are 3 very different things. Regarding how this fits with the Christian faith, there is no conflict since the central claim of the Christian faith is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised again. How it fits with the Genesis creation account? Well that's a massive topic for another time and beyond the scope of the purpose of this thread.

But on that note, I would like to end with one of my favourite quotes from the late Stephen Jay Gould (taken from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_darwin-on-trial.html)

Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.

Peace with you all

 

[AlexBC]

The problem is that the tetm Evolution is oft misunderstood and mis-!applied. The simplest definition of Evolution is-

" the change in allele frequency in a population."

 

[cupid dave]

The problem is that the tetm Evolution is oft misunderstood and mis-!applied. The simplest definition of Evolution is-

" the change in allele frequency in a population."

True at the lowests and most fundamental level of definitions.

The bigger picture is that life on Earth is analogous to the glove that has been woven onto the hand of Nature by the mechanism of all the Natural Laws working together to mould a perfect fit.

 

[AlexBC]

True at the lowests and most fundamental level of definitions.

The bigger picture is that life on Earth is analogous to the glove that has been woven onto the hand of Nature by the mechanism of all the Natural Laws working together to mould a perfect fit.

Of course. That's what I meant by being the simplest.

I'm consatantly amazed at how many people use the term "worldview" when referring to Evolution. It's no more a worldview than gravity.

I trust that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have but I don't base my worldview on it.

 

[cupid dave]

Of course. That's what I meant by being the simplest.

I'm consatantly amazed at how many people use the term "worldview" when referring to Evolution. It's no more a worldview than gravity.

I trust that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have but I don't base my worldview on it.

I agree.

The religious community in many denominational churchs has taken a stuanch position against Science almost in general in order to stone wall an interpretation of Genesis that was really oriinal with Jerry Falwell, back in the 60's.

Falwell was on the defense as atheists, the Gay Community, and Pro-abortionists Feminists attacked religious poltical oppenents by ridiculing what they read in Genesis 1, incorrectly read, I might add.

Feuling the religious fevour against these mostly Atheistic and organized attackers, Falwell started this retort, "God said it, I believe it, end of dicsussion."

What the Bible reader need do is return to yesteryear and read Genesis again, seeing that Science actually parallels the story, noting that gen 1:1 is confirmed by the Big Bang, stamping the fact of a beginning that started 13.5 billion years ago.

The six "days" of creation which occurred before the sun was made authority over earth time were long durations corresponding directly with the Geochronological Six Eras enumerated by the International Commission on Stratigraphy.

Even "Pangea" is accounted for in Gen 1:9 when god said, "Let all the waters under heaven be collected together into one place."

Why the church people have not yet turned all this back on the Bill Mahrs of the world is beyond me.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I think the theory of Evolution is just a mechanism. That doesn't mean that some use it as a worldview, because some do use it in that way. The theory of evolution doesn't really impact my spiritual beliefs because I just see it as another theory based on study. The only thing my studies into the theory of evolution has done is makes me distrust models that claim evolution in itself isn't happening.

Outside of that, I just don't care that much.

 

[cupid dave]

I think the theory of Evolution is just a mechanism. That doesn't mean that some use it as a worldview, because some do use it in that way. The theory of evolution doesn't really impact my spiritual beliefs because I just see it as another theory based on study. The only thing my studies into the theory of evolution has done is makes me distrust models that claim evolution in itself isn't happening.

Outside of that, I just don't care that much.

Yeah.

Its only important when people like Bill Mahr attack Genesis and try to use science to contradict what the bible says about the steps in the creation story.
Then, it becomes necessary to show such a person that Genesis is uncanny in stating pretty much the same story, in general, and as an overview.

 

[Adam]

Yeah.

Its only important when people like Bill Mahr attack Genesis and try to use science to contradict what the bible says about the steps in the creation story.
Then, it becomes necessary to show such a person that Genesis is uncanny in stating pretty much the same story, in general, and as an overview.

I don't think people like Bill Maher really care about the context of Genesis. As far as the people who do care about what the bible actually says, like myself, there is no uncanny resemblance of the biblical account to science.

Sorry, but you can't show what isn't there.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I don't think people like Bill Maher really care about the context of Genesis. As far as the people who do care about what the bible actually says, like myself, there is no uncanny resemblance of the biblical account to science.

Sorry, but you can't show what isn't there.

I'm a tad confused by what you mean by this post. I'm not a big fan of Bill Maher myself, so I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. Just curious.

 

[Adam]

I'm a tad confused by what you mean by this post. I'm not a big fan of Bill Maher myself, so I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. Just curious.

"How it fits with the Genesis creation account? Well that's a massive topic for another time and beyond the scope of the purpose of this thread."


My apologies. I missed this portion of the OP. You are correct, my comments are not really within the scope of the discussion.

They were regarding Cupid Dave's claim that Bill Maher uses science to disprove Genesis which doesn't have anything to do with this thread. We should refrain from the discussion.


I'd be glad to participate, but from the OP all I can really gather is that you want to make a statement that evolution is not incompatible with the bible. My feeling is that how we would determine whether it is or isn't is how we interpret the claims made in Genesis, but since you've limited that discussion the only thing I can really say is that the bible makes many claims and it is important that we examine each one rather than just the one identified as the "central claim."


I personally believe that evolution is more than "not incompatible" but is compatible, but we can't examine that if we are only focusing on the central claim. But that makes me wonder, why then, you even brought evolution up?

As a person who has adopted a theistic evolutionist perspective, I understand that the first step of reconciliation of your faith beliefs with fact-based beliefs like evolution is a tough one. You want to keep the narratives as you understand them intact.

I just want to congratulate you and think it is a wonderful and bold move to come to terms with modern understandings of the mechanisms of life and how we got here. And have courage in that your concerns, though they may not have manifest consciously for you yet, are minor and that the belief in evolution does not require that your Christian faith is diminished.

 

[Adam]

I don't think people like Bill Maher really care about the context of Genesis. As far as the people who do care about what the bible actually says, like myself, there is no uncanny resemblance of the biblical account to science.

Sorry, but you can't show what isn't there.

Just realized this may have been taken the wrong way. By "no resemblance of the biblical account to science" is missing some context, particularly some claims made about the bible talking about neanderthals and listing some of the hominds in the geneology of Adam to Noah.

 

[Grazer]

My primary aim was to show what evolution is and how its fundamentally different to the worldview of evolutionism. To discuss whether evolution is compatible with Genesis would require looking at a wide variety of biblical interpretations and am analysis of the original Hebrew though I allude to my view with the Stephen Jay Gould quote.

This thread was just aimed to clear up some mis-understandings about what is meant by evolution :o:o whether the theory is true is again another matter.

 

[cupid dave]

My primary aim was to show what evolution is and how its fundamentally different to the worldview of evolutionism.

To discuss whether evolution is compatible with Genesis would require looking at a wide variety of biblical interpretations and am analysis of the original Hebrew though I allude to my view with the Stephen Jay Gould quote.

This thread was just aimed to clear up some mis-understandings about what is meant by evolution :o:o whether the theory is true is again another matter.

I undertood you correctly then, in that the "world view," at least in America, is that the Theory of Evolution contradicts what 80% of the population understands Genesis to say.

The "World View" is that Evolution is against the Bible, isn't it?

The "World View" is usually expressed by a denial and ridicule of the idea that man came from the apes.

Whether one view at 20% or another at 80% is correct is no material to what you are saying.

I also read an inference that even among advocates of Evolution Theory and especially among the church people, there are "mis-understandings about what is meant by evolution."

 

[Adam]

My primary aim was to show what evolution is and how its fundamentally different to the worldview of evolutionism. To discuss whether evolution is compatible with Genesis would require looking at a wide variety of biblical interpretations and am analysis of the original Hebrew though I allude to my view with the Stephen Jay Gould quote.

This thread was just aimed to clear up some mis-understandings about what is meant by evolution :o:o whether the theory is true is again another matter.

I really don't understand what "evolutionism" is.


To me, it is an ad hom on evolution, meant to suggest that anyone who accepts the theory 0f evolution must be doing so on the basis of strict adherence and conformity. It also suggests that there are no valid reasons for accepting the theory.

I have seen no real world examples of what one might call "evolutionism."


Just another conspiracy theory, imho

 

[Tri Unity]

Evolution is not just an observed mechanism of the processes of life; it is a filter in which to explain what is observed. Many christians have been duped by this process because of the exposure to secularism they have had all their lives. Secularism is so infused into their thinking that the worldview of evolution has become as natural to them as breathing. They are fooled into believing a hybrid and untenable construct through over exposure. Like anyone who believes in UFO's or Scientology, a deceived person will always be able to give reasons why they believe what they do. Evolutionists are doubly deceived; for they think that the observed mechanism is the justification for the worldview, when both of them are exactly the same thing.

See also:

Creation vs Evolution: The War of the Worldviews

http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/creation_evolution.htm

Evolution and Worldview

http://www.challies.com/articles/evolution-and-worldview

The Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/morality-and-irrationality-evolutionary-worldview

 

[Free]

Evolution is a process not a worldview. That process is then seen through the lens of either a theistic or non-theistic worldview.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is not just an observed mechanism of the processes of life;

It is only an observed mechanism. Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it.

it is a filter in which to explain what is observed.

In the sense that Christianity is a filter to explain God.

Many christians have been duped by this process because of the exposure to secularism they have had all their lives. Secularism is so infused into their thinking that the worldview of evolution has become as natural to them as breathing.

One might as well speak of a worldview of plumbing. How silly.

They are fooled into believing a hybrid and untenable construct through over exposure. Like anyone who believes in UFO's or Scientology, a deceived person will always be able to give reasons why they believe what they do.

You actually believe that there is evidence for little green men and for Scientology? Seriously? Even honest creationists admit that there is much evidence for evolution.

Let's see what your links have to say...

Creation vs Evolution: The War of the Worldviews

This poor fellah has conflated atheism and science. In fact, most scientists are believers in some sort of deity, mostly Christian.

Evolution and Worldview

Displays evidence showing that humans have less sexual dimorphism than other primates because humans aren't very polygynous, and then denies it. Odd.

http://www.challies.com/articles/evo...-and-worldview

This one apparently thinks Psychology Today is scientific literature. :toofunny

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...nary-worldview

As is typical for the guys at AiG, they write "some evolutionists" and then pretend that they are all scientists. But since AiG got caught faking statements from scientists, they don't have any credibility left, anyway.

 

[Tri Unity]

In the sense that Christianity is a filter to explain God.

That's ecactly my point. Go Catholics!!!

 

[Tri Unity]

Evolution is a process not a worldview. That process is then seen through the lens of either a theistic or non-theistic worldview.

That is only your opinion. My opinion is that Evolution is a worldview. It has nothing to do with theistic or non-theistic lens. That is just your way of justifying what you believe.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Evolution is not just an observed mechanism of the processes of life; it is a filter in which to explain what is observed. Many christians have been duped by this process because of the exposure to secularism they have had all their lives. Secularism is so infused into their thinking that the worldview of evolution has become as natural to them as breathing. They are fooled into believing a hybrid and untenable construct through over exposure. Like anyone who believes in UFO's or Scientology, a deceived person will always be able to give reasons why they believe what they do. Evolutionists are doubly deceived; for they think that the observed mechanism is the justification for the worldview, when both of them are exactly the same thing.

See also:

Creation vs Evolution: The War of the Worldviews

http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/creation_evolution.htm

Evolution and Worldview

http://www.challies.com/articles/evolution-and-worldview

The Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/morality-and-irrationality-evolutionary-worldview

I skimmed your articles and I have to say, that all three are bent on trying to conflate the theory of Evolution with Evolutionism and refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference.

All I know is that when people start trying to claim my entire world view based on one of millions of things that impact my thought process, I tend to think of that person as simple minded.