Sandbox (1)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

1,772 thoughts on “Sandbox (1)

  1. Yet another convenient dismissal of thoughtful opposition from skeptic regulars, whose worldview is being challenged. The arguments you usually use against IDists and YECists don’t work against me because I am neither an IDist nor a YECist. Mike Elzinga could at least have the dignity to accept my word for it, but he is too stubborn apparently.

    Now, when I have not only brought evidence of the ideology of ‘evolutionism’ to TSZ, but also questioned whether Mike is as scientifically competent as he claims, to you this is outrage. From my pov, it is telling that Mike Elzinga refuses to accept evidence contrary to his current position. It is non-scientific, and it is bad for communication because one can’t trust a person who won’t ever admit that they’re wrong.

    1) I believe/accept as true that most people at TSZ are evolutionists. If you’d like to do a poll about this, feel free. Otherwise, what has been said over several months since Elisabeth started this blog after being banned from UD surely seems to support this ‘educated guess.’ However, given that participants in the thread on Darwinism wouldn’t publically admit themselves as Darwinists or non-Darwinists, I’m guessing it would be similar wrt ‘evolutionism.’

    2) Because most TSZ regulars are ‘evolutionists,’ any attempt such as mine to highlight evolutionism and show how it is problematic will be met with much resistance. In this case, harsh and abusive opposition was launched against me and Mike Elzinga led a charge to question if I even possibly *could* be a researcher and nevertheless hold that anti-evolutionism view. To that I respond: I can, I am and do.

    3) There is hope that moderates at TSZ could accept middle ground, which is what I am proposing (and would have moved on to all along, if not for the wonderful example of a ‘scientist’ like Mike Elzinga refusing evidence staring him in the face – this really has been a gift too obvious to miss). Of course it is possible for moderates to continue to accept biological evolution, as I and many others do, as a limited explanation in natural sciences. What needs to be rejected, however, is the exaggeration of evolutionary theory into non-natural scientific fields, into ethics, into art and aesthetics, into economics and politics, into literature and music, into philosophy and human-social sciences under the guise of evolutionism.

    One response to this may be to say, “sure, that’s not a problem. The only fields that really matter anyway are scientific fields.” But that’s problematic on another front, that of scientism. Mike Elzinga demonstrates this reductionistic myopia quite well in Kalamazoo.

    Others say that they have no intention to use ‘evolution’ ideologically outside of natural sciences, but that in the simple definition of ‘change-over-time,’ they feel that the term ‘evolution’ is appropriate. Otoh, o.k., that’s understandable. Otoh, it grants ‘evolution’ a monopoly over ‘change,’ which it doesn’t deserve since there are non-evolutionary types of change.

    I’m siding with the view that ‘evolutionism’ is an exaggeration of a legitimate natural-physical scientific theory into illegitimate realms. Evolutionists will likely resist this move. Others are welcome to consider along with me what that means (post-Darwinian) in a broader framework regarding knowledge, teaching, learning and socio-cultural development. If a positive alternative to ‘evolution’ were on the table (as Popper suggested), would TSZers be willing to try it?

    Let me stop here b/c it’s already too much for the Sandbox.

  2. If a positive alternative to ‘evolution’ were on the table (as Popper suggested), would TSZers be willing to try it?

    How will you ever know if you never try?

    And if you are secure in your own mind that you have a good and useful idea, what difference does it make whether we agree with it?

  3. Gregory: Now, when I have not only brought evidence of the ideology of ‘evolutionism’ to TSZ,

    Actually, you haven’t. What you have done, is provide evidence that there are people who use the word “evolutionism.” As to whether that word actually means anything important, the evidence is lacking.

    … , but also questioned whether Mike is as scientifically competent as he claims, to you this is outrage.

    As best I recall, Mike has not claimed to be more than a science grunt who has learned his stuff from working in the trenches of science. And we can be sure that he knows his stuff, on the basis of what he posts.

    It is non-scientific, and it is bad for communication because one can’t trust a person who won’t ever admit that they’re wrong.

    My best assessment is that you are the one failing at communication here. My advice would be to spend more time listening, and less time talking. In particular, listen to how people respond to what you write. That’s what will tell you how effectively you are communicating.

  4. “How will you ever know if you never try? / And if you are secure in your own mind that you have a good and useful idea, what difference does it make whether we agree with it?”

    Very good questions, petrushka. Perhaps soon I will try here. I imagine it will be easier for TSZ regulars to accept than IDists, who are still ‘freshly fanatical’ for their relatively young (neo-creationist) ideology. Next week full of conference and interviews, but may have time soon.

    You’re right. It doesn’t make a difference if you agree with it, but it does seem logical when one considers the limits of evolutionary theories openly. And willingness to consider this ‘alternative’ will tell much about its effects.

    Btw, what would make you question your ‘evolutionism’ or ‘thinking evolutionarily’ as you said in the other thread? Iow, when does ‘evolution’ end (or evolutionary theory reach its limits) in your view?

  5. Neil Rickert,

    Mike Elzinga is a ‘science grunt.’ O.k., Neil, I’ll accept that. I already don’t take seriously his thoughts about ideology, philosophy or knowledge outside of his narrow specialisms. So that term seems appropriate.

    Of course, that doesn’t excuse him for not admitting that people actually *DO* use the term ‘evolutionism’ who are not IDists or YECists, does it?

    “What you have done, is provide evidence that there are people who use the word ‘evolutionism’ [other than YECists and IDists].” – Neil

    Thank you. That was the main point I wanted to make. Now I consider it made. I claimed the ideology of evolutionism is a problem, not evolutionary biology. But making a case for that was not my intention or attempt in that thread. You’ve now conceded my main point. Do you think Mike Elzinga might do the same?

    “As to whether that word [evolutionism] actually means anything important, the evidence is lacking.” – Neil

    That’s for another time (and perhaps place). What you’ve said is enough to vindicate my basic argument. Thanks.

  6. petrushka:

    How will you ever know if you never try?

    And if you are secure in your own mind that you have a good and useful idea, what difference does it make whether we agree with it?

    A paper to a significant journal in the science community would be the proper approach; but not an internet blog site.

    Scientists go through the crucible of peer review. It’s a good learning experience.

  7. Gregory:
    ….I am neither an IDist nor a YECist. Mike Elzinga could at least have the dignity to accept my word for it, but he is too stubborn apparently.

    I wasn’t particularly interested in getting into the discussion on “evolutionism” or whether there are other scientific methodologies. However, this bit above deserves a quick note.

    Gregory, I ask that you try and take a moment to consider something rather simple: claims without substantiation are noise; substantiation without a claim is a variable.

    Just let that sink in for a bit.

    As I noted to William on a different subject, few people are going to care or “take your word for it” when you just make a statement. Why? Because the way you make a statement and the collection of the ways one talks or writes indicates so much more about the person. In other words, claims are just noise. Anyone can make a claim. You’ve made a lot of them. And…so what. Why should anyone just “take your word for it?” Why should anyone take anyone’s word for it? Unless you followup with…something…that supports your claim, most people are just going to make a counterclaim.

    But your behavior…how you post, what you post, your snide remarks about “American education” and “lack of PoS understanding” and so forth…THAT is substantiation. That is to say, those bits of behavior ARE data points and do actually support a unmade claim. That unmade claim, thus far, is that you are indeed – if not directly – some form of science denialist. Given that, it’s easy to assume you are an IDist or a YECist. Now, you can take umbrage at such an assumption, but the fact is you’ve done NOTHING to counter it. You’ve made empty claims against such, but where’s any actual evidence against that assessment? Hmm? You know…some actual behavior or a link or a firm commitment statement by you that YOU STAND FOR SOMETHING. That you, in fact, HAVE A SPECIFIC POINT.

    In other words, why not drop the whole “gotcha” routine of asking vague, leading questions like “Have you accepted the evidence yet petrushka that non-IDists and non-YECists write and theorise about ‘evolutionism’?”

    Why not just make a direct positive statement about your position, whatever that is?

  8. Gregory: what would make you question your ‘evolutionism’ or ‘thinking evolutionarily’

    No to speak for Petrushka but, for me, that woud be a better explanation of what we observe. When you say “thinking evolutionarily”, I am tempted to say it is very seductive to slip into seeing everything in terms of evolution. Would that be evolutioism?

  9. To me, evolution is a biological fact, a set of biological theories, and a set of metaphors that I find useful to varying degrees in other feedback controlled dynamic systems.

  10. “you are indeed – if not directly – some form of science denialist. Given that, it’s easy to assume you are an IDist or a YECist.”

    This is so absurd as to not even require an answer.

    Of course I stand for something, Robin. Don’t you? Putting it into a single blog post is rather overly expectant.

    Have you visited my blog and read some posts there?

    There’s no ‘gotcha’ implied, but a direct answer is appreciated. Do you notice that Mike Elzinga still can’t face the evidence?

    “Have you accepted the evidence yet petrushka that non-IDists and non-YECists write and theorise about ‘evolutionism’?” is a fair question imo. What’s vague about it?

  11. “Have you accepted the evidence yet petrushka that non-IDists and non-YECists write and theorise about ‘evolutionism’?” is a fair question imo. What’s vague about it?

    Gregory, this is akin to “have you stopped beating your wife”. I am in favour of the free exchange of ideas and I am vehemently opposed to censorship. You make life very difficult for me.

  12. Thanks, this is helpful.

    “I am tempted to say it is very seductive to slip into seeing everything in terms of evolution. Would that be evolutioism?”

    Let me not take credit from petrushka who wrote of thinking ‘evolutionarily.’

    Yes, it is often “seductive to slip into seeing everything in terms of evolution.” It is only evolutionism when it is an exaggeration outside of legitimate biological evolutionary theories. I have no qualms with such theories.

    The problem is with evolution in illegitimate situations and disciplines. I write about this a lot, speak and publish on it too, so please be patient if I am expecting a lot or seemingly inflexible in my post-evolutionary or non-evolutionary thought. Some people don’t even think this is possible, so it very much depends on who is the audience and at what stage they are in questioning the proper limits of evolutionary thinking.

    When it comes to “other feedback controlled dynamic systems” the language is closer to cybernetics, which gets much more complicated and global in scope.

  13. Been there, done that, doing it still.

    Any admission of evolutionism used by non-IDists and non-YECists yet, Mike?

    Waiting for a ‘scientific’ willingness to be corrected on your part.

  14. I haven’t visited your blog. I didn’t know you had one.

    When I am on a discussion forum I pay attention to what is posted on that forum.

    I don’t really care whether someone somewhere writes about evolutionism. JoeG writes about evolutionism. The word is tarnished in my mind by that.

    What I care about is what is written on the forums I frequent. If someone makes a claim that some specific claim in science is wrong, I first want to know exactly what that claim is.

    If the claim is interesting, I will look at outside evidence.

    This is a place that allows people like you to make your case. If your case is simply that some other people write about evolutionism, I am not motivated to look. If you could state briefly what the problem is, I might be motivated to look.

    I’m certainly aware that metaphors can be over-extended. I really don’t care if someone somewhere is extending the word evolution inappropriately. I am interested in biological evolution and natural history. If you think there are factual errors in mainstream science, I’m interested.

  15. There’s no ‘gotcha’ implied, but a direct answer is appreciated. Do you notice that Mike Elzinga still can’t face the evidence?

    I don’t see that it matters one way or the other.

    Why not say something interesting. Something that would make us care?

  16. Gregory: Have you visited my blog and read some posts there?

    For the record, Gregory’s blog is Human Extension: An Alternative to Evolutionism, Creationism and Intelligent Design. He has it listed in his profile, but you have to go looking for it to find it. Perhaps its a TSZ blog setting as to whether it shows on each post.

    And a note to Gregory – try changing your blog to a different WordPress theme. At present your long subtitle line is overlaid by your page names (“About”, etc). I am seeing that problem on firefox 23.0, opera 12.16 and konqueror 4.10.5, though it looks okay on chromium.

  17. Sorry, Alan, but the question is valid.

    There are folks at TSZ who think ‘evolutionism’ is ONLY used by YECists and IDists. That is simply not true.

    My recent push has been to raise awareness of this. I can’t fathom how you equate that with “have you stopped beating your wife?”. Can awareness be raised of this if everyone reading is an evolutionist? Maybe that’s the troublesome question.

  18. “I’m certainly aware that metaphors can be over-extended. I really don’t care if someone somewhere is extending the word evolution inappropriately. I am interested in biological evolution and natural history. If you think there are factual errors in mainstream science, I’m interested.” – petrushka

    Thanks. I’m quite focussed on that over-extension of metaphors, as in the case of ‘evolution’. You can see this on my blog: http://humanextension.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/varieties-of-evolution-and-evolutionism/

    Habermas, Bryant, Leacock and of course Sanderson mention ‘evolutionism’ there. None of them, to my knowledge, is an IDist or a YECist.

    Does anyone think Mike Elzinga would take back his contrary claim, or cubist, based on such evidence? I had thought that good science was supposed to accept evidence when it is shown/found.

  19. Gregory: There are folks at TSZ who think ‘evolutionism’ is ONLY used by YECists and IDists. That is simply not true.

    Fine. You have a point. I, for one, acknowledged there was a whole new category of “evolutionism” out there that I was previously unaware of. If anyone else here claims omniscience, they will need to justify that claim.. I admire E. O. Wilson, maybe eusociality in hymenoptera coloured his views about society in general.

    Anyway, please take note, phrases such as “Mike Elzinga still can’t face the evidence” are value judgements which breach comment policy. Please try and stay within the liberal parameters of this website.

  20. Can awareness be raised of this if everyone reading is an evolutionist? Maybe that’s the troublesome question.

    How are you going to check their credentials. I think it is much more important that views should be expressed without fear. The trouble is that the internet has, to some extent, become a forum where anyone can express a view anonymously, carelessly, thoughtlessly. Good? Bad? Inevitable? What do you think?

  21. Gregory has not moved in scientific communities; especially among people engaged research. His caricatures of science and scientists suggest he has obtained his views of science and scientists from other sources.

    “Isms” are not generated in the research community. They are generated elsewhere; among people labeling what other people do.

    And researchers are most definitely concerned with epistemological and ontological issues; they can’t be avoided in research. In fact, these have to be part of any research proposal.

    In contrast, ask an ID/creationist to submit a research proposal demonstrating “intelligent design” or supernatural intervention in the processes of living organisms. Lay out an experimental protocol that will unambiguously address the detection of these proposed mechanisms that will also allow other research groups to follow up and check.

    Propose a research program that will generate productive research by others who don’t have to hold to specific sectarian or political dogmas.

    Scientists are people just like everyone else. They have pretty much all the same traits that humans everywhere have. But if they are to be successful scientific investigators, they have to go through rigorous training and learn the processes of vetting their own work. Peer review may not be perfect, but it burns out the tendency of being too cocky about one’s beliefs.

    Epistemology and ontology are at the heart of basic research; scientists generally don’t fling those words around to impress everybody. The knowledge of these concepts shows up in the effectiveness of a research approach.

    Anybody who purports to know all about these big words but cannot even conceive of a research program to address a question has no idea what they are talking about.

  22. Gregory:
    “you are indeed – if not directly – some form of science denialist. Given that, it’s easy to assume you are an IDist or a YECist.”

    This is so absurd as to not even require an answer.

    You’re not obligated to answer. However, you’ve not presented any reason thus far for me to apologize and say something like, “you’re right…how silly of me given X…” I stand by my assessment; based on the words in your posts and the hostility you present – particularly towards American education and actual working scientists – in your posts, I find you to be a science denier. You have three choices for a response as I see it: accept it, rebut it, or ignore it. I am not betting on the first two.

    Of course I stand for something, Robin. Don’t you? Putting it into a single blog post is rather overly expectant.

    Odd that you pulled this part out to query, but ignored the surrounding context. Let me try this again in a more straightforward manner. What is your point regarding “evolutionism and …how it is problematic”. Why should anyone here (or elsewhere) care?

    Have you visited my blog and read some posts there?

    Nope. I read and post here (among other places on the ‘Interwebs’). You’ve come here and posted. I read it and I’m asking questions and engaging in discussion. If that doesn’t work for you, so be it.

    There’s no ‘gotcha’ implied, but a direct answer is appreciated. Do you notice that Mike Elzinga still can’t face the evidence?

    Apparently I can’t either. I don’t actually see this “evolutionism” being anything significant outside IDist and YECist circles. I certainly don’t see this “evolutionism” as even a relevant concept, but I’d be happy to consider such if someone were to provide a succinct reference to the problem.

    “Have you accepted the evidence yet petrushka that non-IDists and non-YECists write and theorise about ‘evolutionism’?” is a fair question imo. What’s vague about it?

    Well, aside from the fact that the term ‘evolutionism’, as I understand it, is an anachronistic 19th Century concept that organisms are intrinsically bound to increase in complexity through evolution, which is not contextually what it appears you are referring to…nothing I guess. I did find this little nugget however:

    The Institute for Creation Research, in order to treat evolution as a category of religions, including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief.[10] The basis of this argument is to establish that the creation-evolution controversy is essentially one of interpretation of evidence, without any overwhelming proof (beyond current scientific theories) on either side.

    The BioLogos Foundation, an organization that promotes the idea of theistic evolution, uses the term “evolutionism” to describe “the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discourse.” It views this as a subset of scientism.[14]

    So…yeah…a little vague and misleading as to what you are getting at with your question…

    My suggestion is pretty straight-forward: just make a positive case for this “evolutionism” being a problem. Why beat around the bush? Who cares what Elzinga or I think about about the term; just make your case for how you want to use the term and point out why we should care.

  23. “phrases such as “Mike Elzinga still can’t face the evidence” are value judgements which breach comment policy.”

    O.k. more descriptive then. Mike Elzinga still, even after his most recent effort involving ontology and epistemology, hasn’t responded to the evidence that I’ve provided that ‘evolutionism’ is *NOT* only used by IDists and YECists. It may take time, but finally the ‘science grunt’ may get it.

  24. My suggestion is pretty straight-forward: just make a positive case for this “evolutionism” being a problem. Why beat around the bush? Who cares what Elzinga or I think about about the term; just make your case for how you want to use the term and point out why we should care.

    This is intended just to underscore Robin’s point. That’s what has been missing all along. It does no good for Gregory to try pointing the finger at others. Robin has outlined what Gregory needs to do. It is what Gregory should have done when he first suggested that evolutionism is a problem.

  25. Just to provide some substantiation for my impression that the use of “evolutionism” outside the YECist and IDist community is not actually all that significant, here:

    http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionism-Critics-Deconstructing-Reconstructing-Interpretation/dp/1594513023

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,593,972 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

    There are no customer reviews.

    http://www.amazon.com/World-Societies-Evolution-Human-Social/dp/0205359485/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378503400&sr=1-1

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #539,832 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

    One review – a 2 out of 5, and that was a complaint about the quality of the actual book material.

    http://www.amazon.com/Social-Evolutionism-Critical-History-Discontinuity/dp/1557863377/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378503400&sr=1-4

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,344,829 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

    No reviews.

    http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Sociological-Theory-Theoretical-Comparative/dp/1612052061/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378503400&sr=1-8

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #5,446,286 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

    No reviews.

    BTW, this one came out in 2013. It’s rushing right up to the NY Times best seller list, let me tell you.

    Here’s a popular one though:

    http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionism-Cultural-Anthropology-Critical-History/dp/0813337666/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378503681&sr=1-1&keywords=evolutionism+in+cultural+anthropology

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,744,305 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

    No reviews.

    Yeah…that’s…whooooweeee…hot topic stuff, that…

  26. O.k. more descriptive then. Mike Elzinga still, even after his most recent effort involving ontology and epistemology, hasn’t responded to the evidence that I’ve provided that ‘evolutionism’ is *NOT* only used by IDists and YECists.

    Perhaps that is your failure to communicate effectively.

  27. I think it’s safe to assume that for Gregory, like many UDers, Evolutionism is equivalent to Atheism, which is responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Eugenics, Racism, etc. In addition, Theistic Evolutionism, Pantheism, Panentheism, etc. are all apostasies. Furthermore, from their point of view, Intelligent Design Theory and Christianity are logically inseparable so a denial of one is a denial of both. Thus any science that challenges Conservative Protestant assumptions about the nature of God and Nature are “evil”. And when this evil leads their peers to reconsider their beliefs and leave their churches to become Catholics, Agnostics, or even Atheists, then Evolutionism must be destroyed.

    The Bible Prophetically Warns …
    that in the last days false teachers will introduce destructive lies among the people. Their purpose is to bring God’s truth into disrepute and to exploit believers by telling them made-up and imagined store [sic] (see 2 Pet. 2:1-3).

    Such a Lie Is Among Us — That Lie Is Evolution!
    Today many laypeople, ministers, and Christian educators are powerless in their presentation of the gospel. They have rejected Genesis, the foundation of biblical doctrine. They have believed the 20th century origins myth — evolution.

  28. “There are folks at TSZ who think ‘evolutionism’ is ONLY used by YECists and IDists. That is simply not true.” – Gregory

    “Fine. You have a point. I, for one, acknowledged there was a whole new category of “evolutionism” out there that I was previously unaware of.” – Alan Fox

    ‘Uh, evidence, well, o.k., not sure then, maybe, did anyone say that?, can’t be true, don’t let me answer, etc. It must be that Gregory is to blame, yeah, that’s it. He is a bad communicator, oh, and btw, did you know that most philosophers accept intelligent design?, but I won’t explain myself about that because Gregory is a bad communicator.’ – Neil Rickert

  29. And here’s Phillip Johnson:

    Regarding the Bible’s view on truth vs. deception, Revelation 12:9 speaks of Satan, who deceives the whole world. In a much larger spiritual context, could the biblical account of an unseen god of this world deceiving mankind fit into this paradigm of naturalism, which you show undergirds and pervades our assumed educational relativism?

    PJ: Yes, it certainly does. However, I prefer not to go to the book of Revelation because that makes a lot of people very nervous. When I’m speaking on this subject, the scripture I prefer to start with is Romans 1:20-21, which states that since the creation of the world, God’s invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.

    We see the reality of the created through the creation, but then we see that, even though men knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

    So what the Bible is saying is that, to avoid the reality of a Creator, people have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.

    Evolution is another form of nature worship, which is what the Bible is talking about here. It’s a way of getting God out of the picture, by replacing the true God with the god of the human imagination. The proposition is, effectively, that God didn’t create man. It’s the other way around: Man created God out of human imagination. Of course, what man has created man can command. That’s the key point. So Romans 1:20-21, which bears this out, is the scripture that I prefer to emphasize.

  30. “Gregory, like many UDers” – by a deceiver

    Are you absurd, rhampton? Do you actually realise how UDers oppose and attack me? Get your players right please. I am very different from most UDers, neither an IDist nor a YECist.

    “Evolutionism is equivalent to Atheism”

    Well, to check the odds, rhampton, are you personally an atheist? I’m not. Most evolutionists are atheists or agnostics (or Buddhists or Confucianists, in the East), that is, if one doesn’t count those who accept ‘theistic evolution’ or ‘evolutionary creation’ as ‘evolutionists.’ This is a very important difference sociologically.

    If you would make a survey that counts people who accept ‘theistic evolution’ or ‘evolutionary creation’ as ‘evolutionists’ then most ‘evolutionists’ in the world are theists. Leave them out and the vast majority of evolutionists are atheists. As for me, I don’t accept it is possible for a theist to be an ‘evolutionist,’ even if they study evolutionary biology.

    ‘Evolutionism’ is an ideology beyond mere evolutionary biology. Evidence for this ideology is easy to find for those who have the interest and will to look for it.

    Has rhampton openly answered for his worldview position yet wrt evolutionism? If it sounds too personal, then just be abstract.

  31. I think it’s safe to assume that for Gregory, like many UDers, Evolutionism is equivalent to Atheism, which is responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Eugenics, Racism, etc.

    I will not assume that. I have no reason to assume that what Gregory posts is motivated by religion.

    [Hmm, I take that back. Gregory has just provided reasons.]

  32. On my tablet a “follow” graphic covers the text, and there’s no way to make it go awsy.

  33. I visited the blog and read some posts. I’m left wondering wjy I should be interested.

    What specific thing should science be doing that it is not? Could Gregory outline a research proposal that would illustrate the superiority of his approach?

  34. Gregory,
    UDers seem pretty consistent on the evils of Evolutionism despite conflicting views on other matters. (Have you read the Phillip Johnson quote below?)

    Personally I’m Catholic – one of those ignorant and traitorous theistic evolutionary proponents that does not accept Intelligent Design theory as the best explanation, scientifically or theologically. How about you?

  35. petrushka:

    I visited the blog and read some posts. I’m left wondering wjy I should be interested.

    What specific thing should science be doing that it is not? Could Gregory outline a research proposal that would illustrate the superiority of his approach?

    I am still trying to figure out who is teaching “evolutionism.” I have never seen it in any course catalog; certainly not in any courses offered by any science department.

    As to anyone in research sitting around thinking up “evolutionism” to put into a research proposal, a course, or in materials for the public, I just don’t believe it happens.

    I know lots of scientists from many backgrounds; several of them are Nobel laureates. They are all pretty much focused on the science, and many are making an effort to improve science education as well as pass on the discoveries of science to the public from whom many got their funding.

    There is no “evolutionism” in any of it. As near as I can tell, it is a pejorative term used by people who don’t like science, particularly biology and cosmology.

    So if ID/creationism and “evolutionism” are problems, the implication seems to be that this is a pox on both houses; therefore a politically ripe situation for a revolution and the introduction of another “ism.”

    Pardon me if I start to lose interest. I have no idea where this is going.

  36. I never had any interest. The whole thing looks like extended Sokal. If there is some new scientific paradigm, the way to promote it is to produce some results and then explain the method.

  37. Mike Elzinga,

    Phillip Johnson contends that Evolutionism is exactly what you would describe as just focusing on the science (see link above). Here’s a taste:

    If science is going to deal with the question of whether there is a Creator, they ought to openly and honestly deal with both sides of the issue rather than just one. They say they stay away from religious issues, but that is false. They deal with them constantly by trying to persuade people that there is no intelligent Creator who had a hand in the creation, that purely physical, material mechanisms were the only thing at work. They refuse to deal with all the compelling evidence for an active, intelligent Creator.

    As I said in prevoius post, denial of Intelligent Design Theory on strictly scientific grounds is still a denial of Conservative Protestant theology, and thus a denial of God.

  38. I stopped reading Philip Johnson as soon as I saw that he loaded up his diatribe with innuendo and so many pejorative labels and guilt-by-association junk that it just became a hate-filled, sectarian rant. I already knew where it was going.

  39. When Gregory uses the word “evolutionism”, he is referring to the ‘assumption that history reveals a certain directionality in the sense that there are similar processes occurring at similar times, at various points throughout the globe.‘ The debate is whether this ‘evolution’ began in 3000 BC or more recently, in 1500 AD (Sanderson, 1977)
    So it has nothing to do with science. Sorry, “Physical-Natural Science (PNS)”.
    It is all about Human-Social Sciences. Gregory’s point, AFAICT, appears to be that a number of rather dim-witted sociologists have mis-appropriated evolutionary concepts and terminology.
    “Evolutionism” is a term of art in sociology/history. Maybe it’s a problem, maybe not.
    Yawn.
    I find it rather sad however that a sociologist, of all people, would come stomping in here and expect us to automatically grok his extremely out-of-context use of a word that we normally hear from creationists (where it has a quite different meaning). CONTEXT, man! What are they teaching kids in HPS classes these days? Everybody knows that “evolution” really refers to the sequence of events necessary to anchor a Napoleonic warship. Nelson was an strict “evolutionist”, but died before Darwin was born.
    Gregory is indulging in equivocation.
    However, having read the rather entertaining
    http://www.academia.edu/271598/The_Problem_of_Evolution_Natural-Physical_or_Human-Social
    I think we are just dealing with a case of Science Envy. Sorry, PNS-envy.
    Also, depressing as this is for the state of the tertiary education system in Canada and Russia, Dunning-Kruger.
    An old joke that has been ‘extended’: if all the sociologists in Russia were laid end to end, no-one would be a bit surprised. Or care.

  40. It would be nice if DNA_Jock would contact Sanderson and simply tell him he is ‘no scientist’ and then promptly hang-up the phone. I don’t think Sanderson would think much of that, especially not coming from a DNA_Jock. 😉

    We’ve heard your condescending anglo-saxon PoS logic many, many times before folks. There’s no ‘science envy’ going on here; rather, there is recognition from moves like E.O. Wilson’s that biologists envy social scientists more than vice versa. Otherwise, Wilson would have stayed in his lower biological realm studying ants, instead of trying to elevate his relevance by claiming to have created a theory/paradigm (called sociobiology) about human beings. The same goes for Dawkins’ ridiculous coinage of ‘memes’ to rhyme with ‘genes’. Trying to be relevant to people; trying too hard and becoming unscientific in the process.

    My fellow sociologists will likely not be offended when I remind readers that I said, rather early in the thread, that the primary field in this ‘evolutionism’ problem is anthropology. This is partially why anthropologists rejected evolutionary anthropology earlier than sociologists and psychologists and moved to a kind of neo-evolutionary anthropology that is still somewhat in vogue today. On the question of ‘why does this matter to people?’ the field of anthropology dwarfs the field of biology by multiple powers.

    But *if* (which takes caution against the anti-science label) you folks are *only* interested in biology, chemistry and physics, that is, if that is how you so narrowly define ‘science’, then none of these broader questions and themes because they involve HUMANITY will matter to you. If that’s the case, please do just retreat back into your little research boxes while the rest of us go on with our meaningful daily activities. And if you’ve concluded that daily human activities are *not* meaningful based on your naturalistic reductionism to lower and lower levels of complexity, then please don’t teach that stuff to your children and their friends, because the smiles I see on childrens’ faces around the world betrays the dank and soulless offices and laboratories of many ‘scientists’ who became disenchanted by over-rationalisation of the world.

  41. Creationism mostly affects the teaching of high school biology, so that’s what we mostly focus on. I can’t really recall any threads focussing on anthropology, but I am aware that there are feuds within that community.

  42. Gregory:

    3) There is hope that moderates at TSZ could accept middle ground, which is what I am proposing (and would have moved on to all along, if not for the wonderful example of a ‘scientist’ like Mike Elzinga refusing evidence staring him in the face – this really has been a gift too obvious to miss). Of course it is possible for moderates to continue to accept biological evolution, as I and many others do, as a limited explanation in natural sciences. What needs to be rejected, however, is the exaggeration of evolutionary theory into non-natural scientific fields, into ethics, into art and aesthetics, into economics and politics, into literature and music, into philosophy and human-social sciences under the guise of evolutionism.

    Gregory,
    I’m trying to help you clarify since you seem to prefer Sokal-speak to normal English. Is your charge that evolution is being inappropriately equated/conflated with progress by the culture-at-large or with some subsect of the culture-at-large?

    Gregory:

    One response to this may be to say, “sure, that’s not a problem. The only fields that really matter anyway are scientific fields.” But that’s problematic on another front, that of scientism. Mike Elzinga demonstrates this reductionistic myopia quite well in Kalamazoo.

    Others say that they have no intention to use ‘evolution’ ideologically outside of natural sciences, but that in the simple definition of ‘change-over-time,’ they feel that the term ‘evolution’ is appropriate. Otoh, o.k., that’s understandable. Otoh, it grants ‘evolution’ a monopoly over ‘change,’ which it doesn’t deserve since there are non-evolutionary types of change.

    Um, could you supply examples of non-evolutionary change which justify your rejection change-over-time as the definition of evolution?

    Gregory:

    I’m siding with the view that ‘evolutionism’ is an exaggeration of a legitimate natural-physical scientific theory into illegitimate realms. Evolutionists will likely resist this move. Others are welcome to consider along with me what that means (post-Darwinian) in a broader framework regarding knowledge, teaching, learning and socio-cultural development. If a positive alternative to ‘evolution’ were on the table (as Popper suggested), would TSZers be willing to try it?

    in reply to the bolded part; WHERE is this taking place? HOW is this taking place? WHO is doing it?

  43. “Is your charge that evolution is being inappropriately equated/conflated with progress by the culture-at-large or with some subsect of the culture-at-large?”

    Though I likely don’t resonate with what ‘culture-at-large’ means to you (perhaps because you didn’t indicate which ‘culture’ you meant; and I am neither American nor British), otherwise I would answer ‘Yes.’

    “WHERE is this taking place? HOW is this taking place? WHO is doing it?”

    1) In academic journals, media reporting of ‘evolution’ and university classrooms. 2) By writing papers, columns, and teaching. 3) Did you notice the list of 12 names I gave above? Perhaps you could address whether or not you are familiar with the WHOs that I already named and how they promote/perceive evolutionism.

    “could you supply examples of non-evolutionary change which justify your rejection [of] change-over-time as the definition of evolution?”

    Sure. 1) Cyclical change-over-time is non-evolutionary. One doesn’t say, for example, that George W. Bush ‘evolved’ into Barack Obama or that Gordon Brown ‘evolved’ into David Cameron. It’s a cyclical change in national-political leadership. The terminology of ‘evolution’ in such cases simply doesn’t apply.

    2) Intentional, teleological change-over-time based on human choices is non-evolutionary. This specifically challenges the notion of Darwinian evolution which was based on non-intentional and non-teleological merely ‘natural’ change. Of course, one could argue that ‘evolutionary theory’ has been updated from Darwin’s time. I would agree with that myself. The important point is to distinguish the subject matter in say, biology vs. anthropology. In one field, there is no ‘intentionality’ allowed/included in the same way that it is in the other.

    2 examples should be enough to start. The main point is that ‘change’ is the master category, along with ‘motion.’ Evolution is simply a type of change, not the master. There are other types of change too.

    Recognising this means that it makes sense to reject the ideology of evolutionism as a worldview-oriented attempt to give evolutionary theory a monopoly over change, when it is not deserved or appropriate. How does that suit you for starters, Aardvark?

  44. Gregory:
    1) Cyclical change-over-time is non-evolutionary. One doesn’t say, for example, that George W. Bush ‘evolved’ into Barack Obama or that Gordon Brown ‘evolved’ into David Cameron. It’s a cyclical change in national-political leadership. The terminology of ‘evolution’ in such cases simply doesn’t apply.

    It’s one thing for someone who is not a sociologist to not know of a specialised use of the world “evolutionism”. It is quite another not to know a common meaning of the word “evolution”.

    It is not one politician who evolves into another, but (for example) a political system or process that evolves over time.

    What university did you attend?

  45. Gregory: “WHERE is this taking place? HOW is this taking place? WHO is doing it?”

    1) In academic journals, media reporting of ‘evolution’ and university classrooms. 2) By writing papers, columns, and teaching. 3) Did you notice the list of 12 names I gave above? Perhaps you could address whether or not you are familiar with the WHOs that I already named and how they promote/perceive evolutionism.

    As best I can tell, Gregory is an ideological crackpot, wanting to purge the language of uses of “evolution” that he does not approve.

    2) Intentional, teleological change-over-time based on human choices is non-evolutionary.

    Bullshit.

    It is not biological evolution, but it is still evolutionary. Meaning is use (Wittgenstein), and this is the way that “evolution” is used in the English language. Language evolves. Meanings of words evolve. Whether or not you approve is of no importance.

    This specifically challenges the notion of Darwinian evolution which was based on non-intentional and non-teleological merely ‘natural’ change.

    More nonsense. There’s some sort of intentionality evident in the behavior of all biological organisms, and that behavior is part of biological evolution.

    2 examples should be enough to start. The main point is that ‘change’ is the master category, along with ‘motion.’ Evolution is simply a type of change, not the master. There are other types of change too.

    Ideological bullshit. Language does not work that way. “Evolution” is a descriptive word in the English language. It is to be used where it is appropriate. And as the language evolves, what is an appropriate use of “evolution” changes. The ordinary English word “evolution” can be distinguished from the technical scientific term of the same name. They are distinguishable by context.

  46. Gregory,

    Ok, quick question. Is it your contention that the belief in never-ending progress is bad or only that naming the belief ‘evolutionism’ is bad?

  47. So far all we seem to have obtained from Gregory is that he believes he is a “global thinker” and scientists are just socially crippled hunchbacks limping around in the dark recesses of their laboratories totally unaware of the “real” world around them.

    I think we can conclude that Gregory doesn’t know any scientists. I’m not convinced that he is a scholar of any sort.

    And I don’t see any collaborative work over at his shrine to himself.

  48. Gregory:Mike Elzinga is a ‘science grunt.’ O.k., Neil, I’ll accept that. I already don’t take seriously his thoughts about ideology, philosophy or knowledge outside of his narrow specialisms.

    I know I’m being pedantic here but why not just use the word ‘specialties‘ like everyone else. I think you have -ism’s on the brain.

Comments are closed.