Speculating on possible motivations for rejecting evolution

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@djkriese

• increased evidence that corporal punishment negatively affects people
• evidence of climate change is significant and fighting to stop reductions and increased efficiency is hurting people
• Mental illness are real and people need support; there are spiritual aspects
• Depriving groups of acceptance and access to power hurts people
• Many approaches to crime based on biblical examples of criminal justice are harmful and ineffective

What does any of this have to do with evolution?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@thoughtful

@AllenWitmerMiller

No, we know the social behaviors and all sorts of cooperative behaviors are significant factors in the history of life and evolutionary processes because we observe it throughout. It is reality.

Still begging the question. I’ll try to be clearer on what your statements sound like to me: “Evolution is true, therefore social and cooperative behaviors must have been a part of evolution no matter what evidence says otherwise.”

That doesn’t make sense, because observations are evidence.

What evidence says otherwise? Please note that what people say or write is not the evidence.

@thoughtful

No, actually it’s not. I’m talking about the parts theory that do NOT have practical, commercial application. I see a differentiation between these parts.

We don’t know in advance, and neither do you.

That’s why one of the National Institutes of Health is the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, not oriented toward any particular set of diseases. That’s why many of the funding decisions NIH study sections make are simply to fund those proposals that appear to be most interesting and that rigorously test mechanistic hypotheses. That strategy has been shown to work over decades.

Here’s a great example. Would you, given your not-very-modest claim above of being able to distinguish between research that does and does not have practical application, predict in advance that studying the genetics of the development of the external female sexual organs of a 1-mm long, hermaphroditic nematode (worm) has any medical utility?

If so, for understanding which specific human disease?

[Michael_Okoko]

@thoughtful

@Michael_Okoko I’ll try to take a look at the papers but based on the titles they seemed to be about selfishness and not social behavior which may be a different things

Selfishness is a social behavior.

@thoughtful

I was thinking about unselfishness in regards to the individual,

So why did you involve evolution due to natural selection, which happens to populations not individuals?

[Michael_Okoko]

@djkriese

Evil and sin pre-dates the human rebellion in the garden hence the Serpent. Not to mention the necessity of plant and bacterial death and simple single-celled animal death

It doesn’t even end there. Adam had an immune system populated by all kinds of WBCs, with some eating up bacteria or virus-infected host cells. In addition, he would have had apoptotic genes as well which encode proteins that mediate something called programmed cell death. Death was written into the molecular biology of Adam and Eve. Anytime Adam ate an apple or used the loo or a herbivore chewed on grass, they killed something.

To say there was no death (in some form) in the garden is total crap based on what we know today from modern biology research.

[djkriese]

In the previous comment you agreed with me that science’s potential impact upon theology was only going to increase.

Pointing out example areas is not irrelevant, especially climate change and how that science is done.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@djkriese

In the previous comment you agreed with me that science’s potential impact upon theology was only going to increase.

No, that was NOT what I agreed with. Is that the point of your OP though? Certain Christians don’t want to affirm evolution because that would open the gate to science impacting theology in other ways?

Either way, I think your assumptions are offensive. You don’t know as much about how YEC think as you think you do.

@Mercer

Would you, given your not-very-modest claim above of being able to distinguish between research that does and does not have practical application, predict in advance that studying the genetics of the development of the external female sexual organs of a 1-mm long, hermaphroditic nematode (worm) has any medical utility?

You misunderstood my point. I’m also not going to answer childish questions.

[SlightlyOddGuy (Matt)]

Hmmm, yeah, I get that. I shared a lot of the same concerns at one point, so it makes sense to me why you hold the position you do. Something did catch my eye here, though, that made me think we don’t disagree that much on some things:

@thoughtful

And I don’t see how to avoid the idea that people don’t have intrinsic value (not just because society all agrees) if we aren’t created.

Do you mind getting into this? I personally don’t believe people have intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is something that has value in itself, so whatever value people have is not intrinsic if that value is in virtue of something else (i.e, being created). I know this term “intrinsic” gets thrown around a lot in Christian circles, but I think when it comes down to what that actually means, most believe the only thing that has actual intrinsic value—value for its own sake—is God. Everything else is extrinsic, including people, as you pointed out.

[Michael_Okoko]

@AllenWitmerMiller

I’m might even try to think up linguistic equivalents for ERVs, introns, and GULOP!

How about genetic or linguistic entropy?

Which (Adam) >>> wich >>> wch (us)

[djkriese]

Alright, you did not agree that it would increase but rather there is a strong and serious impact. Fine, I misspoke but why are you disagreeing with that?

The OP was that power and culture influence YEC which makes opposing theories dangerous for those who hold to that power and culture.

As for offensiveness of my assumptions and apparently the fact that I speaking out of my ass. Fair enough, I do that sometimes. I understand the conflict between knowing an amazing and loving God, being faithful to Scripture and theology, and putting a biblical worldview first and foremost.

Let’s consider the issue of divorce. Does the church actually follow NT divorce laws like men cannot divorce women (women can divorce but can only remain single).

Since this does not happen, there is a strongly worded and weirdly unclear set of biblical instructions that is largely circumvented. Many churches encourage couples and be faithful to current spouse and frown on divorce in general. I understand and approve of the main reasoning - to support and love people where they are at in a broken world but that necessitates a type of interpretation that is not allowed for let’s say evolution.

So what then, is loving people the only reason for this intervention? Is there not also a strong impact of culture? Of power (how many churches would exist if allowed divorced persons except for those who were cheated on and all remarried persons were disfellowshipped or at least treated like LGBTQ+ people?

Power and culture do not even have to be the conscious reason for such choices. We are strongly affected by subconscious and implicit biases and ideas all of the time. It is not a knock on YEC; its human nature that we all experience.

When I first made my OP, there never was an assumption that YEC or anyone (unless they really want to) explicitly and consciously decide that in order to maintain their preferred culture and the power structure, that they hold these views. Reading that into what I wrote without considering the vast amount of evidence and research that supports how human institutions and cultures practice decision-making and other aspects, is offensive as well.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

It is hard to get adamant about the pronunciation of Linnaean terms when they are such “artificial” words, some of which originated in some biologist or paleontologist calling up the Classics department and asking something like, "What’s a good Latin or Greek term for “two dog teeth”? (DI + CYNO + DONT) Actually, I think the CYNO is archaic English.

Greek (κυων) as in ‘cynic’.

@AllenWitmerMiller

An example in English is KNIGHT. The “k” is silent but I wouldn’t be surprised if you tracked it back far enough—“all the way to the boar hunting days”, as my professor used to say about any proto-language—the “k” was probably important as its own sound and may even have disappeared when some vowel which followed it and preceded the “n” got dropped.

I don’t know about another vowel, but the ‘k’ was pronounced in Middle English (as was the ‘gh’).

ETA: More accurately, that’s how ‘knyȝt’ was pronounced.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@SlightlyOddGuy

Do you mind getting into this? I personally don’t believe people have intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is something that has value in itself, so whatever value people have is not intrinsic if that value is in virtue of something else (i.e, being created). I know this term “intrinsic” gets thrown around a lot in Christian circles, but I think when it comes down to what that actually means, most believe the only thing that has actual intrinsic value—value for its own sake—is God. Everything else is extrinsic, including people, as you pointed out.

I looked up the definition so it’s clear.

Instrinsic means “belonging naturally, essential” or “belonging to a thing by its very nature.”

I don’t think that excludes something being instrinsically valuable because it’s created. It means that at the beginning of its natural life, those properties belonged to it. Otherwise I think you’re narrowing the definition to beyond what it means. With evolution, how does one define when humanity gained instrinsic value such that we treat humans different than animals? I’ve seen atheists (like Cosmic Skeptic on YouTube) say there is no difference so the only ethical option is vegetarianism or veganism. I think that is a consistent position.

I think it is obvious to say that humans have a unique instrinsic value if they are a separate creation in the image of God.

@djkriese

When I first made my OP, there never was an assumption that YEC or anyone (unless they really want to) explicitly and consciously decide that in order to maintain their preferred culture and the power structure, that they hold these views. Reading that into what I wrote without considering the vast amount of evidence and research that supports how human institutions and cultures practice decision-making and other aspects, is offensive as well.

What was offensive was all the things you lumped together. Of course people are affected by culture and power structures. I was pointing out I see evolution affecting culture negatively. You were pointing out I think that certain ways of interpreting scripture had negative effects. Communication isn’t just what you intended, but also how it comes across.

I had a hard time following this last post, it had a lot of ideas. It seems now you were pointing out hypocrisy. I don’t disagree.

[djkriese]

I am curious about this aspect. Other than the opportunity cost of research, what are the other negative effects of evolution on culture in your perspective?

[SlightlyOddGuy (Matt)]

@thoughtful

I looked up the definition so it’s clear.

Instrinsic means “belonging naturally, essential” or “belonging to a thing by its very nature.”

I don’t disagree with this. I’m also going off the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s page on intrinsic vs extrinsic value, which has a nice breakdown I found helpful.

@thoughtful

I don’t think that excludes something being instrinsically valuable because it’s created.

I guess that depends how you mean this. If you mean that something can be created and hold intrinsic value, yes, I agree. However, if you mean that something holds intrinsic value because it’s created, then that’s not intrinsic value.

@thoughtful

It means that at the beginning of its natural life, those properties belonged to it. Otherwise I think you’re narrowing the definition to beyond what it means.

This seems to indicate the former case, so I would agree as far as that goes. However, your other statement later on indicates the latter:

@thoughtful

I think it is obvious to say that humans have a unique instrinsic value if they are a separate creation in the image of God.

If I were to ask what is valuable about being separately created, and you were to answer anything other than some form of “it just is in itself”, then that is not intrinsic. It’s seems to me that you think what gives people value is being made in the image of God. If that’s the case, that value is derived from something else, and isn’t intrinsic.

@thoughtful

With evolution, how does one define when humanity gained instrinsic value such that we treat humans different than animals? I’ve seen atheists (like Cosmic Skeptic on YouTube) say there is no difference so the only ethical option is vegetarianism or veganism. I think that is a consistent position.

I think it’s a consistent position as well (one I personally hold atm), although he does ultimately place more value on human life (you can see this when he talks about survival situations). When value is placed on humans is a different question than how humans have value. How someone explains human value is dependent on more than their view of evolution, but, for example, if I were to take a evolution-affirming Christian position, a couple ways I could explain it is by saying humans are valuable in virtue of having evolved into the image of God (whatever that means), or that humans are valuable in virtue of God having bestowed His image upon them. These are analogous statements to yours, the difference being created vs evolving. Its not entirely clear to me just what legwork “created” is doing for you that “evolving” is not.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@glipsnort

ETA: More accurately, that’s how ‘knyȝt’ was pronounced.

Or, as the French persons in Monty Python and the Holy Grail say, “kuh-nig-it.”

@thoughtful

And I don’t see how to avoid the idea that people don’t have intrinsic value (not just because society all agrees) if we aren’t created.

I actually would think it runs just the opposite way. Doesn’t it? If we are just fungible things which some great power can create, recreate and annihilate at its will, that suggests to me that we have no intrinsic value as judged by that being. The only “intrinsic” value we can have has to come from the only known source of values: people. And we probably generate our valuation of other people through ordinary cognitive and emotional processes such as empathy.

[Chad_the_Layman (Chad Stewart)]

@SlightlyOddGuy

I guess that depends how you mean this. If you mean that something can be created and hold intrinsic value, yes, I agree. However, if you mean that something holds intrinsic value because it’s created, then that’s not intrinsic value.

Matt, I think the value of humans that’s different from other anmials according to Genesis, that’s then traced through the rest of the Bible, from cover to cover, is that of vocation. In Genesis 1, humanity is created to image God. They’re asked to steward with God and on his behalf. And based on the continued story, they don’t lose that when they rebel.

But that vocation to image God doesn’t give humans the right to mistreat other animals, according to the story. In fact, it’s the oposite. We’re supposed to steward lovingly, kindly and selflessly, not as violent and self serving tyrants.

[Chad_the_Layman (Chad Stewart)]

@djkriese

I am curious about this aspect. Other than the opportunity cost of research, what are the other negative effects of evolution on culture in your perspective?

@djkriese you didn’t ask this question of me, but I’ll jump into the fray.

I follow Jesus, and I don’t see evolutionary science having a negative impact on society or on Christianity. I see no conflict between evolutionary science and the Bible.

In fact, I see the mounting evidence for evolutionary science as a positive for Christians. Some folks will see the insurmountable evidence, search the scriptures to see if they’ve thought wrongly about them (the scriptures), find better readings of the Bible that are actually more in line with the intent of the authors, and adjust. They’ll be better off for it. I say that this will happen because I see it happening. I know folks who have benefited in this way, and I am one. Not everyone will adjust, but many will. And that’s a good thing imo.

Regarding some of your comments about the Bible, I think at times you’re conflating theology with just “what some people think”. Just a friendly fyi.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@thoughtful

@Mercer

Would you, given your not-very-modest claim above of being able to distinguish between research that does and does not have practical application, predict in advance that studying the genetics of the development of the external female sexual organs of a 1-mm long, hermaphroditic nematode (worm) has any medical utility?

You misunderstood my point.

Really? I understand it in the precisely the same way that @AllenWitmerMiller and @jammycakes did. If three of your fellow Christians are not understanding what you wrote, perhaps you might consider that the problem is with your writing and not our comprehension of it.

@thoughtful

I’m also not going to answer childish questions.

I don’t see how my question is childish, particularly in the face of your extremely immodest claim of being able to identify which aspects of understanding evolution have or don’t have commercial value. If you truly believe that my question is childish, it would seem that a better way to communicate would be to explain why you found it childish.

[djkriese]

Hey Chad,

No worries, I love hearing more perspectives.

I myself love and follow Jesus as well.

As for the theology comments, which specific aspects are you referring to? I am mostly relating my personal experience growing up in the evangelical church and in currently attending one.

[SlightlyOddGuy (Matt)]

@Chad_the_Layman

Matt, I think the value of humans that’s different from other anmials according to Genesis, that’s then traced through the rest of the Bible, from cover to cover, is that of vocation. In Genesis 1, humanity is created to image God. They’re asked to steward with God and on his behalf. And based on the continued story, they don’t lose that when they rebel.

But that vocation to image God doesn’t give humans the right to mistreat other animals, according to the story. In fact, it’s the oposite. We’re supposed to steward lovingly, kindly and selflessly, not as violent and self serving tyrants.

I think I can get down with that. Since you’re a Christian who accepts evolution, may I ask in reference to @thoughtful’s concern, what are your own thoughts on when humanity acquired the image of God? Was it gradual, sudden, or something else? Is it an issue you struggle with or that you see is problematic for you?

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@SlightlyOddGuy

However, if you mean that something holds intrinsic value because it’s created, then that’s not intrinsic value.

Sort of works for Bitcoin.

By strict definition, value can never belong to a thing by its nature, because value is assigned by a subject onto an object. However, in common usage intrinsic value is used for objects which generally invoke valuation for any number of reasons, and I would expect people are generally considered as of value in themselves.

But theologically, @thoughtful shares the classic position, that it is the extension of God’s intimate relationship and purpose in creating man that imbues intrinsic value. I would not agree that the YEC narrative of creation is necessary for such validation.