An introduction

Hello talk.origins,

I've been lurking around here for a good while, and have more and more
lately felt like jumping into the fray. Rather than tackle one of the
ridiculous statements from one side or the other that strikes me, as
I've been tempted to do, I thought I should start off with a proper
introduction.

First off, in the conventional categories of talk.origins posters, I
would fall into the "theistic evolutionists." I'm unbothered by the
difference between scriptural and evolutionary biology texts in the
same way I'm unbothered by the difference between, say, a text on
chemistry and one on computer science. Each covers an area of human
knowledge, and taken together they may or may not have an empty
intersection. My off-the-top-of-my-head example aside, I'm more
intrigued by the intersection of scripture and biology than in their
difference.

As for what I bring to the conversation, I've put in my fair share of
thought and work in both the theistic and the evolutionist parts of the
above-mentioned category.

Academically I've obtained degrees or done significant research in the
departments of history, anthropology, molecular biology, and
mathematics. I've obtained a graduate degree in biological
anthropology, and am currently working on another in statistics to
continue building on a career in research. So, I have studied
extensively evolutionary theory and am engaged in work that actively
tests observations against the predictions obtained through its use.

Theologically, I am a Christian, having been raised attending a
protestant church, but began a hiatus in my church attendance during my
late teens. At that young age, failing to distinguish between
fundamentalist and more rational theological voices, I thought I could
not in good conscience continue to participate in the Church. I
continued my theological pursuits with independent studies of scripture
along side my humanistic studies of history and anthropology. As my
academic work turned decidedly biological during grad school, that
enjoyable balance between my academic work and scriptural study was
broken. Having matured in my understanding of theology and organized
religion in the years since ceasing participation in the Church, I
returned to active worship. Since then I've become a leader in my
church, and would like to pursue studies in theology once my
career-building degrees are under my belt.

As for my agenda, I have two main beefs with the dialogue I have
observed here.

Theologically, in the bulk of conversation religion and fundamentalism
are treated as equal. Fundamentalism is a dynamic unto itself
regardless of the scripture it blindly adheres to, and I feel much more
affinity for thoughtful practitioners of any religion than to a
fundamentalist with whom I happen to have scripture in common. I
understand that there is a battle afoot, and those of a rational
viewpoint are trying to hold back the tide of fundamentalism being
advanced in a number of our social structures. However, setting it up
as a battle between the outliers on either side makes little sense, and
seems to me to be doomed to have the fundamentalist viewpoint win over
the purely scientific. I believe that whichever side can garner the
support of the rational theists will prevail.

Scientifically why is evolutionary theory treated almost exclusively as
Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism and its unyielding focus on natural
selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic
mutation? Both sides of the debate are often guilty of this error, and
it makes the whole discussion pretty useless. Clearly natural
selection is very important as the "bottom line" so to speak,
determining in the end the differential advancement of existing
variation, but it speaks little to the source of variation. Let's not
forget the other forces of evolution that are at play. Phenotypic
mutation is not due to genetic mutation alone. There are much stronger
forces at work to change genomes than mutation.

Well, if this doesn't get my urge to post off my chest, I hope to take
part in the conversations to come. I look forward to the assaults from
all sides that typify this debate.

~N

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An introduction
    ... would fall into the "theistic evolutionists." ... continued my theological pursuits with independent studies of scripture ... in the bulk of conversation religion and fundamentalism ... selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An introduction
    ... continued my theological pursuits with independent studies of scripture ... Having matured in my understanding of theology and organized ... in the bulk of conversation religion and fundamentalism ... selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An introduction
    ... viewpoint are trying to hold back the tide of fundamentalism being ... able to garner the support of the rational theists while the other has ... sound theology that we have faced in modern times, ... Faith and reason are not incompatible when both are sound. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The so-called christian fundamentals
    ... Systematic theology is a reconstruction of truths. ... systematization of the truths found in scripture. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: Griffiths gross error about Inerrancy, Darwins theory, and Science---Another Post
    ... Fundamentalism is a particular perspective -- and one that I am glad to ... the literal sense of scripture or inerrancy. ... Inerrancy is based upon Scripture's Inspired ... development to the Enlightenment is refuted by Catholic history. ...
    (talk.origins)