9
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 119:
Line 119: +
no edit summary
:It's an article the Ymmotrojam started for little reason. Ask him.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 13:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's an article the Ymmotrojam started for little reason. Ask him.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 13:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::To be clearer, this whole page is just an attempt to discredit evolution. It's fine with me if you just blank it. Why is this page worthwhile?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 13:25, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::To be clearer, this whole page is just an attempt to discredit evolution. It's fine with me if you just blank it. Why is this page worthwhile?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 13:25, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Trying to say that "evolutionism" is a world view is like trying to say that Trekkie's like for their favourite show is a world view. The use of the word evolutionism is more often then not an attempt to portray the pro-Evolution side of the origins debate as a religion or philosophy. Some Creationists think that if they can show that "evolutionism" is really just a philosophy then they will be justified in their attempts to get their alternative origins theories taught in science classes, and this article attempts to conflate this idea of a philosphy with the actual theory of evolution. It is important to note in this article that only the creation/intelligent design side of the debate uses this term, and sometimes uses it in a pejorative fashion.