nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 121:
Line 121: +
→Evolutionism as a [[worldview]]: Evoltion '''is''' a religion or worldview, or at least a component of such
::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.
: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.
::That entire argument posted by Bytor (but not signed) is based on the presumption that evolution is ''not'' a worldview, but he fails to show that. I'll concede that it doesn't ''have'' to be a worldview, but I'll also argue that it ''can be'' a worldview/religion, or at least a component of one. Perhaps nobody has noticed the link I added, so I'll post the relevant content here. [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion. Some years later, however, he wrote:{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<br /><br />...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)