Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolutionism"

Revision as of 11:31, June 3, 2007

Talk:Evolutionism/Archive 1

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-=="Affirmative sites"===
+[[Talk:Evolutionism/Archive 1]]
-Surely this is a joke. Not one of those sites is a reputable source from proponents of evolution describing a "religion" called Evolutionism. This article needs to be deleted. I was for deletion when it was first written, and I stand by that view. I appreciate the hard work the author put into the entry but the fact remains that this article is a slap in the face to those who accept evolution. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup> 07:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
-:Agreed. I wouldn't object to a well-written article on physicalism, but this is just ridiculous. If on one hand, one can accept evolution without being an evolutionist, and on the other hand, being an evolutionist doesn't automatically lead one to the theory of evolution (any more than it leads one to any other scientific theory), what's with the name? Cheap shot, nothing more. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
-== I think not ==
-This article appears to me to be an attemt to tease proponents of evolution. There is no such religion as "evolutionism". What exactly is the difference between what this page describes as evolutionism and atheism? (which is not a religion either). This article does not represent serious scholarship. I suggest that it be deleted. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-:Is it teasing, or is it just unbiased, hard-to-hear fact? It is true that it is based in naturalism, there is no disputing that. So it is similar to atheism, maybe we should add that to the article. Atheism may be the denial of religion, but there is no such thing as a person without a worldview, it's impossible. Atheists have their atheist worldview. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 00:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-::So what you are saying is that you are really talking about atheism.  There is already a page on atheism.  I am sure that you are welcome to post there if you have anything constructive to say.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::worldview = religion? I think that it is dangerous ground to suggest such a thing. Worldview is certainly affected by religious beliefs, however, to limit it to just this would be to utterly reject cultural influences and individual experience. Both of these are part of the perspective we call worldview. This page is also in violation of the Commandments #1 and #2, and should be fixed as such. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 01:00 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-::::I'm okay with saying "worldview" rather than religion. We Creationists like to apply religion to any ideology that is different from ours, almost to the same effect as the word secular or pagan, because we don't consider biblical Christianity a religion (atleast not on the same plane as others). But worldview is accurate and less divisive for this atmosphere. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 02:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::::I refer you to my remarks on the AFD page in relation to "worldviews".  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 02:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-"Evolutionism" is not a worldview at all.  As far as I can tell it's nothing but a pejorative term created by creationists to imply that people believe in the theory of evolution simply because they already believed there is no god.  The truth is that people believe the theory because they're convinced by the evidence.  Darwin didn't set out to come up with a theory that wouldn't require divine intervention - he observed nature, and his observations led him to wonder how it got to be the way it is, and he developed the theory to explain it.  --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-:It is impossible to be convinced by the evidence that there is no God, the only option is to be convinced there is. The very definition of God is that He is outside science. Evolutionism is a worldview whether it's correct or incorrect, because it's how certain people view the world. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::Um...what?  The evidence doesn't have the slightest thing to do with whether there's a god.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-::Shocking, truly shocking.  You don't have to be an atheist to know that evolution is fact.  ''Exemplum gratis'': me.  Can you prove otherwise, or are you going to continue to insult us all?  And if you are, will you get better arguments then "the only option is to be convinced there is"?  Oh, and I wholeheartedly agree that God is outside science.  So doesn't that mean that the two are compatible?  That the two must never conflict?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-::I've modified this pending its deletion.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::Why is it shocking? I haven't said at all that the science is wrong, I'm just pointing out some philosophical things. Is that insulting? As far as the God argument, there is a difference between ''denying'' God, and being ''convinced'' that He doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that it is impossible to be ''convinced''. Convinced means you can prove that God does not exist, denying means that you don't believe He exists, whether He does or not. You have got the burden of proof my friend. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-::::The entire thing is based on an extremely flawed perception of science and nitpicking on semantics. You'd apparently treat the phrase "I believe I'm right" as an expression of religious faith, but it's not. This is not about belief or faith. And implying religious statements from the scientific position is beyond insulting - it's ridiculous. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::::"''I believe I'm right''": No, you're putting words in my mouth. I honestly believe there is plenty of sound evidence for creation. I don't have to have to base my beliefs in non-reality.<br />"''And implying religious statements from the scientific position is beyond insulting''": Rather than just say it's insulting, why don't you tell me why? Counter my arguments, and not just with "insulting", or "wrong", etc.<br />"Semantics": We need semantics. If you think my semantics are illogical, counter them with logic rather than just saying you don't like them. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::I guess to put it in other terms, although there are arguments against it, ''Theistic Evolutionism'' is the bare minimum option. I'm not the only one that thinks these things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-::::Sorry, but no. Theistic Evolution is based on believing that Genesis is correct. There are TONS of Christians who believe in God and still think that Genesis is nothing but a nice story. "Being Christian" does not equal "taking the Bible literally". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::::There are definitely evolutionists that do not believe the bible at all, and still hold to their being a god of some sort. When I say Theistic Evolutionism, I mean any form of evolution that includes a god. About being a Christian, that's a totally different discussion. But to put it simply, if you don't take the Bible literally, than that opens up the possibility to throw out anything you don't like that it says. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-::This article appears to be a rubuttal over my saying that evolution is not an -ism from the [[Talk:Theory of evolution]] page.  I say here as I said there, recognizing that the evidence supports evolutionary theory in now way affects my world view.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::I'm simply trying to include all the viewpoints. If it can be worded better, let me know how. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
-== It does not concern the scientific theory ==
-Neither does the article linked to.  And I continue to object strongly to this article.  This is merely an attempt to strengthen the POV that evolution is both the foundation and the cause of a belief system.  An attempt to make evolution a religion... which, of course, leads to a whole bunch of constitutional questions.  I also find it amusing that the majority of the "controversy" section is the creationist response and that the pro-science sites at the bottom of the page all have their "Creationwiki" responses while the anti-science sites lack scientific responses.  This article is a sham, top to bottom, and is only fit for deletion.   [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
-:Absolutely correct.  I had the same thought about the creationwiki responses.  It would be different if it was someone other than creationists trying to claim that evolution is a religion, but it isn't.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
-== Deletion ==
-Evolutionism doesn't coincide with the Scientific Theory of Evolution, if it exists at all.  The presentation of evolution as being opposed to the existence of god is incorrect.  A scientist doesn't pursue evolution with the assumption that god does not exist.  Instead, the supernatural and natural are kept separate in the scientific reasoning process.  The deletion of the Scientific Theory of Evolution article is offensive to scientists and supporters of evolution (the vast majority of the world's population).  Please restore this article. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (CST)
-Delete! This is just pointless. The entire position of 'evolutionism' is nothing but a straw man attack on evolution, trying to falsely paint a scientific theory as a religion. - Suricou
-:Nowhere does the article say the thing you are suggesting, to my knowledge. Please show some examples of what you mean and it can maybe be reworded. The Evolutionism article is important because it brings out some cultural perspectives. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 19:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
-:: "There is no God (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no God" idea.  Evolutionism comes before the Scientific Theory of Evolution. The theory is based on the worldview."  The theory of evolution is completely separate from the worldview that there is no god (Atheism).  Connecting these two like this is a misrepresentation of evolution.  I believe there should be a separate article for the theory of evolution, instead of a redirect here.  --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)
-:::I agree about the separate article, and it [[Theory of evolution|already exists]]. However, in that same section you cited, you missed this sentence: "Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or worldview that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation." That section does need to be fleshed out more, but it does acknowledge what you are saying as one opinion on the issue. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 19:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
-::: The theory of evolution is based on the worldview of natural science - the attempt to explain as much of the world as possible without resorting to supernatural intervention.  There was no geneticsism prior to Mendel.  There was no evolutionism prior to Darwin.  These were people who saw something and then tried to explain it without an appeal to a higher power.  The natural science worldview can be traced back to ancient Greece without difficulty.--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
-Ymmotrojam, do you have any evidence that anyone who is a proponent of the theory of evolution ''does'' subscribe to the worldview that you describe?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
-:Whatever your opinion is on whether a evolutionary scientist receives the revelation of a ''no God'' <strike>existence</strike>worldview before or after he examines science, the ''no God'' idea is still a way of viewing the world that affects how one lives. If there is a God, then we have worth and purpose. The existence of a God, according to the biblical definition of what He would be, would then preclude an absolute standard of right and wrong. Without the existence of God, it's up to mankind to make life into whatever he wants. In other words, yes, many people follow the ''no God'' worldview, whether they think they're getting that from science or before science. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
-::I'll take that as a no.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
-== On Faith ==
-Our Faith article claims faith only exists in Christianity. This article contradicts that. The faith article is protected, and cannot be edited. One or the other is wrong. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
-:I think the Faith edit history makes it clear what is wrong. *checks* *sees that site founder was the one who made the Faith edit* And it's of course this article. *tries to keep a straight face* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
-::Andy also claimed that the "Giant Impact Theory" was unfalsiable ''and'' falsified. I'm begining to understand what it means to be a "conservative" in America. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::Andy's view on "conservative" and especially on science sometimes reminds me of this:
-{{QuoteBox|''Doublethink'' means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of ''doublethink'' he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. ''Doublethink'' lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary.<br><br>George Orwell, ''Nineteen Eighty-Four''}}
-:::It would certainly explain how he was able to use a source to offer an argument agains the GI Hypothesis while at the same time negating what it actually said. "There are no tests. And their results show that the theory is wrong!" --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
-::::The faith article has a ways to go, but I think it's currently trying to distinguish between the biblical type of faith and the worldy type. The biblical faith in God, refers not to blind faith, but a trust in His truth and promises outlined in scripture. <u>Biblical</u> Christianity says that it is faith alone in Christ's finished saving work ''alone'' that saves an individual. Every other way of thinking other than biblical thinking says one needs to earn a salvation or earn that "afterlife". The Bible explicitly says that one can never attain perfection or righteousness by one's own deeds and actions, or by human reason and intellect. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::::I'll quote the main page for you, when "Faith" had been prominently linked from there: '''"Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions."''' That sentence was on the main page for weeks or so and doesn't seem to be quite as diplomatic as your view. It's also the "version" most people here think of when one mentions the "Faith" article, I think. It even got picked up by a German news source.
-:::::It should also be mentioned that the article has been locked for nearly one month now and is still locked (but it's just a "temporary lock because of vandalism"... sure...), and it got "clarified" only TODAY, just a few minutes after your interpretation.
-:::::If you feel like it, check out the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&oldid=15845 last non-Aschlafly version] just before the protection. In my eyes, it had been a lot more balanced than the version we had during the month that followed. Still had a way to go, but not to bad for two days of editing. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:31, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
-::::::Well of course now we're getting into, what does he mean by that? He could mean, not that Christianity is the only belief that uses faith, but that Christianity is the only correct form of faith (because of the object of it's faith, which is Jesus Christ). I would say it's not good to have any faith that pleases oneself or gives a warm fuzzy feeling, but that one's faith be grounded in truth, and have the proper object of faith. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
-:::::::When writing an encyclopedic entry, it's important to be clear in meaning. And this is (supposed to be) an encyclopedic entry. If an entry (and especially the main page intro I quoted) is phrased in a way that says "X" but actually maybe might read "Well, sorta X if we look at it this way, otherwise Y." if you approach it with the right assumptions, then it still says "X" to anybody who happens to have another interpretation. That's why we have the rules about truth, verifiability, and sourcing. Andy is a LAWYER. He should very well know to avoid phrases that have to be interpreted. And when the main page entry reads "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?", then I won't read it as "Did you know that Christianity may not actually be the only religion that has the concept of faith, but from my Christian point of view, it's the only correct one." (which can actually be just as insulting, come to think of it). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
-I've attributed the quote to Andy in the "doesn't" section. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
-: I think it's just a basic tautology - as in, "Christianity is the only religion which has a Christian form of faith."  Blech.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
-::Well, I've left Andy's words there, quoted exactly. Do you think someone will complain about quote mining? ;) [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
-==Advocacy for and against [[The theory of evolution]]==
-The terms ''evolutionism'' and ''evolutionist'' have aroused the ire of partisans in the [[origins debate]]. Many profess to take offense at the use of these terms. I hope our article can explain the basis of their objections.
-This encyclopedia might adopt these words as neutral terminology to aid discussion and description of advocacy about evolution.
-I wonder if the term ''evolutionist'' has been used to mean, "You only '''believe''' in evolution, but you don't '''know''' it for a fact." Such a usage would cast "Evolutionists" as having the same standing as "Creationists". Anyone who feels that biologists have (or should have) superior standing might be affronted by this usage.
-I see it merely as being less cumbersome than "a person who is quite sure that evolution is true". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
-:Well, since no one objected I went ahead and revised the intro to explain the basis of their objections. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
-::Changes needed: I deleted the line about "evolutionism" being coined by Darwin to undermine the Bible.  It was uncited, and subjective.  Read the Commandments.-'''<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)
-I object to some of the terminology here. The article says, "The terms evolutionist and evolutionism carry a connotation of unthinking faith or pseudoscience". I don't think this is true at all. What pseudoscience ends with "-ism"?  Then there is "the term Evolutionism is simply a false Creationist perception".  I don't think that's right either. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
-:I guess I was being too nice to the liberals. I fell into the habit because I work and live surrounded by them.
-:Better to say that (Source A) objects to terms like ''evolutionism'' and ''evolutionist'' on the grounds that they connote, etc. Make it clear that the usage objections are one-sided. I haven't heard any evolutionist complain about the term ''anti-evolutionist''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
-:: because it's a daft term? we are more likely to use "unscientific", "ignorant" and the like? Anti-evolutionist is not used by anyone because the queen's english provides plenty of terms already. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 19:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
-:::Some evolutionists ''do'' object to the term (apart from Cgday here, who presumably does as well), although I'd probably put it more because they think it has the connotation of an unsubstantiated/unsubstantiatable belief.  I don't use the word that way.  I use it simply as a straightforward description of a person who accepts as true the proposition that evolution has occurred. I've encountered this on talk pages at Wikipedia, and written about it on my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Evolutionist.22 user page there], but despite me writing that over two years ago, no evolutionist has offered a better alternative.  Instead, they tend to adopt the tactic of Cgday here, that ''anything'' that might possibly suggest in the slightest way that evolution is not absolute fact is totally unacceptable, and they'd rather insult (call us "ignorant") than admit that there might be any doubt about evolution.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
-:: em no.. I'm just point out the words that someone who findings the theory of evolution is likely to use, they are far more likely to reach for the work ignorant than a mouthful like Anri-evolutionist. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:11, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
-==Evolutionism as a [[worldview]]==
-First of all, what's a worldview? We don't even have an article on that concept. Secondly, who '''says''' it's a worldview? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:23, 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)
-: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&ndash;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&ndash;and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it&ndash;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)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolutionism"

Revision as of 11:31, June 3, 2007

Navigation menu

Search