Difference between revisions of "Evolutionism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(193 intermediate revisions by 67 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
:''This article is about Darwinism as a philosophical concept; see [[evolution]] for the page on biological evolution; [[modern evolutionary synthesis]] for neo-Darwinism; and also [[evolution (disambiguation)]]''.
+
'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.<ref>[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Usage+and+context+of+%22evolutionism%22 "Evolutionism"] (2009). ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th ed. (Boston:  Houghton Mifflin).  Retrieved from The Free Dictionary on September 14, 2014.</ref> Therefore, one who ''believes in or supports a [[evolution|theory of evolution]]''<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist "Evolutionist"]. ''Random House Dictionary''.  (New York:  Random House).  Retrieved from Dictionary.com Unabridged on September 14, 2014.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.
−
[[Image:Charles Darwin.jpg|frame|right|[[Charles Darwin]]]]
 
−
'''Darwinism''' is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of [[Charles Darwin]] concerning [[evolution]] and [[natural selection]]. Discussions of ''Darwinism'' usually focus on ''evolution by natural selection'', but sometimes Darwinism is taken to mean evolution more broadly, or other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.
 
  
−
__TOC__
+
The term evolutionism is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[worldview]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a worldview unto itself, but is more based on and is possibly an extension of a variety of other worldviews including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism (philosophy)|Naturalism]],<ref>Multiple references:
−
==Other Usages of the Term==
+
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html "CA601: Evolution and naturalism"] (2004).  TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on September 14, 2014.
−
The term ''Darwinism'' is often used by promotors of [[creationism]] to describe [[evolution]], notably by leading members of the [[intelligent design movement]].<ref = Jonnson_essay_on_darwinism>{{cite web | last = Johnson | first = Phillip E.| title = What is Darwinism? | url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/wid.htm | accessdate = 2007-01-04 }}</ref> In this usage, the term has connotations of atheism.  For example, in [[Charles Hodge]]'s book ''What Is Darwinism?'', Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding:  "It is Atheism."<ref = Ropp_essay_on_darwinism>{{cite web | last = Matthew | first = Ropp | title = Charles Hodge and His Objection to Darwinism | url=http://www.theropps.com/papers/Winter1997/CharlesHodge.htm | accessdate = 2007-01-04 }}</ref><ref = Hodge_book_online>{{cite web | last = Hodge | first = Charles | title = What is Darwinism? | url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-8.txt | accessdate = 2007-01-04 }}</ref><ref =Hodge_book>{{cite book | last = Hodge | first = Charles | year = 1874 | title = What is Darwinism? | publisher = Scribner, Armstrong, and Company | id = {{OCLC|11489956}} }}</ref>  Creationists use the term ''Darwinism'', often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, which they cast as [[dogma|dogmatic]] and inflexible in their [[belief]]. Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate [[Teach the Controversy|equal time]] for the teaching of creationism in public schools.
+
*CreationWiki response:  [http://creationwiki.org/CA601 "Evolution requires naturalism (Talk.Origins)"] (2014).  CreationWiki.  Retrieved on September 14, 2014.</ref> and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.
 +
{{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm "Evolutionism—A broad overview"] (2007). All About Philosophy. Accessed on September 14, 2014.</ref>}}
  
−
However, ''Darwinism'' is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period.  For example, ''Darwinism'' may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of [[natural selection]], in comparison to more recent theories such as [[genetic drift]] and [[gene flow]].  It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the [[history of evolutionary thought]] &mdash; particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as [[Lamarckism]] or later ones such as the [[modern synthesis]]. A notable example of a scientist who uses the term in a positive sense is [[Richard Dawkins]].
+
Evolutionists think of themselves as well-read and learned, but know virtually nothing about the [[Bible]] (unless they learned it in their childhoods).  Evolutionists almost never read the Bible or are even willing to discuss it.
  
−
==Classical Darwinism==
+
==Theistic Evolution==
−
In the 19th-century context in which Darwin's ''[[Origin of Species]]'' was first received, "Darwinism" came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society. One of the more prominent approaches was that summed in the phrase "[[survival of the fittest]]" by the philosopher [[Herbert Spencer]], which was later taken to be emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer's own understanding of evolution was more [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck|Lamarckian]] than Darwinian, and predated the [[publication of Darwin's theory]]. What we now call "[[Social Darwinism]]" was, in its day, synonymous with "Darwinism" &mdash; the application of Darwinian principles of "struggle" to society, usually in support of anti-[[philanthropy|philanthropic]] political agendas. Another interpretation, one notably favored by Darwin's half-cousin [[Francis Galton]], was that Darwinism implied that because natural selection was apparently no longer working on "civilized" people it was possible for "inferior" strains of people (who would normally be filtered out of the gene pool) to overwhelm the "superior" strains, and corrective measures would have to be undertaken &mdash; the foundation of [[eugenics]].  
+
[[Theistic Evolution]]ists believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the evolutionist ideas of the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic Church]] holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith.<ref>Brumley, Mark (January/February 1997). [https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html "Evolution and the pope"].  ''Catholic Dossier''. Retrieved from Catholic.net as archived at Internet Archive on September 14, 2014.</ref>
 +
Roughly twice as many people in the U.S. believe in this type of evolution (30%), as opposed to godless evolution that most atheists believe in (just a mere 13% of people). However, both of these combined are still fewer than the number of people who believe in Young Earth Creation (48%), as told by the Bible.<ref>College politico (2008).  [http://hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-Evolution "Poll: Most Americans don't believe evolution"].  ''HubPages''.  Retrieved on September 14, 2014.</ref>
  
−
In Darwin's day there was no rigid definition of the term "Darwinism", and it was used by opponents and proponents of Darwin's biological theory alike to mean whatever they wanted it to in a larger context. The ideas had international influence, and [[Ernst Haeckel]] developed what was known as ''Darwinismus'' in [[Germany]], although, like Spencer Haeckel's "Darwinism" had only a rough resemblance to the theory of Charles Darwin, and was not centered around natural selection at all.  
+
==Foundational question/starting point==
 +
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.
  
−
While the reaction against Darwin's ideas is nowadays often thought to have been widespread immediately, in 1886 [[Alfred Russel Wallace|Wallace]] went on a lecture tour across the United States, starting in New York and going via Boston, Washington, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska to California, lecturing on what he called Darwinism without any problems.<ref>[http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin - Speaking of Faith® from American Public Media]</ref>
+
===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
 +
* God exists (worldview)
 +
** Therefore, we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
 +
*** Thus science is done on the basis that "God exists"
 +
**** The Bible comes ''before'' science. The science is based on the worldview.
  
−
==Darwinism as selectionism==
+
===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
−
To distinguish themselves from the very loose meaning of "Darwinism" prevalent in the 19th century, those who advocated evolution by natural selection after the death of Darwin became known as [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|neo-Darwinists]]. [[August Weismann]] was the most prominent member of this school, and further articulated that neo-Darwinism referred to evolution specifically by forms of "selection" (natural selection, including sexual selection), and that it was articulated around the idea that the hereditary material of an organism was not modified by the further development of the organism. Neo-Darwinism poised itself against neo-Lamarckism, also popular at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, which argued that bodily modifications acquired during the lifetime of the organism could be hereditarily passed on to the next generation. Weismann's neo-Darwinism, on the other hand, argued that all of an organism's hereditary material was kept in its [[germ plasm]], which existed separately from the rest of the organism's development.  
+
There is disagreement among [[Theistic Evolution]]ists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.
  
−
Neo-Darwinism was not terribly popular in the scientific community, as most biologists felt that the complete segregation of development and heredity actions seems unlikely or unwarranted. After the development of the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]] in the 1930s, however, the selection theory became increasingly popular amongst biologists, and codified the more modern definition of Darwinism which we have today.
+
'''Impersonal God'''
 +
* There is no personal/involved God (worldview)
 +
** Therefore, we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
 +
*** Thus science is done on the basis that God is not involved in His creation
 +
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the worldview.
  
−
==Darwinian processes==
+
'''Personal God'''
−
In a modern definition of the term, a Darwinian process requires the following schema:
+
* There is a personal/involved God (worldview)
 +
** Therefore, we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
 +
*** Thus science is done on the basis that there is a "personal God"
 +
**** ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes ''before'' the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the worldview.
  
−
# '''[[Self-replication]]'''/[[Inheritance]]: Some number of entities must be capable of producing copies of themselves, and those copies must also be capable of reproduction. The new copies must inherit the traits of old ones. Sometimes the different variations are recombined in [[sexual reproduction]].
+
===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
−
# '''[[Genetic variation|Variation]]''': There must be a range of different traits in the population of entities, and there must be a mechanism for introducing new variations into the population.
+
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or worldview that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation. However, evolutionists who are "strong atheists" and who make a positive assertion that there is no [[God]] do, in fact, have a worldview; whereas "weak atheists," who maintain there is probably no God due to lack of any objective evidence of Him, rely on science.
−
# '''[[Selection]]''': Inherited traits must somehow affect the ability of the entities to reproduce themselves, either by survival (''natural selection''), or by ability to produce offspring by finding partners (''sexual selection'').
 
  
−
If the entity or organism survives to reproduce, the process restarts. Sometimes, in stricter formulations, it is required that variation and selection act on different entities, variation on the [[replicator]] ([[genotype]]) and selection on the [[interactor]] ([[phenotype]]).  
+
'''Strong Atheism'''
 +
* There is no God (worldview)
 +
** Therefore, we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
 +
*** Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. [[naturalism]])
 +
**** Naturalism comes ''before'' the science. The science is based on the worldview.
  
−
Darwinism asserts that any system given these conditions, by whatever means, evolution is likely to occur. That is, over time, the entities will accumulate complex traits that favor their reproduction. This is called [[Universal Darwinism]], a term coined by Richard Dawkins in his [[1976]] book [[The Selfish Gene]].
+
'''Weak Atheism'''
 +
* So far, there is no objective proof of God
 +
** Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
 +
*** Thus science is not done on the basis of there being a God (i.e. [[naturalism]]) (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)
 +
**** For [[Weak Atheism|weak atheists]], science comes before [[Naturalism]]. They (presumably) base their worldview on the Science.
  
−
Most obviously, this can refer to biological evolution. However, it has other potential spheres, the best known of which is the [[meme]], a concept of inheritance and modification of ideas introduced by Richard Dawkins in ''The Selfish Gene'' and further refined by researchers such as [[Richard Brodie]] and [[Susan Blackmore]]. It has been disputed if this was a Darwinian process, since it is unproven that memes undergo random mutations.
+
===Comparison===
 +
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.
  
−
Perhaps surprisingly Darwinian theories have been proposed as explanations of the origin of the universe we live in. [[Lee Smolin]]'s theory [[Cosmological natural selection]] explains the selection of a universe with the correct fundamental physical parameters to support complex matter such as stars and ourselves. [[Wojciech Zurek]]'s theory of [[Quantum darwinism]] explains the selection of the our classical macroscopic world from underlying quantum processes.
+
==Controversy==
 +
===Usage of terminology===
 +
The term ''evolutionism'' uses the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionists, and the terms have been in common use for a century. For example, the most popular American proponent of evolution called himself an evolutionist,<ref>"I count myself among the evolutionists", Gould, Stephen J. (May 1981). [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html "Evolution as fact and theory"], ''Discover'', vol. 2, pp. 34-37.  Retrieved from the Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive on September 14, 2014.  Also "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory".</ref> and his obituary read "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead".<ref>Davidson, Keay (May 21, 2002).  [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/21/MN175165.DTL "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead / Paleontologist proposed punctuated equilibrium theory"].  ''San Francisco Chronicle''.  Retrieved from SFGate on September 14, 2014.</ref> This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).  
  
−
Another example to illustrate are computer systems ([[Personal computer|PCs]]). Taking the software as the replicator and the whole system as the interactor, it could be seen as a Darwinian system, however, the code does not change randomly, but is directionally changed or rewritten from scratch; also systems do not reproduce.
+
Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception, or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[worldview]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of worldviews, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective worldview behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.
  
−
[[Daniel Dennett]] (1995) in ''[[Darwin's Dangerous Idea]]'' argues for Universal Darwinism.
+
===Religion and Evolutionism===
 +
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion.  Dr. Marjorie Grene, a philosopher, put it this way in her article "The Faith of Darwinism" (emphasis added):
 +
{{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.''<ref name="mgreen" />}}
  
−
==References==
+
Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]].<ref>Linder, Doug (2014). [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/evolution.htm "The evolution controversy"].  University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law website.  Retrieved on September 15, 2014.</ref> Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution,<ref>BSR (May 6, 2007). [http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com/2007/05/mike-huckabee-does-not-believe-in.html "Mike Huckabee does not believe in evolution alone"].  Mike Huckabee President 2016.  Retrieved on September 15, 2014.</ref> based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no [[detraction]] to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].
−
<references/>
+
 
 +
===Religiosity and the cult of personality surrounding Charles Darwin===
 +
There is a cult of personality and type of religiosity currently surrounding Charles Darwin.  [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: "[A]ll theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists".<ref name="Cult">Bradbury, Andrew J. (2006). [http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html "Part 1:  Metaphors and myths"].  Charles Darwin—The Truth?, part 1, sec. "Darwinism as a Religion", par. 1.  Retrieved on September 15, 2014.</ref>  In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref name="Cult"/>
 +
 
 +
===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===
 +
Taking the Bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC,<ref>Redinger, Ruby (2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20070701035655/http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html "Biblical age of the Earth"].  Biblical Age of the Earth.  Retrieved on September 15, 2014 from July 1, 2007 archive at Internet Archive.</ref> which is well established by archaeology and secular history.  Accordingly, the creation of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.
 +
 
 +
==Quotes supporting the position that evolutionism requires faith<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionquotes.html "Evolutionism quotes"] (2004).  Northwest Creation Network.  Retrieved on September 15, 2014.</ref>==
 +
{{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan (science author)'''<br />''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith....''<ref>Sullivan, John W.N. (1933).  ''The Limitations of Science'' (New York:  The Viking Press), p. 95.  Quoted in review by [https://books.google.com/books?id=EPoPAAAAIAAJ&q=%22The+hypothesis+that+life+has+developed+from+inorganic+matter+is,+at+present,+still+an+article+of+faith,+although+various+chemists+have+put+forward+various+hypothetical+accounts+as+to+how+they+think+it+might+have+been+done%22&dq=%22The+hypothesis+that+life+has+developed+from+inorganic+matter+is,+at+present,+still+an+article+of+faith,+although+various+chemists+have+put+forward+various+hypothetical+accounts+as+to+how+they+think+it+might+have+been+done%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LzwaVKkn5_PwAd-cgeAP&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA ''New Catholic World'' [preview&#93;], vol. 138, p. 520.  Preview retrieved from GoogleBooks on September 17, 2014.</ref>}}
 +
{{cquote|'''Dr. M.G. Grene'''<br />''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.''<ref name="mgreen">Grene, Marjorie (November 1959).  "The Faith of Darwinism".  ''Encounter'', p. 49.  Reprinted in Grene, Marjorie (1974), [https://books.google.com/books?id=BUL8BAAhg4YC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=%22characteristically+Darwinian+theory+has+itself+become+an+orthodoxy,%22&source=bl&ots=QmawriJpLu&sig=6Gu2gx0X5pIQkM31bX9PkMs5Klk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eCwaVM6gG5TP8QHNhIGQCg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22characteristically%20Darwinian%20theory%20has%20itself%20become%20an%20orthodoxy%2C%22&f=false ''The Knower and the Known''] (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press), p. 187.  Retrieved from GoogleBooks on September 17, 2014.</ref>}}
 +
{{cquote|'''Dr. L.H. Matthews'''<br />''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith?''<ref>Matthews, L. Harrison (1972), "Introduction" to Darwin, Charles (1872), ''The Origin of Species'', 6th ed. (London:  J. M. Dent), pp. x-xi.  Quoted in "Evolutionism quotes".</ref>}}
 +
{{cquote|'''Dr. [[R.L. Wysong]]'''<br />''"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural creator."''<ref>Wysong, R.L. (1976). [https://books.google.com/books?id=yNev8Y-xN8YC&pg=PA419&dq=wysong+controversy+%22requires+plenty+of+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RzgaVKW4FMXy8AHjgYGwAQ&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=wysong%20controversy%20%22requires%20plenty%20of%20faith%22&f=false ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''] (Midland, MI:  Inquiry Press), p. 419.  Retrieved from GoogleBooks on September 17, 2014.</ref>}}
 +
{{cquote|'''Dr. T.M. Lessl'''<br />''By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls "objectification," the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power.''<ref>Lessl, Thomas M. (1985). "Science and the sacred cosmos: the ideological rhetoric of Carl Sagan".  ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'', vol. 71, no. 2, p. 178.  Quoted in "Evolutionism quotes".</ref>}}
 +
{{cquote|'''Dr. [[Michael Ruse|M. Ruse]] (evolutionist)'''<br />''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. 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.''<ref>Ruse, Michael (May 13, 2000). [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians."].  ''National Post'', p. B-3.  Retrieved from Omniology.com as "How evolution became a religion" on September 15, 2014. Caution:  may be copyrighted; for fair educational use only.</ref>}}
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
−
*[[Modern evolutionary synthesis]]
+
*[[Creationism]]
−
*[[Neural Darwinism]]
+
*[[Faith]]
−
*[[Social Darwinism]]
+
*[[Humanism]]
−
*[[Darwin Awards]]
+
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
 +
*[[Religion]]
 +
*[[Theism]]
 +
*[[Creationism's Trojan Horse]]
 +
*[[Open Question: Why Do evolutionists say 'science is all about making changes' yet don't even consider Biblical Creation as an alternative?]]
  
 +
==References==
 +
{{reflist|2}}
 +
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
−
*[http://www.universaldarwinism.com Universal Darwinism]
+
'''Notes'''
−
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry]
+
:'''''Affirmative''' articles that attempt to rebut the faith claim of creationists.''
−
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html What is Darwinism]
+
:'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''
−
*[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/238491/darwinism_is_still_a_fighting_word.html/ ''Has Darwin Gotten a Bum Rap?'']
+
 
 +
{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
 +
! Affirmative !! Critical
 +
|-
 +
| valign="top" width="50%"|
 +
'''TalkOrigins'''
 +
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
 +
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
 +
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
 +
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
 +
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview]
 +
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
 +
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
 +
'''EvoWiki'''
 +
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview]
  
−
[[Category:Evolution]]
+
| valign="top" width="50%"|
 +
'''DrDino'''
 +
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
 +
'''Creationists.org'''
 +
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
 +
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
 +
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
 +
'''Creation Ministries International'''
 +
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
 +
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
 +
'''Answers in Genesis'''
 +
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
 +
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
 +
'''CreationWiki'''
 +
* [http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
 +
* [http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
 +
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
 +
* [https://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [https://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
 +
|}
  
−
[[ast:Darvinismu]]
+
[[Category:Naturalism]]
−
[[az:Darvinizm]]
 
−
[[ca:Darwinisme]]
 
−
[[da:Darwinisme]]
 
−
[[de:Darwinismus]]
 
−
[[el:Δαρβινισμός]]
 
−
[[es:Darwinismo]]
 
−
[[hr:Darvinizam]]
 
−
[[lt:Darvinizmas]]
 
−
[[mk:Дарвинизам]]
 
−
[[nl:Darwinisme]]
 
−
[[ja:ダーウィニズム]]
 
−
[[no:Darwinisme]]
 
−
[[pl:Darwinizm]]
 
−
[[pt:Darwinismo]]
 
−
[[ru:Дарвинизм]]
 
−
[[sv:Darwinism]]
 
−
[[tr:Darwinizm]]
 
−
[[ur:ڈارونیت]]
 
−
[[zh:达尔文主义]]
 

Latest revision as of 02:13, November 3, 2026

Evolutionism, as opposed to Creationism, is the advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.[1] Therefore, one who believes in or supports a theory of evolution[2] would be referred to as an evolutionist. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses any type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The term evolutionism is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally Young Earth Creationists use it as a reference to what they believe is the worldview or presupposition aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a worldview unto itself, but is more based on and is possibly an extension of a variety of other worldviews including Materialism, Naturalism,[3] and Humanism in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be atheists as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.

“ Evolutionism is a world-view, which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...[4] ”

Evolutionists think of themselves as well-read and learned, but know virtually nothing about the Bible (unless they learned it in their childhoods). Evolutionists almost never read the Bible or are even willing to discuss it.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the evolutionist ideas of the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors. The Catholic Church holds that this is consistent with the Catholic faith.[5] Roughly twice as many people in the U.S. believe in this type of evolution (30%), as opposed to godless evolution that most atheists believe in (just a mere 13% of people). However, both of these combined are still fewer than the number of people who believe in Young Earth Creation (48%), as told by the Bible.[6]

Foundational question/starting point

All the viewpoints take a step of faith as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)

  • God exists (worldview)
    • Therefore, we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
      • Thus science is done on the basis that "God exists"
        • The Bible comes before science. The science is based on the worldview.

According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)

There is disagreement among Theistic Evolutionists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

Impersonal God

  • There is no personal/involved God (worldview)
    • Therefore, we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
      • Thus science is done on the basis that God is not involved in His creation
        • Theistic Evolutionism comes before the Scientific Theory of Evolution. The science is based on the worldview.

Personal God

  • There is a personal/involved God (worldview)
    • Therefore, we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
      • Thus science is done on the basis that there is a "personal God"
        • Theistic Evolutionism comes before the Scientific Theory of Evolution. The science is based on the worldview.

According to Atheistic Evolutionists

Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or worldview that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation. However, evolutionists who are "strong atheists" and who make a positive assertion that there is no God do, in fact, have a worldview; whereas "weak atheists," who maintain there is probably no God due to lack of any objective evidence of Him, rely on science.

Strong Atheism

  • There is no God (worldview)
    • Therefore, we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
      • Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God (i.e. naturalism)
        • Naturalism comes before the science. The science is based on the worldview.

Weak Atheism

  • So far, there is no objective proof of God
    • Therefore, we do not need to interpret evidence to fit in with the "fact" of God's existence
      • Thus science is not done on the basis of there being a God (i.e. naturalism) (unless His existence becomes objectively proven)

Comparison

The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some Theistic Evolutionists hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin[7] in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

Controversy

Usage of terminology

The term evolutionism uses the suffix -ism, which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionists, and the terms have been in common use for a century. For example, the most popular American proponent of evolution called himself an evolutionist,[8] and his obituary read "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead".[9] This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see Origins debate).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term Evolutionism is simply a false Creationist perception, or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a philosophy or worldview. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical Young Earth Creationists hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of worldviews, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the Evolutionist presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective worldview behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.

Religion and Evolutionism

Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a religious fervor over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. Dr. Marjorie Grene, a philosopher, put it this way in her article "The Faith of Darwinism" (emphasis added):

“ Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.[10] ”

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the United States.[11] Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution,[12] based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of Theistic Evolution.

Religiosity and the cult of personality surrounding Charles Darwin

There is a cult of personality and type of religiosity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. Stephen Jay Gould wrote the following in 1978: "[A]ll theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists".[13] In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."[13]

Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth

Taking the Bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC,[14] which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the creation of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

Quotes supporting the position that evolutionism requires faith[15]

“ J.W.N. Sullivan (science author)
The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith....[16] 		”
“ Dr. M.G. Grene
Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.[10] 		”
“ Dr. L.H. Matthews
The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith?[17] 		”
“ Dr. R.L. Wysong
"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural creator."[18] 		”
“ Dr. T.M. Lessl
By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls "objectification," the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power.[19] 		”
“ Dr. M. Ruse (evolutionist)
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. 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.[20] 		”

See also

References

  1. ↑ "Evolutionism" (2009). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin). Retrieved from The Free Dictionary on September 14, 2014.
  2. ↑ "Evolutionist". Random House Dictionary. (New York: Random House). Retrieved from Dictionary.com Unabridged on September 14, 2014.
  3. ↑ Multiple references:
  4. ↑ "Evolutionism—A broad overview" (2007). All About Philosophy. Accessed on September 14, 2014.
  5. ↑ Brumley, Mark (January/February 1997). "Evolution and the pope". Catholic Dossier. Retrieved from Catholic.net as archived at Internet Archive on September 14, 2014.
  6. ↑ College politico (2008). "Poll: Most Americans don't believe evolution". HubPages. Retrieved on September 14, 2014.
  7. ↑ Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily You and Me.
  8. ↑ "I count myself among the evolutionists", Gould, Stephen J. (May 1981). "Evolution as fact and theory", Discover, vol. 2, pp. 34-37. Retrieved from the Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive on September 14, 2014. Also "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory".
  9. ↑ Davidson, Keay (May 21, 2002). "Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould dead / Paleontologist proposed punctuated equilibrium theory". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from SFGate on September 14, 2014.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Grene, Marjorie (November 1959). "The Faith of Darwinism". Encounter, p. 49. Reprinted in Grene, Marjorie (1974), The Knower and the Known (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), p. 187. Retrieved from GoogleBooks on September 17, 2014.
  11. ↑ Linder, Doug (2014). "The evolution controversy". University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law website. Retrieved on September 15, 2014.
  12. ↑ BSR (May 6, 2007). "Mike Huckabee does not believe in evolution alone". Mike Huckabee President 2016. Retrieved on September 15, 2014.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Bradbury, Andrew J. (2006). "Part 1: Metaphors and myths". Charles Darwin—The Truth?, part 1, sec. "Darwinism as a Religion", par. 1. Retrieved on September 15, 2014.
  14. ↑ Redinger, Ruby (2007). "Biblical age of the Earth". Biblical Age of the Earth. Retrieved on September 15, 2014 from July 1, 2007 archive at Internet Archive.
  15. ↑ "Evolutionism quotes" (2004). Northwest Creation Network. Retrieved on September 15, 2014.
  16. ↑ Sullivan, John W.N. (1933). The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press), p. 95. Quoted in review by New Catholic World [preview], vol. 138, p. 520. Preview retrieved from GoogleBooks on September 17, 2014.
  17. ↑ Matthews, L. Harrison (1972), "Introduction" to Darwin, Charles (1872), The Origin of Species, 6th ed. (London: J. M. Dent), pp. x-xi. Quoted in "Evolutionism quotes".
  18. ↑ Wysong, R.L. (1976). The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, MI: Inquiry Press), p. 419. Retrieved from GoogleBooks on September 17, 2014.
  19. ↑ Lessl, Thomas M. (1985). "Science and the sacred cosmos: the ideological rhetoric of Carl Sagan". Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 71, no. 2, p. 178. Quoted in "Evolutionism quotes".
  20. ↑ Ruse, Michael (May 13, 2000). "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians.". National Post, p. B-3. Retrieved from Omniology.com as "How evolution became a religion" on September 15, 2014. Caution: may be copyrighted; for fair educational use only.
v • d • e
Creation vs. evolution
Evolution
Hoaxes, Controversies, and Debates
Creation science and Creationism

External links

Notes

Affirmative articles that attempt to rebut the faith claim of creationists.
Critical articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.
Affirmative Critical

TalkOrigins

EvoWiki

DrDino

Creationists.org

Northwest Creation Network

Creation Ministries International

Answers in Genesis

CreationWiki

Institute for Creation Research

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolutionism&oldid=2214445"