Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolutionism"

Revision as of 23:45, March 21, 2007

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. --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. --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. --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. --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. --Ymmotrojam 02:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I refer you to my remarks on the AFD page in relation to "worldviews". --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. --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. --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.--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?--AmesG 11:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I've modified this pending its deletion.-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. --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. --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.
"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.
"Semantics": We need semantics. If you think my semantics are illogical, counter them with logic rather than just saying you don't like them. --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. --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". --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. --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. 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. --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. 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.--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. --Charliemc86 18:06, 21 March 2007 (CST)

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. --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. --Charliemc86 18:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

I agree about the separate article, and it 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. --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.--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?--Murray 19:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)