"Evolutionist"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
(11-10-2013 02:34 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 02:23 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  And see, that's my point. You can be an "evolutionist" who believes in "God". I'd prefer that one's understanding of evolution would negate at last some of their need for belief, but they still can and a great many do.

The use of "evolutionist" implies that one can only believe in evolution if they don't believe in "God". And that is unfortunate. I'd prefer the Christian, as long as they are going to continue to remain a Christian, still at least "believe" in evolution. It's at least better than a Christian who does not.

Theist using terms like "evolutionist" in the impliced way they use it, scary off others theist from even considering the validity of evolution, because it's made to seem synonymous with being an atheist.

Again, I'd rather they at last be a Christian who accepts evolution, than one who doesn't because of their fear of the connotations of being that dirty word, an "evolutionist".

Glad you got my point Smile

All kidding aside KC you know as well as I do that the hardcore YEC creationists do think anyone who is not in their crazy club is an atheist satan worshiping heathen. No True Scotsman and all that.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 02:49 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
(11-10-2013 02:43 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 02:34 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Glad you got my point Smile

All kidding aside KC you know as well as I do that the hardcore YEC creationists do think anyone who is not in their crazy club is an atheist satan worshiping heathen. No True Scotsman and all that.

That's all right. I can't prove via history that YEC came from a cult much like Mormonism.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
(11-10-2013 02:49 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 02:43 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  All kidding aside KC you know as well as I do that the hardcore YEC creationists do think anyone who is not in their crazy club is an atheist satan worshiping heathen. No True Scotsman and all that.

That's all right. I can't prove via history that YEC came from a cult much like Mormonism.

Because of course these are the type of people that a well reasoned argument with historical and scientific proof is really effective with. Hobo

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 03:47 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
AND!!!! (sorry to keep going on, but it keeps annoying me more and more the more I think of it)…

Major problem with referring to “Darwinian evolution” is that there is not really such a thing as “Darwinian evolution” in the first place (...depending on your semantics). At best, “Darwinian evolution” is actually, simply, referring to Darwin’s theory of the mechanism of evolution, i.e., natural selection. That’s his theory, evolution by the process of natural selection, not evolution itself. (technically at the time evolution would have be a theory because it was new, but today evolution is actually an established fact. It is happening, and there is no disputing that. The theory, as we consider it today, is the process by which it operates, not evolution itself.)

Again, those of us who follow it don’t call it “Darwinian evolution”. We call it evolution by the process of natural selection. There are other processes too. Artificial selection (that would still be part of Darwin's too), punctuated equilibrium (not Darwin's) Linnaeus' theory (discredited), and others that add to Darwin's theory, not displace it. Calling it “Darwinian evolution” cements it in the past and does not allow for change, or new evidence. It would be like saying, if someone believes in gravity and uses laws and mathematics describe by Newton to work out the trajectory of a thrown baseball, they are “Newtonist”. Problem is, no one uses that term. They just accept the equations because they work. But calling oneself a “Newtonist” would deny the advent of Einstein’s advancements in the area of gravity. “Newtonism” would imply a refusal of growth with new advancements.

We know much more since Darwin’s time, and our current understanding of evolution employs Darwin’s theory (natural selection) and modern advancements on top of that, such as genetics which Darwin did not know about in his time. Evolution by natural selection has advanced far passed what one would call “Darwinian”. In other words, “Darwinian evolution”, “Darwinism”, does not accurately define what current, “evolutionist” “believe”, any more than “Newtonist” accurately defines what modern quantum physicist “believe”. In both examples, Darwin's, and Newton's, principles still work and are accepted, but there is more known beyond those principals alone.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 06:05 PM
"Evolutionist"
I had some discussions with a young earth crationists. he was always saying things like "evolution is just
a theory" etc. no matter how often I explain to him how scientists use the word "theory". anyway, I call it the LAW
of evolution now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 06:11 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
(11-10-2013 06:05 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I had some discussions with a young earth crationists. he was always saying things like "evolution is just
a theory" etc. no matter how often I explain to him how scientists use the word "theory". anyway, I call it the LAW
of evolution now.

It's a common fallacy to equate Theory in the scientific sense to Hypothesis or guess. Theories are actually 1 step beyond Laws as Theories assemble various laws and facts and explain how they work together. A Bacteria is a microscopic organism. This is a fact. Germ Theory explains how that fact affects other facts and interacts with the world.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 07:13 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
(11-10-2013 06:05 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I had some discussions with a young earth crationists. he was always saying things like "evolution is just
a theory" etc. no matter how often I explain to him how scientists use the word "theory". anyway, I call it the LAW
of evolution now.

Can't call it a law. That's not how scientific laws work. It's kind of like saying a table is a color. It doesn't fit. A law isn't more powerful than a theory. People don't understand that. A law is a different thing than a theory.

For example, gravity is both a theory and a law. The theory is of what gravity is, and how it works. That law is the mathematical predictive part of how gravity works.

Evolution doesn't have this precise mathematical aspect to use the term law, but that doesn't make theory lesser than law. In fact, in the case of gravity, the law supports the theory, not the other way around.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 04:02 PM
Re: RE: "Evolutionist"
(11-10-2013 01:13 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  What are Christian evolutionists called?

Satanists? Obviously those folk like ya have been manipulated by the devil.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 05:54 PM
RE: "Evolutionist"
Sorry, but I'm still not seeing the big deal here.

I get the "cult of personality" thing mentioned by RobbyPants. I get Raptor Jesus' point that the term evolutionist isn't being used by the people it's supposed to describe, but instead by some theists who inappropriately categorize people (intentionally or not). And I understand these terms are used by some as an insult.

Regarding the insults, some theists use the term "atheist" as an insult too. Are we also annoyed by the word "atheist"? In fact, exactly because those particular theists want to use those terms as insults, I'm not gong to let it bother me. And, even if we could get those terms to stop being used, those people would just find other terms. And, by the way, plenty of atheists use terms just to insult theists too. It goes both ways.

As for the incorrect usages, two points: First, language often evolves in this way whether we like it or not and whether we want it to or not. The word "gay" used to mean nothing more than "happy". Plenty of people weren't pleased when it started being used to mean "homosexual" either, but today we think nothing of it anymore. (In fact, try using it to mean "happy" these days and see how many people even understand your meaning.) Second, I think there are far bigger fish to fry when it comes to what issues atheists should be focusing efforts on to bring about change. I think getting too picky can backfire and result in loss of respect for our more important causes.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 09:11 PM
"Evolutionist"
I prefer to be called the EVOLUTIONATOR.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: