Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Word Evolutionists
MexicanHotChocolate
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 93 (116306)
06-18-2004 4:16 AM


The Word evolutionist is often bandied about by creationists to describe those who study/accept evolution as a valid scientific theory to explain how life originated on Earth. It is the same as the use of the word abortionist. Neither word is real. Just as there are doctors who perform abortions(ob/gyns) there are scientists, evolutionary biologists for example, who study evolution. I believe this stems from the creationist attemp to make evolution seem like a rival religion to their own. Or am I missing something?

Our loyalties are to the species and the planet. We speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive is owed not just to ourselves but also to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring.
--Carl Sagan, 1934-1996

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by 1.61803, posted 06-19-2004 1:01 AM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2004 12:26 PM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 93 (116609)
06-19-2004 12:13 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 3 of 93 (116615)
06-19-2004 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate
06-18-2004 4:16 AM


Hi MHC, I believe that there are so many facets to the word evolutionist, but the word creationist pretty much describes a person who believes in the accounts of Genesis in the bible. This board would not exist if not for the distinct opposing beliefs of how the Earth came to be. A creationist must show evolution to be false because the TOE is in direct opposition to the mythology of the Old Testament. If the accounts of Genesis are not literally factual how many other things in that book come into question. It is a house of cards. I know personally people who absolutely will not budge on the creation account in the bible. They do not want to hear about evidence or fossil records or geological data. I have been on this board since Feb this year and can not tell you how many creos came and left in a huff after hearing compelling arguments in favor of evolution. Rather than accept the evidence and data many choose to either ignore it or claim it is a satanic ploy to steer them away from they're faith. So as far as a rival religion I would say that anything that does not agree with the creation accounts will be met with scorn and labled as blasphemy.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate, posted 06-18-2004 4:16 AM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 93 (116626)
06-19-2004 1:35 AM


quote:
The Word evolutionist is often bandied about by creationists to describe those who study/accept evolution as a valid scientific theory to explain how life originated on Earth. It is the same as the use of the word abortionist. Neither word is real. Just as there are doctors who perform abortions(ob/gyns) there are scientists, evolutionary biologists for example, who study evolution. I believe this stems from the creationist attemp to make evolution seem like a rival religion to their own. Or am I missing something?
So now evolutionists are taking offence to the word evolutionist?. I cant remember a time where i insulted someone by calling one an evolutionist. All an evolutionists is to me is a scientist that believes in evolution. I dont call them all scientist because thats a generalization, not all scientist believe in evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2004 1:39 AM almeyda has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 93 (116627)
06-19-2004 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by almeyda
06-19-2004 1:35 AM


Take a guess
What would you define as a "scientist"?
And what percentage of all scientists would you guess do "believe" in evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by almeyda, posted 06-19-2004 1:35 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by almeyda, posted 06-19-2004 2:13 AM NosyNed has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 93 (116628)
06-19-2004 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
06-19-2004 1:39 AM


Re: Take a guess
What would i define a scientist?. Not sure probably someone that studies science. Evolution is definately the majority of scientist. Many people think its because of the evidence but other people believe its because creation cannot even be considered an option.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 06-19-2004 01:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2004 1:39 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2004 2:38 AM almeyda has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 93 (116630)
06-19-2004 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by almeyda
06-19-2004 2:13 AM


Re: Take a guess
But about 40% of scientists believe in some sort of creator so there doesn't seem to be any problem there.
The problem is that you want to say HOW a creator works. You can't or, at least, you have it very, very wrong. However the universe began and however it was made to be as it is, it does, with hard work, reveal it's secrets. Those who believe in a creator believe that He wants us to work at finding out how he performed the creation and shaping of everything. He certainly gave us the capability and He has left lots and lots of clues.
If He exists He must be very disappointed in those, like you, who can't read the clues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by almeyda, posted 06-19-2004 2:13 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by almeyda, posted 06-19-2004 2:57 AM NosyNed has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 93 (116633)
06-19-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
06-19-2004 2:38 AM


Re: Take a guess
But evolution is a theory of how life came to be through natural processes. Without the need of a creator. Humanism is derived from this biological evolutionary way of thinking. Just natural processes. Just the universe, no designer. Evolution is not about finding out how God made the world. It is about finding out how the world came to be with natural processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2004 2:38 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2004 3:32 AM almeyda has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 93 (116635)
06-19-2004 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by almeyda
06-19-2004 2:57 AM


Natural
But evolution is a theory of how life came to be through natural processes. Without the need of a creator. Humanism is derived from this biological evolutionary way of thinking. Just natural processes. Just the universe, no designer. Evolution is not about finding out how God made the world. It is about finding out how the world came to be with natural processes.
You're still confused aren't you? If there is a creator then all things are from Him, all processes are His processes. "Natural" is just the part of what He has created that we can see and understand. This is the religious view of the majority of Christians and, apparently, the view of a great many scientists.
The laws of physics are His, the nature of chemistry is His and the process that allows life to florish even while the environment changes is His. This is a very competant God indeed. Your God, on the other hand, is a little God one of simple ideas, small magic tricks that even a simpleton can understand.
No wonder the theologians shudder at the ideas of the literalists. The literalists try to bottle God up into something they can comprehend without having to work at it. The theologians of many religions see a much greater work, one much harder for us to comprehend and from that greatness see a greater God than your little one.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-19-2004 02:32 AM
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-19-2004 02:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by almeyda, posted 06-19-2004 2:57 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 93 (116647)
06-19-2004 6:37 AM


NosyNed are you an athiest or a believer...?

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2004 10:34 AM almeyda has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 93 (116657)
06-19-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
06-19-2004 6:37 AM


Relevance?
How do my beliefs affect anything? What I told you aren't the beliefs of one person. They are the view of the majority of Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 06-19-2004 6:37 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 06-19-2004 12:19 PM NosyNed has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 12 of 93 (116673)
06-19-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by NosyNed
06-19-2004 10:34 AM


Re: Relevance?
I watched a program with Richard Dawkins. He, and fellow scientists seemed to think that faith was "intellectual laziness". The program was "argument from design".
I can certainly see, and understand why a creationist God would seem small to you. Yet even the program mentioned that evolution explains away a God, or atleast, Dawkins and his crew thought this. So, - God then becomes an unnecessary precursor to the natural processes. Would you agree with that conclusion? You see, these kind of comments make creationists defensive. I thought their concept of faith was most innacurate though.
Yet I am starting to see that your view is quite acceptable. I think many creos would be "won over" if this whole "this means no God" thing would dissapear. And getting back on topic, would an evolutionist be simply, those who support the ToE? Wouldn't an evolutionist scientist be called an evolutionary biologist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2004 10:34 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 06-19-2004 2:07 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2004 5:57 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 54 by nator, posted 06-20-2004 7:52 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 93 (116674)
06-19-2004 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate
06-18-2004 4:16 AM


Darwin himself used the word "evolutionist" in Origin of the Species and Descent of Man to describe those who accepted the hypothesis of common descent through natural selection, as opposed to those who insisted on a special creation for each of the species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MexicanHotChocolate, posted 06-18-2004 4:16 AM MexicanHotChocolate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 93 (116679)
06-19-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
06-19-2004 12:19 PM


Re: Relevance?
Mike
If you look through the postings from those here who support the TOE, how often do you find them saying that the TOE means no GOD?
Is it not more common to find that it is the Creationists who say that the TOE means there is no GOD?
The TOE does not deal with origins or moral issues. It has nothing to do with that. GOD is the realm of WHY. Evolution is simply the HOW.
If Life began on its own, or if life started from some divine spark is outside Evolution. The TOE continues to apply and explain what we see in either case. And this is a very important point.
You say...
God then becomes an unnecessary precursor to the natural processes.
I don't think that Evolution makes ANY statement about whether GOD is a necessary or unnecessary Precursor. Evolution says nothing about the precursor.
You then say...
I think many creos would be "won over" if this whole "this means no God" thing would dissapear.
That is likely so but it is only the Creationists themselves that insist on inserting the "this means no God" thing.
It is only the Creationists that insist that Evolution denies GOD.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 06-19-2004 12:19 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 06-19-2004 2:21 PM jar has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 93 (116680)
06-19-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
06-19-2004 2:07 PM


Re: Relevance?
I understand where you're coming from. Yes, creationists do insist that evolution might = no God. My point was though, that it seemed very obvious from the program I watched, as to what Dawkins and co were saying. They seemed to be saying than natural processes rule out God. There are some here that would also agree with that view. I am not blaming evolutionists, but there are obviously those who don't believe, that would also endorse this mindset.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 06-19-2004 2:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 06-19-2004 2:39 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024