Definitions and Clarifications

Can I start a new topic to stimulate a bit of discussion in Showcase?I wanted to start a definitions and clarifications thread.Specifically..... can anyone give me the working definitions of the following:1) What is a Darwinist?2) What is an Evo?3) What is your definition of Science?I will formally ask your permission to start this topic in Showcase for Showcase members and invited guests only. I wanted this thread to be limited to explaining the definitions of terms used by the members of Showcase.

evo: short for evolutionistDarwinist: basically the same thing, but there are evolutionist models that break from the mainstream, probably should be considered more Intelligent Design models, that are anti-Darwinian or anti-neoDarwianian in rejecting gradualistic evolution or the formula of random mutations and natural selection as the agents of macro-evolution.Science: guess there are multiple meanings, but the word essentially means "knowledge"....some dictionary stuff. Science Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comI think one of the problems with some ideas and definitions of science is that within the definition are terms that are themselves undefined or perhaps have been redefined by modern research such that their meanings have changed. I think this is most apparent when you read someone use the terms "physical" or "material" or even "natural" and "observed." Quantum mechanics suggests the observation itself helps create what is observed, and even those that try to use a different approach to QM have to concede that QM shows that "material" or "physical" is fundamentally different than the older concepts of those terms. In other words, it could be argued that the original scientific terms of "physical" and "material" do not actually exist, but are illusions or false concepts of reality. What we see as physical and material fundamentally exists in a non-physical and non-material state, and even exists when there is no physical and material state present at all.The term "observed" is also problematic because many things involving science are not actually directly observed. Rather we observe effects, and yet many choose to reject the study of any real interactions with God or spiritual beings as outside the realm of science because science supposedly cannot make direct observations.....yet science can observe effects. So what these people are really saying is we cannot consider the forensic effects of a Creator, say in ID theory, because their definition of science excludes that a priori.So if God ever does act, despite that being true, the standard evo concept of science is that we MUST PRETEND regardless of the evidence that God did not act in reality. To call that "science" or knowledge is laughable.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

So all Darwinists are evolutionists yet not all evolutionists are Darwinists? I found a page full of Darwinist definitions here. I guess basically what they are saying is:

quote:

---

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

---

I also wanted to discuss and add a new definition to our list.What is Intelligent Design?Edited by AdminPhat, : Phat rather than AdminPhat

Well, you could look up some definitions of Intelligent Design, but one definition is that:Life and the universe as we know it is best understood as the result or best understood as entailing the involvement of an Intelligent Cause.

I wanted to post this cartoon in order to get a response from you as to whether it is ludicrous in its claim.(For the record, I find that it defines the differing approaches of two extremes. What do you think?) Edited by AdminPhat, : attempt to get cartoon to postEdited by AdminPhat, : ditto

Do you believe that our conclusion, as suggested by the comic above, is given to us through our own rationality or through an impartation of sorts?I guess what I'm trying to say is whether the intelligent cause that you mention is not a conclusion but a fact?BTW...here is the dictionary definitions of Intelligent Design. I agree that an Intelligent Designer originated everything definable, including the very words and terms that we use. What I can't understand is whether or not we can conclude that we are in touch with this designers intent when we attempt to define science.What do you think?Edited by AdminPhat, : Phat vs AdminPhat

I guess I think you could just switch the labels around and it'd be the same when it comes to evos, meaning it's a believe first and try to fit the data into the conclusion approach.

good definition I am not 100% sure I understand your question, but it seems to me you are asking something different than a scientific question when you talk of "intent." I think that's a theological and religious and hopefully a spiritual question as well.

Have you ever heard of Robert A. Herrmann? His webpage seems to offer an attempt at science quantifying faith. What do you think?Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

Faith is a component of all verbal thinking and logic, but at the same time, it's not a specific religious faith necessarily.

So are you suggesting that all religions could be considered as Intelligent Designer friendly regardless of the nature of the Designer that they had in mind? Edited by AdminPhat, : Phat/AdminPhat switcheroo

Depends on the definition of religion, but sure for all religions that accept there is some sort of Creator or Creative Force within the universe or affecting the universe from without, depending on how you view the "universe."Atheism though is arguably a religion that wouldn't meet that criteria.

In this definition of religion found here, it says in definition #3 that

quote:

---

Religion is...A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

---

Would you consider Darwin to be a spiritual leader of sorts?Also...do you believe that the theory of evolution is based on faith rather than on science?Edited by AdminPhat, : PhatEdited by Phat, : add by edit

gotta go get some sleep but will come back to this.....wouldn't really consider Darwin a spiritual teacher, and I think that ToE is as much based on faith in the idea than it is on any actual verifiable fact.

Can one be a Christian and an evolutionist? (Two more definitions to add to the list)