What do Evolutionists believe

Hey, im doing a report on e v c. I was hoping that i could get a BRIEF synopsis of the basic beliefs of evolutionists------------------
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

"Evolutionist" is actually a term used primarily by fundamentalist Christians (and a few Moslems) who somehow think that "Evolution" is some sort of religion or philosophy. It isn't: the study of evolutionary pathways and such is a subset of biology, which is just science. Not philosophy, not religion. Science makes no statements as to the existence of any god(s) - that is outside science's field of endeavor.
Individual scientists, including biologists who study evolution, come in all flavors: theists, like Roman Catholics, Shintoists, Moslems, and Nazarenes, agnostics, and atheists. Just like the rest of the population comes in all these flavors. So your question is really unanswerable, except to say, "all and none of the above."

""Evolutionist" is actually a term used primarily by fundamentalist Christians (and a few Moslems) who somehow think that "Evolution" is some sort of religion or philosophy."
--I disagree (though I do agree that Evolution is in no way religious). The term more likely isn't due to the sophomoric 'religious' accusations, but moreso to differentiate from the Evolutionary proponent to an opposing viewpoint (such as YEC). Its a term which wouldn't be used often (if at all) in the mainstream literature because there is no need to differentiate between an Old Earth Perspective and a Young Earth one, for obvious reasons.------------------

Coragyps:I think I'm going to have to go with TC on this one. The term "evolutionist" refers to either a proponent of evolution (to distinguish from those who take an anti-evolution and/or anti-science stance in this debate) OR a "practitioner" of the science of evolutionary biology. Mayr uses the term quite often in "What Evolution Is", for example. If ol' Ernst can get away with it, I don't see why the rest of us can't use it.OTOH, I am firmly opposed to the made-up term "evolutionism". Now that one DOES have the connotation of making evolution a philosophy or metaphysics rather than a science.My two cents.{edited to delete a spare "for example"}[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-04-2003]

ok... sorry for the misunderstanding. instead could you answer some of the basic principles of those who follow evolution, or who believe in its ideas.------------------
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Evolution is science, not a religion, ideology or philosophy. So your question doesn't make sense unless you are asking for an exhaustive list of all the religions, ideologies and philosophies followed by anyone who accepts evolution.

for chrissake!ok. what do you believe? what defines the theory of evolution?u people... must you read so deeply into everything?

Actually you are missing an important point.Evolution is not one of the basic beleifs of "evolutionists".I think that that is quite a contrast with the opponents of evolution.

EVOLUTIONIST\Ev`o*lu"tion*ist\, n. 1. One skilled in evolutions.2. one who holds the doctrine of evolution, either in biology or in metaphysics. --Darwin.

quote:

---

EVOLUTIONIST

​

\Ev`o*lu"tion*ist\, n. 1. One skilled in evolutions.

​

2. one who holds the doctrine of evolution, either in biology or in metaphysics. --Darwin.

---

You found a dictionary that uses a quote from Darwin to define a word?Strange.Here is a good definition of evolution:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

i wasn't defining evolution, i was defining evolutionist. However, the definition is at least a start. im going to drop this thread since im not really getting anywhere.

You might as well drop this thread. The evolutionists get all huffy when you refer to evolution as a belief. That's what I noticed anyway.Now we hear that evolution means merely change. Oh boy. Not that that explains anything however. Besides, the evolutionist isn't trying to explain or actually prove anything ...What I want to know is precisely How evolution is science?

Winston: Don't give up - just refine your question. What is it that you really want to know?For instance:What does each of us consider the one best line of evidence for evolution? (That's easy. For me: one word "tenrecs", and one concept "island biogeography".)Your original question sounds like you're trying to determine some kind of philosophical stance of "evolutionists" generically speaking. In which case I think you're likely to never get a straight answer. Evolution isn't a philosophy (which is why I think everyone was confused by your question.) Beyond methodological naturalism, I can't think what else all evos would agree on...

ok. ill be more specific. based on darwin's original ideas of natural selection, etc, what are some casic reasons that evolution is believed over creationism. What facts or data supports the theory of evolution.Zephan. I agree that evolution is a belief, but i don't understand how you can ask the question how is evolution science? the basic premises of evolution are rooted in biology.

I'll give it a try. You can get more by reading -surprise-Origin of Species. Darwin's writings alone suffice:

quote:

---

from Chapter 1: On the Breeds of the Domestic pigeon.
Altogether at least a score of pigeons might be chosen, which if shown to an ornithologist, and he were told that they were wild birds, would certainly, I think, be ranked by him as well-defined species. Moreover, I do not believe that any ornithologist would place the English carrier, the short-faced tumbler, the runt, the barb, pouter, and fantail in the same genus; more especially as in each of these breeds several truly-inherited sub-breeds, or species as he might have called them, could be shown him.

---

...I'm a taxonomist ['naturalist'] myself, and I've seen two defined termite species whose difference is just some 5 milimeters of head capsule length. The fact that life consists of taxonomical hierarchies is IMO my best example for evolution.