Mr Skeptic Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Given that there's nothing beneficial about this term over the current terminology, I fail to see the issue. What then would you call someone who accepts the theory of evolution? Also, does anyone know of a word for "educated belief" or "belief based on evidence" such that you could say "an evolutionist XXXXXX evolution" without insulting them?
Sisyphus Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 The issue appears to be about personal vindication for a stupid flame war on a different forum, and the argument is no less tedious here. I hereby put this thread on 24-hour suicide watch.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 From looking at the thesaurus for belief, perhaps concluded, deduced, got the impression, takes the position, ..., that evolution is true may be better than believes evolution is true. The thesaurus I checked has no synonyms for evolutionist.
iNow Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 What then would you call someone who accepts the theory of evolution? I already covered this. They're called "normal," and potentially "rational." Also, does anyone know of a word for "educated belief" or "belief based on evidence" such that you could say "an evolutionist XXXXXX evolution" without insulting them? Perhaps "favor," "assent," "concur," "embrace," or even "adopt" would work. Although, you sort of screw this up with the words you chose. You ask how an "evolutionist" would say they accept evolution, while much of the discussion is about how creationists have poisoned the word evolutionist, and many don't use it. "Accept" is the word I have used and seen used to circumvent the certain creationist equivocation. I accept evolution. I accept germ theory. I accept gravity. I accept Visa and Mastercard, as well.
Mokele Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 What then would you call someone who accepts the theory of evolution? A rational, thinking human being? Does there need to be a specific label? We don't have a label for those who accept gravity. IMHO, applying a personal label makes what should be a dispassionate argument of scientific evidence into a personal grudge-match rife with ingroup/outgroup conflict and needlessly bogs everything down. Making it into an "us vs. them" issue is what has allowed the creationists to survive, and adopting that tactic ourselves will only make things worse.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 A rational, thinking human being? That is absolutely ridiculous. Many religious people are also rational, thinking human beings, and conversely some evolutionists are not particularly rational or thoughtful. Does there need to be a specific label? Yes. Would you be able to get anything done without labels? Our entire language is a collection of labels, and our thought processes heavily dependent on labels. We don't have a label for those who accept gravity. They are called "normal". The reason we don't have a specific label for them is that a label like that would be a waste of resources since the label seems to be unnecessary. The use of the label would give you no information that you did not already expect, hence the label almost always conveys no information. The label "evolutionist" on the other hand, usually does convey information. IMHO, applying a personal label makes what should be a dispassionate argument of scientific evidence into a personal grudge-match rife with ingroup/outgroup conflict and needlessly bogs everything down. Making it into an "us vs. them" issue is what has allowed the creationists to survive, and adopting that tactic ourselves will only make things worse. I think arguing about a label bogs everything down all the more. Do you also object to the labels biologist, physicist, scientist, or Mokele? Just because we use labels, doesn't mean that we abuse them.
Mokele Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 That is absolutely ridiculous. Many religious people are also rational, thinking human beings, and conversely some evolutionists are not particularly rational or thoughtful. Religious =/= creationist. Religious people can be rational (to a point), but creationists cannot be. Their entire belief system is dependent upon willful ignorance. Yes. Would you be able to get anything done without labels? Our entire language is a collection of labels, and our thought processes heavily dependent on labels. However, since our thought process is dependent upon labels, surely you agree that *which* label matters a lot. "Evolutionist" is a far inferior label to other, admittedly more verbose labels such as "those who accept evolution". They are called "normal". The reason we don't have a specific label for them is that a label like that would be a waste of resources since the label seems to be unnecessary. The use of the label would give you no information that you did not already expect, hence the label almost always conveys no information. The label "evolutionist" on the other hand, usually does convey information. Precisely my point - by forcing a label on creationists while not adopting one for those who accept evolution, we reinforce the idea that the creationist worldview is an abberation and a departure from the norm. Hopefully, this extra bit of social pressure will help that failed ideology slide into the history books a bit sooner. I think arguing about a label bogs everything down all the more. Do you also object to the labels biologist, physicist, scientist, or Mokele? Just because we use labels, doesn't mean that we abuse them. Conversely, just because labels are useful doesn't mean that *all* of them are desirable. See above for the merits of not labeling. Mokele
Pete Posted January 21, 2009 Author Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) The issue appears to be about personal vindication for a stupid flame war on a different forum, I'm sorry but your mind reading skills leave much to be desired. I came here in hopes that some psychologists would choose to enter the discussion. I wanted to understand the psychology behind such anger and hatred which persisted even in the complete absence of creationists. I came to the psychology sub forum in hopes a psychologist would join in. I had no intention about discussing the same thing we did at that other forum since it wasn't really a discussion but a nonstop stream of flames. I didn't intend to get into a debate here about the term either since there is nothing it which I'm not 100% clear on. I had said before that I already got my answer, i.e. I wrote If some evolution-layman (evolution experts don't see to have this problem) perceive the use of the term evolutionist as being used to describe someone who accepts evolution on faith only then I can understand the anger. That seems to be iNow and Phi_for all's objection. That would seem to explain the psychological reason behind all this. I myself urge you to lock this thread. Especially before Phi comes back and again deletes important content. Edited January 21, 2009 by Pmb
Kyrisch Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 I am a person who accepts the truth of evolution by natural selection. Wow... The quote of iNow's that started all of this, (the one that D H stated was simply faith restated in an ungainly manner) is not a problem. I'd like to point out that faith is necessary in order to function in our society. There are a few things that everyone has faith in, including that the sun will come up tomorrow and that they will not fly off the earth or fall through the ground when they step out of the door. It is important to point out, however, that these types of faiths are built in the face of insurmountable evidence. Such is the case with evolution. It is accepted as fact the same way heliocentricity is accepted as fact because there has never been a shred of evidence found that runs contrary thereto. In this way, acceptance of evolution is indeed a belief, but one which requires a leap of faith infinitesimal in comparison with religious beliefs (to which many cling tenaciously, regardless and often even in spite of evidence).
Mokele Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Kyrisch, I think you're stretching the word a bit too much - "Faith" is typically taken to mean "belief in the absence of evidence", therefore precluding the useages you apply.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Religious =/= creationist. Religious people can be rational (to a point), but creationists cannot be. Their entire belief system is dependent upon willful ignorance. Your belief that creationists cannot be rational is based on willful ignorance of how the human mind functions. How much evidence to the contrary does it take for a rational person to discard something he has built much of his life on, and has seen plenty of (admittedly ambiguous) evidence for? However, since our thought process is dependent upon labels, surely you agree that *which* label matters a lot. "Evolutionist" is a far inferior label to other, admittedly more verbose labels such as "those who accept evolution". That's pretty much what evolutionist means. Definitions of evolutionist on the Web: As commonly used, a person who believes that all life on earth came from slowly changing natural processes operating over billions of years. http://www.ccel.us/gange.glossary.html Though google does lend some credence to the fact that the word is mostly used by people arguing against evolution. Precisely my point - by forcing a label on creationists while not adopting one for those who accept evolution, we reinforce the idea that the creationist worldview is an abberation and a departure from the norm. Hopefully, this extra bit of social pressure will help that failed ideology slide into the history books a bit sooner. IMHO, applying a personal label makes what should be a dispassionate argument of scientific evidence into a personal grudge-match rife with ingroup/outgroup conflict and needlessly bogs everything down. Making it into an "us vs. them" issue is what has allowed the creationists to survive, and adopting that tactic ourselves will only make things worse. Are you prepared to do whatever it takes for evolution to triumph over creationism, even to the point of being openly biased, using inappropriate debating techniques, etc? Why would a rational creationist believe anything you and those like you say at face value? Conversely, just because labels are useful doesn't mean that *all* of them are desirable. See above for the merits of not labeling. True. I suggest you get a desirable label to replace evolutionist, because that label is not going away anytime soon. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What then would you call someone who accepts the theory of evolution? I already covered this. They're called "normal," and potentially "rational." That would only be true among scientists, where belief in evolution is very standard. To pretend that the label "normal" is synonymous with "evolutionist" among the general public is dishonest.
iNow Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Are you prepared to do whatever it takes for evolution to triumph over creationism, even to the point of being openly biased, using inappropriate debating techniques, etc? Here's the rub, my friend. Evolution has already triumphed over creationism, repeatedly, and profoundly, in every single arena. What do we do now? Pretend that creationism is still on the same level and give it equal time? Do we give equal time to the stork theory of childbirth?
CharonY Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 As commonly used, a person who believes that all life on earth came from slowly changing natural processes operating over billions of years. And again a wrong depiction of evolution. *sigh*
D H Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Here's the rub, my friend. Evolution has already triumphed over creationism, repeatedly, and profoundly, in every single arena. No, it has not, iNow. It has not yet prevailed in what may well be the most important arena of all: The arena of public opinion. Most of the people who believe in creationism are not diehards. They can be won over. To do that, you need to lose the attitude of superiority. Saying that your side is the side of reason is an enthymeme rank with an attitude of superiority. If you don't like the term evolutionist, how about naturalist?
Mr Skeptic Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Are you prepared to do whatever it takes for evolution to triumph over creationism, even to the point of being openly biased, using inappropriate debating techniques, etc? Why would a rational creationist believe anything you and those like you say at face value? Here's the rub, my friend. Evolution has already triumphed over creationism, repeatedly, and profoundly, in every single arena. What do we do now? Pretend that creationism is still on the same level and give it equal time? Do we give equal time to the stork theory of childbirth? If evolution has triumphed so much, how come you are still fighting to defend it? As you well know, evolution has not triumphed in the arena of religion. Why lie? And again, why would a rational person take what you say about evolution at face value, if you are prepared to lie to promote belief in evolution?
Kyrisch Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Kyrisch, I think you're stretching the word a bit too much - "Faith" is typically taken to mean "belief in the absence of evidence", therefore precluding the useages you apply. But that definition itself becomes subjective because there is SOME evidence for Creation. Not the kind that would pass in science laboratories, but people are rational creatures -- blind faith is never actually completely blind. Whether it is a misinterpreted coincidence or, for the truly indoctrinated, delusion, people do not believe "for no reason". The principle of Occam's Razor, however, applies; and it sure as hell requires fewer assumptions to accept evolution as to accept creation. I still stand that a leap of faith is necessary. The size of that leap, however, is what distinguishes science from cracked-pottery.
iNow Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 No, it has not, iNow. It has not yet prevailed in what may well be the most important arena of all: The arena of public opinion. Most of the people who believe in creationism are not diehards. They can be won over. To do that, you need to lose the attitude of superiority. Saying that your side is the side of reason is an enthymeme rank with an attitude of superiority. I won't lie, I DO feel superior, and for good reason. It's the same reason I feel superior to people who think that killing a sheep will make it rain. It's the same reason I feel superior to people who think that eating beef on a Friday is going to make you burn for eternity. Yes, I feel superior, just like an adult who knows better feels superior to the child who thinks thunder and lightning are god at a bowling alley. I take your point about public opinion. That is not quite what I had in mind when I said that evolution had won every battle thrown at it against creationism, but it's more than a fair criticism of the argument I presented. I was thinking more along the lines of explanatory power and fitting the data, especially since truth is not derived by consensus. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf evolution has triumphed so much, how come you are still fighting to defend it? Easy. Because SO many people still attack it. As you well know, evolution has not triumphed in the arena of religion. Why lie? Lie? It has absolutely pulled people away from religion, and taught them to advance beyond the fairy tales. All people? No, of course not, that will probably never happen, but MANY people. No need to sling around the term liar so easily. If you find my point to be a weak one, that's fine. I'll either defend, retract, or clarify it. However, to call me a liar means you've got skin in the game, and apparently I've rubbed you the wrong way. Hopefully, my comments above to DH address your criticisms as well.
Phi for All Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I myself urge you to lock this thread. Especially before Phi comes back and again deletes important content.Since I am involved in this thread, I have no Moderator status in it. This accusation of impropriety on my part has been reported and I have requested that an Administrator check the logs to see if anything has been deleted by me. Pmb, if you can bring yourself to respond to this post, I urge you to point out where you think I have deleted anything. My integrity as a staff member has been questioned and I take that very seriously. Frankly, I am baffled by your hostility. Is this typical of your reactions at that other forum you mentioned?
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 What then would you call someone who accepts the theory of evolution? A rational, thinking human being? That is absolutely ridiculous. Many religious people are also rational, thinking human beings, and conversely some evolutionists are not particularly rational or thoughtful. Mokele made a comment which relates specifically to those who accept the theory of evolution. There is no implication that those who do not accept that theory cannot be rational, thinking human beings. I myself urge you to lock this thread. Especially before Phi comes back and again deletes important content. Since I am involved in this thread, I have no Moderator status in it. This accusation of impropriety on my part has been reported and I have requested that an Administrator check the logs to see if anything has been deleted by me. Phi for All has deleted no content from this thread. Pmb may be confused by the effects of the consecutive post merger, since the logs do show that he removed a CPM marker from one of his merged posts. Frankly, I am baffled by your hostility. Is this typical of your reactions at that other forum you mentioned? You're not the only one.
D H Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Mokele made a comment which relates specifically to those who accept the theory of evolution. There is no implication that those who do not accept that theory cannot be rational, thinking human beings. There most certainly is. The statement is an enthymeme.
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I would consider that an inference rather than an implication, given that Mokele's comment was couched as a question. iNow's similar comment in the post immediately before seems to be several degrees more in enthymeme territory, with the quotation marks and mischievous winking smiley.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Mokele made a comment which relates specifically to those who accept the theory of evolution. There is no implication that those who do not accept that theory cannot be rational, thinking human beings. Saying that "rational, thinking human" is a label which includes everyone who believes in evolution and excludes everyone who does not is a necessary condition for him to consider it a replacement for the label "evolutionist". For examples of thinking, rational human beings who do not believe in evolution, take (almost) any great thinker from before the time of Darwin. For examples of people who believe evolution but are not thinking nor rational, ask around at an insane asylum for someone who believes evolution. Again I ask, how can a rational person take anything this sort of people say about evolution at face value?
iNow Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 So, erm... yeah. Most prefer not to use the term "evolutionist," as it carries the poo stinky laid upon it by creationists. People get so fired up about it since they've encountered so many creationists who try to equivocate a "belief" due to evidence with their "belief" in the absence of evidence. I learned to stop using the word belief in these discussions, I would never use the term "evolutionist" to describe myself or anyone else who accepts evolution, and I think I'm in good company since so many evolutionary scientists even reject its use. Sorry, guys. I was trying to bring us back on topic, as philosophy tends to bore the hell out of me unless it's of the existential variety.
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Saying that "rational, thinking human" is a label which includes everyone who believes in evolution and excludes everyone who does not is a necessary condition for him to consider it a replacement for the label "evolutionist". Take a step back for a second and ask yourself some simple questions: 1) Do you really think that Mokele believes only rational people subscribe to the notion of evolution? 2) Do you really think that Mokele believes all rational people subscribe to the notion of evolution? 3) Do you really think that Mokele believes that failure to subscribe to the notion of evolution requires a person to not be rational?
The Bear's Key Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) That is absolutely ridiculous. Many religious people are also rational, thinking human beings, and conversely some evolutionists are not particularly rational or thoughtful. And many religious people are also rational, thinking human beings, whose calculating logic helps them to rearrange and detail their lives in an orderly manner with the least chance of angering God -- even if this will often make them irrational, unthinking human beings (especially around things in life considered blasphemy). Yet I have met "creationists" who are very logical and desire to know more about evolution, or how legitimate it is. And I don't think it makes anyone incapable of logic if they believe in creation. Plus, doesn't the "creationist" term also have the same negative connotation as "evolutionist"? I'm somewhat middle of the road. I believe in God, yet stay clear of religions. I believe in my country's principles, but stay clear of nationalism. Those concepts are easy to twist by ill-meaning leaders. We've all heard that evil triumphs when good people do nothing. Yet its best chance of triumphing would be to overtake something good by representing and twisting it for power. Two birds with one stone, the best of two worlds: vanquish good by corrupting its meaning, and spread evil by that very process. And if you can't see that parts of religious establishment have done this, you're missing why people are upset at religion. But for any of us here who might vehemently loathe religion, I'd like to say be careful. People do become what they hate often enough, yet in reality they're not changing, but going from one extreme to the other. In other words, they're still extremists whatever side of the coin you look at. Too many people I know who before 9/11 hated the system, religion, or politics, afterwards went obsessively evangelical or pro-Bush and war. It's not the system, or religion, or political group you want to fight, but the criminals twisting it for personal benefits and claiming a high moral ground. If religion has a beef against evolution, it's because of those guys -- who are easier to spot because they are the ones feeding the propaganda into the network of society. It's in these guys' interest for you to believe all religion is against you, or all of a political group is against you, etc. You're more bound to give up at the strategically exaggerated size of the fight ahead of you. and conversely some evolutionists are not particularly rational or thoughtful. Very accurate. Even a so-called professional might be really childish and impulsive. Religious =/= creationist. Religious people can be rational (to a point), but creationists cannot be. Their entire belief system is dependent upon willful ignorance. Not always true. I know a person who heavily believes Creation but loves knowledge and is intrigued by science education. It's difficult for her to accept evolution only because she doesn't understand it well. However, she does have an open mind about the subject. Of course, it helps she doesn't always trust the church's views or religious politics. But she'll listen to the dogma and pick out good bits. Now that's open minded. I'd like to point out that faith is necessary in order to function in our society. There are a few things that everyone has faith in, including that the sun will come up tomorrow and that they will not fly off the earth or fall through the ground when they step out of the door. I agree. Just because everyone's mindset on faith is connected solely to religion, doesn't make it so. For instance, we have faith that infinity goes on forever. Sure, intuitively it makes sense. But you can't reliably test for it. Also, we can't verify all experiments and facts we've come across, so we trust certain sources more than others. Which is also faith. Edited January 22, 2009 by The Bear's Key context
Recommended Posts