Questions for an Evolutionist

[Ophiolite]

Whenever you're ranting at someone, you're bound to make a mistake that's much worse than what you're ranting about.

I've made this my aim in life, mainly because it's so easy to hit targets.

[Moontanman]

Excuse the forthcoming bad language (or not - on this issue I really don't care) I am frigging well tired of the ignorance of individuals who should know better. Evolutionist is a perfectly respectable term to apply to those of us who believe in evolution. The fact that you are unaware of this indicates that you are prone to the same emotional knee-jerk reactions we rightly accuse many fundamentalists of. In support of my view I need go no further than to note the title of Ernst Mayr's book, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology - Observations of an Evolutionist . If one of the founding fathers of the Modern Synthesis feels it is acceptable, even honourable to be called an evolutionist then it is fine with me. It ought to be fine with you also.

 

I disagree, words have meaning and the meaning is all about context, in the context of creationism the term evolutionist is demeaning, it is an assertion that evolution is a religion, a belief system that relies on faith. Taken out of context evolutionist is just a word, it could, in the right context be used to describe someone who thinks that the evidence for biological diversity is best explained by the theory of evolution.

 

Creationists use the term Evolutionism to describe all of science from the big bang to stellar processes that create stars and galaxies, the synthesis of heavy atoms, to the origin of life to the complex life we see around us today. Evolutionism, a faith based belief system that has no evidence to back it up what so ever, they describe people who hold this belief to be evolutionists, in this context it is an insult.

 

If someone I know well calls me Indian I understand it can be a term of endearment, and while not entirely accurate it can also just be a descriptive term, only someone who knows me well could possibly know why it can be used on me and the word is not demeaning. But if some one uses it as an insult the word becomes an insult, in the context of racism Indian can be an insult.

 

In the context of the OP evolutionist is indeed an insult....

Edited January 27, 2012 by Moontanman

[Tres Juicy]

In the context of the OP evolutionist is indeed an insult....

 

I would have to agree here. Although that's not the fault of the poster. It is the fault of whoever wrote the questions.

 

The questions seem to have been written with an agenda in mind...

 

These in particular:

 

How old do you think the earth is and why?

 

Do you believe in life on other planets, aliens, and UFOs?

 

Is evolution still happening, and if so, what do you think will be the end result?

 

Do you believe in life after death? Explain.

 

How do your beliefs in origins and evolution affect your sense of purpose for your own life?

 

 

 

I can imagine that the answers to these will likely be used as ammunition to ridicule people with differing views and science in general

Edited January 27, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[Moontanman]

Creationist also commonly assert that Darwin is the Prophet of Evolutionism and that we Evolutionists worship him the same way they claim to worship Jesus... Sometimes they also call us Darwinists... Talk about projection.... it's all used to paint the theory of evolution in a bad light because they just can't believe a dog can give birth to cats or that an ape gave birth to a human which is what they assert Evolutionists claim...

Edited January 27, 2012 by Moontanman

[Arete]

Creationist also commonly assert that Darwin is the Prophet of Evolutionism and that we Evolutionists worship him the same way they claim to worship Jesus...

 

Use of the word Darwinist is a litmus test to detect those who haven't actually read anything written by Darwin.

 

I study evolution, but would define my profession as an evolutionary biologist, rather than an evolutionist. In same sense I haven't heard physicists call themselves thermodyamicists, chemists call themselves covalenticisits or geologists call themselves extrusionists, etc. Why the exception for one particular theory?

Edited January 27, 2012 by Arete

[iNow]

I disagree, words have meaning and the meaning is all about context, in the context of creationism the term evolutionist is demeaning, it is an assertion that evolution is a religion, a belief system that relies on faith. <...> Creationists use the term Evolutionism to describe <...> a faith based belief system that has no evidence to back it up what so ever, they describe people who hold this belief to be evolutionists, in this context it is an insult.

I would have to agree here. <...> The questions seem to have been written with an agenda in mind. <...> I can imagine that the answers to these will likely be used as ammunition to ridicule people with differing views and science in general

Creationist also commonly assert that Darwin is the Prophet of Evolutionism and that we Evolutionists worship him the same way they claim to worship Jesus... Sometimes they also call us Darwinists... Talk about projection.... it's all used to paint the theory of evolution in a bad light because they just can't believe a dog can give birth to cats or that an ape gave birth to a human which is what they assert Evolutionists claim...

Quite right. Go straight to the source to find out for yourself:

 

http://creationwiki.org/Evolutionism

[imatfaal]

Whilst I agree there was an agenda - some of the counterblast has been strong.

 

For instance I googled "Prophet of Evolutionism" (in inverted commas) and got 73 results - dropping to 24 when the duplicates were weeded out. Of the first two pages/20 results - 5 were from opponents of creationism. I don't see this as a common assertion.

 

There is a very dangerous movement to the right and to reactionary religious views (from an already extreme position in some cases) and I applaud and understand the passion of those who set themselves against it. Myself I do not think that the best way to counter that is through the same form of argument - they use perversion and distortions of the truth that are truly shameful, the rationalist response must surely constrain itself and stick strongly to the facts and to logic.

 

edit - to clarify; I didn't mean to imply that any of the posters here were using "perversions and distortions of the truth" - just that sometimes the response was a little too robust

Edited January 27, 2012 by imatfaal

[Phi for All]

There is a very dangerous movement to the right and to reactionary religious views (from an already extreme position in some cases) and I applaud and understand the passion of those who set themselves against it.

Adding a foundation of religion to any argument increases it's longevity exponentially. Aggression in the name of religion guarantees a more earnest pledge to continue fighting no matter the cost. Since this in itself is extremely destructive, ill-considered and ultimately futile, there must be someone who gains from prolonged armed aggression fueled by religious fervor. Find those people or groups and you will probably find them helping to make the problem last as long as they can.

[StringJunky]

There's nowt wrong with being called an Evolutionist...it's just a label like "String Theorist" to denote the viewpoint that a person holds...it's a differentiating convenience. Nothing to get ones knickers in twist about.

[Moontanman]

Whilst I agree there was an agenda - some of the counterblast has been strong.

 

For instance I googled "Prophet of Evolutionism" (in inverted commas) and got 73 results - dropping to 24 when the duplicates were weeded out. Of the first two pages/20 results - 5 were from opponents of creationism. I don't see this as a common assertion.

 

There is a very dangerous movement to the right and to reactionary religious views (from an already extreme position in some cases) and I applaud and understand the passion of those who set themselves against it. Myself I do not think that the best way to counter that is through the same form of argument - they use perversion and distortions of the truth that are truly shameful, the rationalist response must surely constrain itself and stick strongly to the facts and to logic.

 

edit - to clarify; I didn't mean to imply that any of the posters here were using "perversions and distortions of the truth" - just that sometimes the response was a little too robust

 

 

I can see what you are saying and i readily admit to a pretty extreme bias but in my defense i do live in the middle of the bible belt, i see this stuff every day. i am bombarded everywhere I go by people who when meeting you the first thing they want to know i where you go to church and if you don't they you are fair game to them, you need to hear the great news....

[DrRocket]

In the context of the OP evolutionist is indeed an insult....

 

Consider the source and the insult disappears.

 

Rather like engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[Moontanman]

I have to say that i have heard the term Darwinists being used to describe anyone who believes in evolution quite a bit of late and not by just opponents of creationism, professional creationists like Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and their ilk use the term regularly. But to be honest, being dishonest and misleading and misrepresenting science is how these guys make their living...

[Moontanman]

Darwinism and a few others explained

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/11/2TkY7HrJOhc

[iNow]

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/11/2TkY7HrJOhc

 

From the video:

 

 

http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/12thFFoC.html

 

Science is a search for truth –whatever the truth may turn out to be, even if it’s evidently not what we wanted to believe it was. In science, it doesn’t matter what you believe; all that matters is why you believe it. This is why real science disallows faith, promising instead to remain objective, to follow wherever the evidence leads, and either correct or reject any and all errors along the way even if it challenges whatever we think we know now. But creationist organizations post written declarations of their unwavering obligation to uphold and defend their preconceived notions, declaring in advance their refusal to ever to let their minds be changed by any amount of evidence that is ever revealed. Anti-science evangelists display their statement of faith proudly on their own forums, as if admitting to a closed and dishonest mind wasn’t something to ashamed of or beg forgiveness for.

 

They don’t want to do science. They want to un-do science! They try to segregate experimental science from historical science, ignoring the fact that both are based on empirical observations and both can be checked with testable hypotheses. Worse, they want to redefine science in general so that astrology, subjective convictions of faith, and excuses of magic can supplant the scientific method whenever necessary in defense of their beliefs. They’re only open to critical inquiry so long as that is not permitted to challenge the sacred scriptures nor vindicate any of the fields of study to which they’re already opposed. In short, everything science stands for, -or hopes to achieve- is threatened by the political agenda of these superstitious subversives.

 

You can believe whatever you like. As long as you admit that it is a belief, you don’t have to defend it. But if you assert your belief as a statement of fact, then you do have to defend it! Stating anything as definitely true when there is insufficient evidence to back it –is dishonest. Making such positive proclamations without any evidence at all is a matter of faith. And promising in advance to forever defend an unsupportable a-priori preference even against an avalanche of evidence against it -is apologetics, which is all creation “science” really is.

[Moontanman]

Consider the source and the insult disappears.

 

Rather like engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

 

 

I understand that but I honestly think these two threads were really more of a troll than a real request for home work help. The questions were loaded, and reveled the OP's, or the person who put them up to it, personal biases. The only reason i answered i and i think many others as well, was the off chance that the two people might actually take a step back and look at what they are being taught. These Christian schools turn out people with degrees that are about as real as "I have a PHD in Truthology from Christian tech" it's sad, any person with an iota of a realistic world view or self respect or even respect for others would refuse to even admit to such a silly degree.

 

One of these "christian colleges" (this is not an isolated case, there are many of these christian diploma mills) is really a small building in the middle of nowhere where preachers and pastors send off for their PHD's which are based on what they believe about the Bible not any real knowledge. Then they use these fake PHD's to exploit the gullible and less than knowledgeable people for their own gain. It gets next to me, knowledge is often hard won, it takes real effort, the people who actually work to obtain this knowledge deserve respect for that fact alone. It's difficult to not be insulted by the shenanigans of these people, possibly that is a character flaw on my part...