Evolutionist?

[imatfaal]

Is "evolutionist" a common term in the USA? I find it a worrying piece of newspeak (or perhaps resurgence of a victorian epithet). Ten years ago (when I was a callow youth and more importantly without physical and ethereal (via the ether?) experience of the USA) I would have assumed that it meant something weird - a linguistic formation akin to the fact that a scientologist has nothing to do with science. Now I realise that perhaps it is a necessary word to describe that portion (minority?) of the USA that understand evolution and its scientific basis (and thus must acknowledge that it is almost certainly the best way to describe the change in species over time).

 

If I was paranoid, I might think, in an step to constrain the discourse (in a Foucauldian sense), that the word "evolutionist" was an attempt to take and hold the middle ground - if those who understand and acknowledge evolution are painted as the exception (in need of a special term) then normality (people without the need for a qualifier) becomes its opposite which I presume is what used to be called creationist.

 

The use of the word also calls to mind a depiction of an evolutionist as one who has made a conscious life-choice to 'believe' in evolution - but that is only rarely the case, for most rationalists any choice is forestalled by knowledge and acceptance of the scientific reason.

 

nb I have asked this question because of a post in the homework section that used the term Questions for an Evolutionist

[CaptainPanic]

It's a little weird to even compare science to religion to me. The two are fundametally different, so I just don't know where to start. And I think it's better not to start at all.

 

At the very deepest core, we're comparing miracles to logic. Seems a bit pointless to me.

 

The word evolutionist suggests that we can compare evolution to creationism... which is absurd.

[swansont]

If I was paranoid, I might think, in an step to constrain the discourse (in a Foucauldian sense), that the word "evolutionist" was an attempt to take and hold the middle ground - if those who understand and acknowledge evolution are painted as the exception (in need of a special term) then normality (people without the need for a qualifier) becomes its opposite which I presume is what used to be called creationist.

 

The use of the word also calls to mind a depiction of an evolutionist as one who has made a conscious life-choice to 'believe' in evolution - but that is only rarely the case, for most rationalists any choice is forestalled by knowledge and acceptance of the scientific reason.

 

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. The term has been around for a while, and its use suggest that it was a conscious ploy. I used to hang out on talk.origins in the early days if USENET, and the term was used then, presumably to try and put the two camps on the equal ground of being belief systems. It even spawned "evilutionist" (and "cretinist" as a response).

[imatfaal]

It's a little weird to even compare science to religion to me. The two are fundametally different, so I just don't know where to start. And I think it's better not to start at all.

At the very deepest core, we're comparing miracles to logic. Seems a bit pointless to me.

The word evolutionist suggests that we can compare evolution to creationism... which is absurd.

The very fact of equating the two via similarity of terms might be absurd - but it is a very useful ideological tool. To paint evolution as a belief system is dangerous and insidious but very effective.

 

There is also the inescapability of the the reasoning; I find it hard to credit that any rationalist who understands and attests to the power of the scientific method can have any doubt about the credibility of evolution. The converse is not true - belief in god, or more narrowly in the christian god does not lead inexorably to subscription to the ideas of creationism; there are notable examples of non-creationist christians on this forum. Creationist v Scientist is a battle that has perhaps morphed into Religious v Evolutionist - and that change of terms is highly emotive, dangerous, and completely incorrect.

 

 

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. The term has been around for a while, and its use suggest that it was a conscious ploy. I used to hang out on talk.origins in the early days if USENET, and the term was used then, presumably to try and put the two camps on the equal ground of being belief systems. It even spawned "evilutionist" (and "cretinist" as a response).

I feared that was the case.

[CaptainPanic]

The very fact of equating the two via similarity of terms might be absurd - but it is a very useful ideological tool.

I totally disagree that it's useful, because it will not give a result. Ever. As I already said: at the very deepest core, we're comparing miracles to logic. Maybe I should say it's like comparing miracles to reason.

 

If you do not agree on these very basics, you cannot have any arguments. And without arguments, you might as well have a contest who can shout the loudest... which is exactly what every debate between religious hardliners and scientists is: a contest to shout the loudest.

 

Discussing evolution with someone who really believes in creationism is like discussing statistics or differential equations with someone who does not believe that 1+1 equals 2. You first need to agree on the basics before you can discuss the higher levels, or you're wasting your time.

 

People choose to bicker over some derivatives of the fundamental difference between miracles and reason, like evolution vs. creationism, or whether the world is flat or round, or whether it's 6,000 years or 5 billion years old, etc., etc... And if the discussion about the basics is not already pointless (because both sides will never give up), then surely discussing these derivatives without going back to the basics is.

[imatfaal]

I totally disagree that it's useful, because it will not give a result. Ever. As I already said: at the very deepest core, we're comparing miracles to logic. Maybe I should say it's like comparing miracles to reason.

 

If you do not agree on these very basics, you cannot have any arguments. And without arguments, you might as well have a contest who can shout the loudest... which is exactly what every debate between religious hardliners and scientists is: a contest to shout the loudest.

 

Discussing evolution with someone who really believes in creationism is like discussing statistics or differential equations with someone who does not believe that 1+1 equals 2. You first need to agree on the basics before you can discuss the higher levels, or you're wasting your time.

 

People choose to bicker over some derivatives of the fundamental difference between miracles and reason, like evolution vs. creationism, or whether the world is flat or round, or whether it's 6,000 years or 5 billion years old, etc., etc... And if the discussion about the basics is not already pointless (because both sides will never give up), then surely discussing these derivatives without going back to the basics is.

 

You don't seem to see what I am getting at - the statement "that you cannot have arguments" is shown by current American culture to be clearly false; I agree completely with you cannot have entirely sensible and logical debates over incommensurable areas - but since when has that mattered in politics and ideology? And these arguments are important, your situation in the Netherlands and mine in the UK will be affected by the next and future presidents of the United States; and it seems that matters of religious conformity are very important to a majority of voters and crucial to a majority of republicans. Whether it is merely a contest to shout the loudest or not, it is not a matter of academic curiosity but one that which will/does touch on all our lives.

 

The point of an ideological campaign is not to persuade through facts, logic and reason, nor to have an honest debate; it is to cause people to accept societal structures unquestioningly. My point was that the "battle for hearts and minds" is at a more advanced stage than I had previously realised and that I was worried by the nature of the discourse.

[CaptainPanic]

You don't seem to see what I am getting at - the statement "that you cannot have arguments" is shown by current American culture to be clearly false; I agree completely with you cannot have entirely sensible and logical debates over incommensurable areas - but since when has that mattered in politics and ideology? And these arguments are important, your situation in the Netherlands and mine in the UK will be affected by the next and future presidents of the United States; and it seems that matters of religious conformity are very important to a majority of voters and crucial to a majority of republicans. Whether it is merely a contest to shout the loudest or not, it is not a matter of academic curiosity but one that which will/does touch on all our lives.

 

The point of an ideological campaign is not to persuade through facts, logic and reason, nor to have an honest debate; it is to cause people to accept societal structures unquestioningly. My point was that the "battle for hearts and minds" is at a more advanced stage than I had previously realised and that I was worried by the nature of the discourse.

An "argument" in popular language is often used as a euphemism for a fight. If you meant that Americans are having a verbal fight, they you are right. If you meant that they are having a philosophical discussion, then I disagree.

 

In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion. The general structure of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion. Many arguments can also be formulated in a formal language. An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations. (source: wikipedia)

 

The problem is that people disagree on the premises, but only discuss the conclusion.

 

 

(Changing the topic below)

So, I maintain that any discussion between religious hardliners and scientists does not use philosophy or logic to arrive at any conclusion. Instead, it's just an ordinary fight. However, if we're talking about winning the elections, it makes a LOT of sense to simply shout the loudest. History has proven time and again that leaders are not necessarily people who make any sense. Many voters do not use their brains, but instead some other bodyparts to make a decision and cast a vote. Elections are like an advertisement: a lot of emotions, very few facts, and practically no reasoning. The modern politics have nothing to do with reason, and are fundamentally more like religion than science, which is why it is so important to keep the official religions separate from the state: to allow at least a little science into our parliaments.

 

I apologise for not understanding that this thread was about the US presidential elections and politics. I thought we were discussing the term "evolutionist" and responding to it from a scientific perspective. Maybe we should move it to politics?

[Moontanman]

The term evolutionist is a term coined by Creationists to make people who ascribe to the theory of evolution seem to be worshiping science instead of god. The Creationist camp declares quite enthusiastically that evolutionism is the religion of atheists or scientists which is generally the same thing in their tiny minds... Sometimes they use the term Darwinists in the same way, they cannot conceive of someone not having a religious belief so they hang those terms on anyone who thinks that evolution is a realistic way to explain biological diversity over deep time. Of course they have picked up a few names of their own, creatards is my favorite...

[imatfaal]

An "argument" in popular language is often used as a euphemism for a fight. If you meant that Americans are having a verbal fight, they you are right. If you meant that they are having a philosophical discussion, then I disagree.

no I meant and said they are having an argument - I even qualified it. to define an argument as always requiring logic is unduly narrow and ignores the normal usage.

 

.../ So, I maintain that any discussion between religious hardliners and scientists does not use philosophy or logic to arrive at any conclusion.

where has anyone said any different in this thread?

 

Instead, it's just an ordinary fight. However, if we're talking about winning the elections, it makes a LOT of sense to simply shout the loudest. History has proven time and again that leaders are not necessarily people who make any sense. Many voters do not use their brains, but instead some other bodyparts to make a decision and cast a vote. Elections are like an advertisement: a lot of emotions, very few facts, and practically no reasoning. The modern politics have nothing to do with reason, and are fundamentally more like religion than science, which is why it is so important to keep the official religions separate from the state: to allow at least a little science into our parliaments.

And the whole point of my original question was to ask about (what was to me) a fairly new turn in this situation.

 

 

I apologise for not understanding that this thread was about the US presidential elections and politics. I thought we were discussing the term "evolutionist" and responding to it from a scientific perspective. Maybe we should move it to politics?

It is very difficult to tell the two apart sometimes. You called the whole thing bickering and implied it was not important - I simply raised an example that, I believe showed it to be very important.

[Moontanman]

no I meant and said they are having an argument - I even qualified it. to define an argument as always requiring logic is unduly narrow and ignores the normal usage.

 

where has anyone said any different in this thread?

 

And the whole point of my original question was to ask about (what was to me) a fairly new turn in this situation.

 

 

It is very difficult to tell the two apart sometimes. You called the whole thing bickering and implied it was not important - I simply raised an example that, I believe showed it to be very important.

 

 

In the USA religion and politics are inextricably intertwined, no conservative could be elected to higher office who thought that evolution is the best answer to the biodiversity we see around us. In fact everyone of the current republican candidates are creationist, or at least claim to be. It's very sad that you have to lie or believe a lie to be in political office... but i guess it's always been that way to some extent...

Edited January 25, 2012 by Moontanman

[imatfaal]

In the USA religion and politics are inextricably intertwined, no conservative could be elected to higher office who thought that evolution is the best answer to the biodiversity we see around us. In fact everyone of the current republican candidates are creationist, or at least claim to be. It's very sad that you have to lie or believe a lie to be in political office... but i guess it's always been that way to some extent...

 

You were mentioned your birthday and age a few days ago so I know you should be well able to remember (although the margheritas might not have helped) the primary campaigns of successful republican candidates in the past - an honest question; were they quite as cut throat and polarizing as this one seems to be? It appears from the other side of the atlantic to be a headlong race to the most reactionary position available in economic and religious terms.

[Moontanman]

You were mentioned your birthday and age a few days ago so I know you should be well able to remember (although the margheritas might not have helped) the primary campaigns of successful republican candidates in the past - an honest question; were they quite as cut throat and polarizing as this one seems to be? It appears from the other side of the atlantic to be a headlong race to the most reactionary position available in economic and religious terms.

 

 

This race to be as extreme as possible seems to have started around the time that the religious right embraced the conservative right, (at best an unholy alliance) at least in my mind it did, i do remember being in public school and being made to stand in a corner because I refused accept Noah's Ark as real. Liberals have stopped the teaching of religion in public schools to a great extent and i think that sort of thing might have pushed the fundamentalist theists into the republican camp. I'm not really sure because I was relatively naive when it came to politics until my mid to late 20's.

 

Fundamentalist theists have the agenda of having their beliefs taught as science or truth but it is only the christian fundamentalists take that is being asserted, no other creation myths are allowed only theirs... Many of them think their religious myths are absolute truth and the myths of other religions are of course false and demonic... More moderate theists are marginalized due to propaganda that counts them as being at best mislead and at worst they are lost souls deceived by the devil and no one wants that label, most moderate theists seem to think that as long as it's Christianity that is being asserted it's ok with them...I remember religion being a very big deal for Reagan's election campaign but it might have been an issue before that era...

[imatfaal]

Thanks Moontanman. I might try and get a bit of news archive reading in - I remember the last two democratic primaries resulting in Kerry and Obama, but the previous Republican didnt make an impression. This is the first set of important republican ones that have really made an impact in the UK .