"Evolutionists"

i've noticed that this thread is thrown around quite often, as if those that believe in evolutionary theory have some sort of belief system independent of all others

i'd just like to say that this isn't the case. you get christians, jews, muslims, atheists, buddhists, hindus, taoists, shintoists, pagans, etc etc etc that all believe in evolution.

it's not some secret atheist cabal of people trying to force atheism down your throats.

Where does this perception that "those that believe in evolutionary theory have some sort of belief system independent of all others" come from, where do you see it being circulated and why might that be?

Could you, for reference, provide examples of the 'christians, jews, muslims, atheists, buddhists, hindus, taoists, shintoists, pagans, etc etc etc that all believe in evolution'?

Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy here, possibly to propagate this notion in order to isolate creationists in reaction to a possible 'organized conspiracy to influence science education through the introduction of creationism and other non-scientific origin concepts'?

Or is this just a few thoughts you have on the subject? (Remember BTS Faith, Spirituality & Theology )

Jak

Compact Oxford English Dictionary - Evolutionist: (noun) a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.

All those folks you listed would be accurately described as "evolutionists."





Cool. At least, those guys are anything but secret about it [using evolution to advance atheism.] Ya know, those, 'evolution allows an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled' atheists. "Most probably" anyway. I'm sure you know the type.


Conspiracy? Nope. Wrong forum? Most probably. I'd suggest the Rant forum. [/psuedoMod]



[edit on 15-3-2008 by Rren]

It would really advance your cause to find an atheist who didnt believe in evolution.

"Impossible" you might say, but im sure there is at least one atheist out there who may believe in the steady state theory rather than evolution.

Just for the record, i think evolution is a good base theory but there is more at work here! Check out the recent advances in epigenetics which may confirm LaMarckian theories in the short term time scale.

Evolution must not be a firmly held dogmatic view of life's origins. If evolutionists become blind to any possibilities then they are no better than the medieval churches who refused to believe that the earth rotated around the sun.

reply to post by Rren

---

i never said it wasn't a word, but i was objecting to how it is being tossed around as if it meant some sort of people with a unified belief system...

and the word itself is kind of stupid... i mean...do we have a special term for those that acknowledge the theory of gravitation?

reply to post by JAK

---

it's just how i've seen it tossed around...
as if believing in religion and evolution are two mutually exclusive things

i could produce examples, if you'd wish.



my case is advanced enough by finding those of religious persuasions that believe in evolution

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

I'm actually glad you made this thread, MIMS. Someone else brought up the fact they weren't fond of the word. May I ask why? You have already admitted it is a real word and is defined as one who believes in evolution.

I don't see the problem with the word in itself. Maybe with the word evolutionism which is pretty ridiculous but not evolutionist.

And you are correct: the label is not exclusive to atheists as there are theistic evolutionists as well. But I must say, many do associate the term evolutionist with atheist automatically. On my thread on the subject, many atheists kept brining their atheistic beliefs into the thread, implying it was exclusive, despite the many members who kept pointing out the fact there are many theistic evolutionists as well.

So, on that point I will agree. However, many atheists for some reason imply they have a monopoly on the science. This becomes evident seeing some of their comments when they say things like they disdain religion but love science, as if the two cannot go hand in hand.

Glad you are more enlightened, though.

The word describes people whom have a unified belief in the Theory of Evolution.





No, not that I'm aware of. But "evolutionist" is an accepted term. Certainly the word is accepted by many scholars and scientists. No?






Well, simply point them to the definition I supplied you with. I'm hardly seeing the point here. Certainly not seeing the conspiratorial angle. Help me out; your opening post was lacking in any sort of argumentation or documentation wrt the point you're trying to make.






So, if I were to provide examples of atheist evolutionists using the ToE to support atheism could I then argue: There's an atheist cabal of people trying to force atheism down our throats? Perhaps next time you decide to start a thread you should take some more time to develop your argument and provide some examples and sources for others to review. Perhaps even - as the rules of this forum state - you could make the conspiracy explicit. The fact that you can be a theist/deist/Buddhist - but not a Creationist - and also accept evolutionary theory is a truism. That's why you'll find "evolutionist" and "creationist" in any dictionary you care to look at.

At the very least couldn't this comment have been added to a thread where you saw this behaviour [of mis-using terminology] taking place? Why do you believe the three sentences (without sources or argument) you provided deserved its own thread in this forum?

I'd be happy to contribute more than just my pseudo-modship if I knew what you were trying to accomplish here besides the obvious, 'hey, you don't have to be an atheist to be an evolutionist, but you can't also be a Creationist.'

Regards.


(edit)I just realized that Jak, who already posted here, is a supermod and saw it fit to leave the thread in O&C. I'm no expert on the rules wrt to forum etiquette so I'll stop de-railing your thread with talk of improper start new thread button usage, MIMS.

Sorry, go get 'em, have fun. Don't mind me.

[edit on 15-3-2008 by Rren]

reply to post by JAK

---

It worries me that you may be suggesting that this thread shouldn't be here based purely on the notion it's not conspiracy-centric. If that was the case, then over half of the threads in this forum should be closed and/or removed.

I agree.. threatening to move this thread and not others to bts seems biased.. especially given many threads start with the term 'evolutionist'. Discussing the term seems very logical to me.

The term 'evolutionist' is often used to denograte people who accept evolution and was popularised by creationist groups. It is NOT a religion but people keep trying to say evolution and atheism are part of the same belief system; trying to force us under one 'banner' so they have a common enemy.. this despite the fact that there are many christians that have no problem with accepting ToE. Creationists do not speak for all christians.

There is no evolution/atheist belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory and atheism is merely disbelief in god/s. The term 'evolutionist' used to refer to people who studied evolution theory [scientists]. Now it's just a buzz word used in pro-creationist propoganda.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by riley]

1 belief isn't a belief system. and even within evolutionary theory there are different schools of thought. for example, the selfish gene theory of dawkins isn't universally accepted and there are many competing theories to describe the same phenomenon.

it simply describes the acknowledgment of a single branch of biology...






yes, but it kind of alludes to (as ash brought up) the idea of "evolutionism"
which is a wholeheartedly ridiculous notion





sadly, with some people it's not quite that simple...



the conspiratorial angle is that people such as hovind and ham through the term "evolutionist" around as if it were a term to describe some sort of people that have a religion like system of belief in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of those that actually pay attention to them



well, documentation i can supply if you want, the lack of argument was just because i started this thread when i didn't have much time but didn't want to forget the idea.





...um...no
i just said that religion and evolution aren't mutually exclusive, so providing a few people that are both religious and supporters of evolutionary theory is more than enough to prove my point...
or i could just point to the catholic church, which has several hundred million people that are both religious and supporters of darwin's theory...

the point of an atheist cabal trying to force evolution down your throats would involve quite a bit more than that..



i didn't want to forget the thread idea so i wrote it haphazardly...



i'd have to say that 90% of the threads in this area don't...



but creationist does refer to a purely religious belief, as it is in no way supportable through any sort of modern science
even behe himself said that you'd have to accept astrology as science to accept ID



..i have.
i made the thread because such comments go unheeded.



seriously, what's with you?
why the unnecessary confrontational attitude?



...creationism is an inherently religious belief.
there is something conspiratorial in the fact that the propagators of creationism keep using this term to fleece their flock


edit to provide example:

This thread

....and it just gets worse from there

[edit on 3/16/08 by madnessinmysoul]

Agreed. All those folks would be accurately categorized as evolutionists. The word - and its definition - work for everyone from atheists like Dawkins to theists like Conway-Morris. You're arguing (I thought) that it's only used by creationists to imply evolutionist = atheist. It doesn't, and without any examples of what you meant I had nowhere else to go with it. (your example below still doesn't give much to go on, imo, as some folks (most atheists) do ascribe to evolutionism and that may be who the poster was referring to. Either way it's still pretty week imo, but it's a start. Uncontrovercial as it may be.)






I don't like that term either but, it's also in the dictionary and can be applied to some evolutionists. No?






Why not supply us with a link of those two (can't stand 'em either, fwiw) so we could see what you - and them - meant? Would have been more effective I think. I'm still not sure how they're using the term that runs counter to the accepted definition. Surely even those guys are aware of theistic evolutionists.





Fair enough (there's a draft post thing now, btw, I've never used but it may come in handy the next time you're strapped for time.) Anyway, I'm willing to read your sources and argument whenever you find the time to rework your Op.





Well I wasn't making the 'atheist cabal' (that was your terminology) argument just drawing the correlation between it and what I assumed you were doing here with your 'creationist cabal' argument/observation. They seem very similar and equally (un)supportable. I imagine when/if you do make your argument I could use the same method to make the other. For what that would be worth, which isn't much, imho. That was all I was trying to say, but without your explicit claims it would have been pointless.






I don't want to go off topic, but that's not what he said in Dover. It's your thread, so if you'd like to support it/veer off topic for a minute, I'll do the same based on the transcripts - to the best of my ability.






The unintended consequences of not writing well enough to convey my feelings/attitude, I guess. (<-- just look at that mangled sentence.) You've never struck me as particularly sensitive or one who soft steps... me too. If I offended you I apologize and I'll try to tone it down a notch or two. Be interesting to see the politically correct, slow to offend madness. If I can help by toning down my douchebaggery then I'm all for it.






Then I'd agree that the poster was using the term/theory improperly. I'll take some time to read the thread for the context. But, yeah, I'm sure there's plenty of folks out there like that. What would it mean if I found an ATSer using evolution (just as improperly) to advance atheism (fleece his flock as it were)? Seems you only singled out creationists. Would you agree that it goes both ways? If so, what do you think it means when an atheist uses evolution to mock believers?


(I skipped all the comments wrt to thread policy and again apologize for bringing it up, it was very small of me - and certainly not my place/job.)

Regards.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by Rren] -tags

(edit2) I've only read the opening post the question of morals/ethics being directed at evolutionists is legit (althout its falls into the far less scientifically rigourous field of evo-psch not ToE) and wasn't directed towards atheists (unless I missed it). Interestingly you didn't comment there where you saw this but started this thread instead. Anyway I feel the poster had legitimate questions and atleast put some time into making his point in such a way as to allow some meaningful discussion. Although he implied it had to do with ToE (common ancestry/descent with modification) improperly instead of its ugly (subset evo psych) cousin it's not as bad a problem as you made it out to be and the question of morals/ethics in an evolutionary paradigm is interesting and debated by many many evolutionists. You don't have to like it but it's certainly not improper to pose the question to evolutionists. Especially from someone who accepts a creationary paradigm. Who else would he pose the question to if not evolutionists (even theistic ones)?

(edit3)typos

[edit on 16-3-2008 by Rren]

[edit on 16-3-2008 by Rren]

Evolution is a total hoax.

There is no evidence at all, and it serves very specifically the NWO agenda - by making us all into animals, they give themselves the right to do what they want to us, including mass extermination of entire populations, sterilization, abortion, etc. Their mission is to totally devalue the human being as a spiritual being of great import, and make us no different than an animal.

I would advise you to all check into this link:

Andre Leave Darwinian Evolution Believers Speechless

**A MUST READ**

Andre of Outlaw News completely and totally deconstructs the Darwinian RELIGION to the point where these people are left without any response. It is beautiful.

people like you don't even know what evolution is, making claims like "there is no evidence at all". what about pests becoming resistant to pesticides or bacteria becoming resistant to certain medicines?

you sir, do not know what evolution is, ignorant you are.

reply to post by cheeser

---

Yeah, and here is another case of evolution in action with pests and BT crops:
So much for genetic engineering -- evolution has got it beat

Note: I'm not an atheist. Science is knowledge and God gave us an advanced brain so that we may seek it.

So you think simple adaptations are the same thing as one species magically transforming into another?

reply to post by Wilsonfrisk

---

Seeing as one species does slowly adapt into another, yes.

It would help your arguments if you knew what evolution meant before spouting out nonsense like "there's no evidence". You must have evolution and creationism confused, as all the evidence lies on the "evolution" side, and absolutely zero on the "creationism" side.

One day, when you learn what evolution is, you'll look over your posts and laugh. It's funny that the site's tag line is "deny ignorance", yet you're denying every piece of empirical scientific evidence that has been amassed for evolution. That's about as ignorant as they come, but worse - it's willfull ignorance, which is deplorable.

reply to post by dave420

---

I thought we understood we were talking about Darwinian Natural Selection.

But you would rather play word games, hm?

You Darwinian followers seem to love that. Also, you love accusing people who don't follow your religion of belonging to a competing religion.

I don't believe in "creationism" anymore than I believe in "Darwinism". I tend to stay away from all dogmatic faith-based systems of thought.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by Wilsonfrisk]

reply to post by Wilsonfrisk

---

well, as evolution, like any other science, ISN'T faith based, you shouldn't have a problem with it

now, if you're going to proceed with derailing my thread with your ignorance, don't
find another thread that's on the actual topic of evolution, this is just about 1 term.



there is a mountain of evidence for evolution



...we're animals whether or not evolution is true

and evolution in no way leads to any of those things
in fact, all of those things are entirely the opposite of evolution...
they'd be artificial selection



and here is more evidence of the conspiracy...
evolution in no way deal with the spiritual. it doesn't exclude the existence of it in any way, it just shows how life arose.

---

rren, here's a quote or two or however many i end up posting from good ol' doc dino







that enough?
...i'd get stuff from ham, but my head already hurts from the ignorance of hovind

A belief that a theory is fact is a religious belief. Period.

Darwinism is a religion.

Also, the Nazis and the communists based their philosophies on Darwin. This is a fact. Mao's mass extermination program was called "the great leap forward". I would advise you to read Andre's responses on that thread. He really does leave the Darwinian believers without words.