Proposal to change the name of "Evolution"

Except for one poster, who failed to grasp the nature of probability, I have yet to encounter one person on this subforum that understands evolution and doesn't accept it as valid. Meaning every poster who has a dissenting opinion on evolution does not know what evolution is. There is a growing cohort of people who have an uncontrollable necessity to pacify their religious beliefs by making up their own theory of evolution in order to refute it. Therefore, I propose a simple name change. Because of the incorrigibility shown by the uninformed and the uneducated, "evolution", which has become synonymous with all that is evil in many domains of irrational thought, will now be known as "happy changing." Many times a name change is all it takes for reason to displace idealistic nonsense. I think the jovial and uplifting connotation inherent in the phrase "happy changing" will breed a higher acceptance rate of evolutionary theory, and lead more and more ATSers out of the amniotic fluid of their own metaphysical drivel.

The reasoning for my proposal stems from the misguided views of, unfortunately, the forum consensus. From what I can gather, the following statements are the most prevalent and widespread arguments against evolution:

"I don't understand"
"The bible says..."
"But things are so pretty"
"I'm not a monkey"

Arguments for Creationism:

"Evolution sucks"
"GO GOD!!!!"

Now, if logic is any indication of the possession of a human brain, then I would think just gauging the content of the arguments against evolution is sufficient enough to just blindly accept evolution as a greatest assertion of fact that we could possible conceive, and letting the well-versed handle the particulars.

How about we just exterminate any anti-evolutinists anti-darwinists that dares bring there crazy talk?

Sure its harsh .But are those the genes you really want natural selection to mingle with ?


Surley exterminatin such flawed minds who can't grasp this evolution as absoulte deserve not another oxygen atom, and they are just waste of DNA right?


Lets call it "Evolution.Period...." ?

"Evolution or GTFO"

People can believe whatever they like aslong as they don't hurt anyone destroy property or just be negative to society .



"

I highly doubt you've read all of your opponents' arguments against evolution. I'm also pretty sure there is at least one sound-minded debater on the Creationist side (wrong or not) who didn't respond in those childish responses you pretty much made up off the top of your head. There is always 1 person on either side of the argument who is very logical, kind, and sound.

How about not dumbing down the name, persevering in your explanation of evolution in such debates? Dumbing down the term evolution by changing its name only does it a disservice. Educate people if you care.

In fact, you could've made a thread explaining what evolution actually is! That would've been a better use of your time.

reply to post by uva3021





The definition of "evolution" that we find in all the arguments is that which is given by religionists. That is: "Evolution says that life is the result of pure chance and that there is no intelligence behind it". Of course this is not the scientific definition. The scientific definition does not include speech regarding the origins of life. In science "evolution" merely refers to what has been happening since life began".

So there is still an argument 'tween Genesis and science because the religious view is that God created everything in a state of completion whereas science begins with the primordial "soup". The reason science does not talk about either God or creation is because there is no direct evidence of either. Because of this they cannot do more than speculate about earlier events. Religion, on the other hand, does speak about earlier events. My conclusion is that science takes us to a point beyond which faith has to take over. This seems reasonable to me. The only issue remaining, if we accept the preceding, is the Genesis idea of the "order of creation".

God did indeed create the universe. Science does, when abiding strictly to what is observable, reveal to us the details of God's Intelligent Design. Regarding dating of organics, it was God who mandated in His creation that carbon 14 should decay at a particular rate. Science cannot have done that.

Why then is the argument misstated? Because we do not take the trouble to think things through before opening our mouths. After considering all the evidence and regarding the scientific definition of "evolution", not the church version definition, there will remain only one roadblock to agreement. The order of events and other data given us in Genesis. So, at the end of the day, since both science and religion both allow for creation then any remaining arguments should be between churches and beliefs in the veracity of the OT, not between science and religion.

Why doesn't this happen? Because religion has shown throughout the ages that it must be engaged in a struggle for struggle or it will lose it's position as the imperiled word of God. There must always be the contest between Satan and God. Preachers would be at quite a loss figuring how to preach and justify their positions if this argument were reduced logically to just another religions.

Within Christianity, on earth, there are supposed to be in existence more than 34,000 sects. If this fact alone cannot enable us to realize the internal bickering which exists in Christianity then how in the world can be expect to find them all in agreement with this science vs creation thing? The truth is that it is only a very few Christians who are concerned. Look to the "bible believing southern USA brands" and you will find the source of discontent. Know this and they do not represent more than a tiny fraction of all Christians and ignore them, leaving them to their fervor.

I believe that God created then instituted evolution and that the whole of this is called "Intelligent Design". So beautifully simple and workable, except for the OT.

When are we going to grow up in Christianity and stop behaving as children?????

You do realise it's called 'the theory of evolution'?Do you know what a theory is?You have no more proof than a creationist or it would be called 'the FACT of evolution''More I'm right and you're wrong bull.Bigot.

reply to post by trailertrash
That was a fascinating post. I don't agree with many of your assertions of "non-overlapping magisteria", that is, where science has its limits, religion can take over. It appears to me with every passing generation of scientific discoveries, religion is clinging to a more narrow thread of rope. But your notions behind the mass delusions that are fixed in society are very interesting and, for me, merit further exploration. Thanks for the reply

reply to post by glen200376

i never thought about it like that before, you're right

Originally posted by glen200376
You do realise it's called 'the theory of evolution'?Do you know what a theory is?You have no more proof than a creationist or it would be called 'the FACT of evolution''More I'm right and you're wrong bull.Bigot.

Actually it is called the FACT of evolution.. Just becaues you fail to understand even the most basic principles of evolution doesn't make it any less of a fact.

Originally posted by glen200376
You do realise it's called 'the theory of evolution'?Do you know what a theory is?You have no more proof than a creationist or it would be called 'the FACT of evolution''More I'm right and you're wrong bull.Bigot.

He obviously knows what a scientific theory is. Apparently you don't.

For the umpteenth time, from the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Hope that cleared up any misunderstanding about what is meant by the theory of evolution.

reply to post by uva3021


But it's such a good name. And I've done my best to try to stamp out ignorance with regards to issues of probability.

I do get the point you're making, but I think the best thing would be a public relations overhaul rather than a name change. You can rebrand without renaming.

reply to post by glen200376

Originally posted by glen200376
You do realise it's called 'the theory of evolution'?

I realize that there is a 'theory' of evolution, which explains the fact that evolution happens. Theories explain facts. Please, learn some science for the Doctor's sake.

Do you know what a theory is?

Yes, I actually do. The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

You have no more proof than a creationist

This statement is so wrong, that I have to pull up a video to speak for me.

or it would be called 'the FACT of evolution''

Evolution is a fact, we have a theory that attempts to explain this fact. To quote you: "Do you know what a theory is?"

More I'm right and you're wrong bull.

Because we are right and they are wrong and we can demonstrate these simple facts.

Bigot.

What? Seriously, name calling is unwarranted, particularly when it's used incorrectly. What would be bigoted here?

reply to post by DevilJin


We've tried. Repeatedly. I keep a definition of Evolution in my signature, yet people get what evolution is wrong all the time even when responding directly to my posts.

Hell, we have moderators on this forum (not naming any names) who don't know what the hell evolution is.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
my fault MIM, I referenced the wrong post. There was another one about a month ago that tried to use one particular protein as an argument on the basis of incredulity. I saw the thread entitled "Let's talk a little bit about probabilities" and thought that was it.

The problem is the conceptual socially understood definition of evolution verses the scientific differentiation which is much closer to adaptation really. It's been explained to me dozens of times, I get it, I simply disagree.
Evolution is a philosophical concept based on biological theory, which gets supported by sympathetic scientists. This enables the evolutionists to make the claims they do.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The problem is the conceptual socially understood definition of evolution verses the scientific differentiation which is much closer to adaptation really. It's been explained to me dozens of times, I get it, I simply disagree.
Evolution is a philosophical concept based on biological theory, which gets supported by sympathetic scientists. This enables the evolutionists to make the claims they do.

Blue-Jay, I understand you believe you will miss out on eternal life if you stop believing god created life according to the book of Genesis.

You have my sympathies for being obliged, by fear of what you imagine to be god, to deny reality.


You believe in a monster, a creator who rejects all those who didn't believe in a silly story in an old book. We know what is good and what is evil, because we know what is just and good when it comes to dealing with our own children. We know we would be dreadful parents if we demanded our children to believe in us, love us and obey us with no proof of our existence. Those who worship a creator who goes against what we know to be just and good are, at best, cowards, accepting injustice in the hope of being on the "good" side of a fiend for an eternity of comfort.

And at worst ...



Delusion is optional.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Look, Blue_Jay33 is wrong about evolution again.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The problem is the conceptual socially understood definition of evolution verses the scientific differentiation which is much closer to adaptation really.

...no, the scientifically understood definition of evolution is what it is, a change in allele frequency in a gene pool over successive generations. This change in frequency can be brought about due to natural selection which can induce adaptation to environment in various ways, sexual selection which is definitively not adaptation, and genetic drift, which is also not adaptation.

It's been explained to me dozens of times, I get it, I simply disagree.

No, you're simply wrong. And you continue to display an ignorance of this topic even though you claim it's been explained to you. If you think evolution is simply 'adaptation' then you're wrong.

Evolution is a philosophical concept based on biological theory, which gets supported by sympathetic scientists.

How is evolution a philosophical concept based on biological theory? How is it not an observed scientific fact (and I can point you to the observations)?

This enables the evolutionists to make the claims they do.

What is an "evolutionist"? Is it an individual who happens to accept the scientific fact of evolution?

Does this mean I'm also a "general relativityist"? And a "special relativityist"? Am I a "quantumist"? Am I a "circuitist"?

You saying this...

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The problem is the conceptual socially understood definition of evolution verses the scientific differentiation which is much closer to adaptation really.

Means that this...

I get it

... is either a lie or a delusion on your part. If you're trying to say that adaptation is somehow separate from evolution so you don't have to espouse evolution while believing in its mechanisms, you're either being intentionally deceitful or you've told yourself a convenient lie enough times that you've started to believe it. To what end, I don't know. Maybe so you can sleep better at night. But you definitely aren't "getting it".

Evolution is a philosophical concept based on biological theory, which gets supported by sympathetic scientists. This enables the evolutionists to make the claims they do.

I know you don't want to believe that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution carries the same weight as all of the other scientific theories you don't seem to have a problem with, but it is a fact and it does carry the same weight. Any assertion that it doesn't is either a lie that you're telling to other people or a lie that you're telling to yourself.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by glen200376

 

I realize that there is a 'theory' of evolution, which explains the fact that evolution happens. Theories explain facts. Please, learn some science for the Doctor's sake.

This is where you're simply wrong and supremely dishonest [& hypocritical] with it.

If you were to objectively examine the evidence you'd soon reason it's far from complete and wholey inaccurate in places. Huge questions exist which are not readily answerable, yet the ToE remains simply because no other rational explanation is presently obvious to us. Ignoring the holes, you have concluded 'it must be that way', so I put it to you that is a very unscientific approach.

In this light I suggest the term 'evolution', in the context used, should be re-termed, 'lie'... because that best describes it.

Originally posted by chocise
This is where you're simply wrong and supremely dishonest [& hypocritical] with it.

If you were to objectively examine the evidence you'd soon reason it's far from complete and wholey inaccurate in places.

Please, support this by showing us some evidence.

Huge questions exist which are not readily answerable, yet the ToE remains simply because no other rational explanation is presently obvious to us. Ignoring the holes, you have concluded 'it must be that way', so I put it to you that is a very unscientific approach.

In this light I suggest the term 'evolution', in the context used, should be re-termed, 'lie'... because that best describes it.

What I said above.

reply to post by glen200376

You do realise it's called 'the theory of evolution'?Do you know what a theory is?You have no more proof than a creationist or it would be called 'the FACT of evolution''More I'm right and you're wrong bull.Bigot.

AronRa.... Can I Get a WITNESS UP IN HERE?!?!?!?





And that is all I have to say on the matter...