[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism and Evolution; some essential differences

[Barbarian]

The Creationist-invented ideology of evolutionism is very different from evolution. To help the discussion, here are a few differences:

Evolutionism:
Evolutionism is a random process.
Evolutionism about the origin of life.
Evolutionism says individuals evolve.
Evolutionism says that if there are humans, there shouldn’t be any apes left.
Evolutionism says organisms try to adapt.
Evolutionism has no evidence.
Many scientists doubt evolutionism.
Evolutionism leads to immoral behavior.
Evolutionism says scientists should want humans to have lots of mutations.
Evolutionism is contrary to the Bible

Evolution
Evolution is a non-random process.
Evolution is not about the origin of life.
Populations evolve, not individuals.
Apes and humans have a common ancestor. Humans did not evolve from apes living today.
Adaptation are happen through random mutation and natural selection.
There are many, many different sources of evidence for evolution.
The vast majority of scientists accept evolution.
Evolution does not say anything about morals or ethics.
More mutations will not make evolution go faster. A high rate of mutations is generally harmful.
Evolution is consistent with the Bible.

 

[Barbarian]

Apparently, Cygnus didn't really want any answers after all.

 

[calvin]

Hello calvin here,
do you have actual evidence to backup the following?

The Creationist-invented ideology of evolutionism is very different from evolution. To help the discussion, here are a few differences:

Evolutionism:
Evolutionism is a random process.
Evolutionism about the origin of life.
Evolutionism says individuals evolve.
Evolutionism says that if there are humans, there shouldn’t be any apes left.
Evolutionism says organisms try to adapt.
Evolutionism has no evidence.
Many scientists doubt evolutionism.
Evolutionism leads to immoral behavior.
Evolutionism says scientists should want humans to have lots of mutations.
Evolutionism is contrary to the Bible

Evolution
Evolution is a non-random process.
Evolution is not about the origin of life.
Populations evolve, not individuals.
Apes and humans have a common ancestor. Humans did not evolve from apes living today.
Adaptation are happen through random mutation and natural selection.
There are many, many different sources of evidence for evolution.
The vast majority of scientists accept evolution.
Evolution does not say anything about morals or ethics.
More mutations will not make evolution go faster. A high rate of mutations is generally harmful.
Evolution is consistent with the Bible.

Evolution does not say anything about morals or ethics.

Well there is a wikipedia article that seems to disagree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
But then, we know we get our sense of Morality from our creator...don't we?

The vast majority of scientists accept evolution.

Isn't this just the Lemming effect?
a quote from the linked article
" For lemmings, denial is a basic psychological defense mechanism used not only to shield themselves from unpleasant realities, but also to reassure themselves that they will still fit within the acceptable range of opinion held by their peer group."
http://intellectual-thoughts.com/Lemming Effect by Dr. Pastore.htm

 

[civilwarbuff]

evolutionism

Also found in: Thesaurus, Wikipedia.
Related to evolutionism: Cultural evolutionism, Social evolutionism
ev·o·lu·tion·ism
(ĕv′ə-lo͞o′shə-nĭz′əm, ē′və-)
n.
1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.



Evolutionism was a common 19th century belief that organisms inherently improve themselves through progressive inherited change over time, and increase in complexity through evolution.[1][2] The belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution.[1] In the 1970s the term Neo-Evolutionism was used to describe the idea "that human beings sought to preserve a familiar style of life unless change was forced on them by factors that were beyond their control".[3]

The term is sometimes also colloquially used to refer to acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis, a scientific theory that describes how biological evolution occurs. In addition, the term is used in a broader sense to cover a world-view on a wide variety of topics, including chemical evolution as an alternative term for abiogenesis or for nucleosynthesis of chemical elements, galaxy formation and evolution, stellar evolution, spiritual evolution, technological evolution and universal evolution, which seeks to explain every aspect of the world in which we live.[4][5]

Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the modern evolutionary synthesis as the best explanation of current data,[6] the term is seldom used in the scientific community; to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views,[7] unless specifically noted otherwise. In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.[8][9] wiki

So much for self made definitions......

 

[Barbarian]

evolutionism

Sorry, your dictionary got it wrong. Let's see why...

[quoteEvolutionism was a common 19th century belief that organisms inherently improve themselves through progressive inherited change over time, and increase in complexity through evolution.[1][2] [/quote]

Some people thought so, but as anyone who was paying attention in science class knows that Darwinism debunked both ideas. Evolutionary theory, as Darwin had it, rejects the idea that increasing complexity must happen, and of course, Darwin's theory does not say that "organisms improve themselves."

The belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution.[1]

Evolutionary theory isn't about either of those. Another error.

The term is sometimes also colloquially (my emphasis) used to refer to acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis, a scientific theory that describes how biological evolution occurs.

So people who don't understand it very well, attribute "evolutionism" to scientists. That's what I've been pointing out. Notice Cygnus has been describing evolutionism to us,and it is entirely opposed to evolutionary theory.

In addition, the term is used in a broader sense to cover a world-view on a wide variety of topics, including chemical evolution as an alternative term for abiogenesis or for nucleosynthesis of chemical elements, galaxy formation and evolution, stellar evolution, spiritual evolution, technological evolution and universal evolution, which seeks to explain every aspect of the world in which we live.[4][5]

None of this has any thing to do with Darwinian evolution or the Modern Synthesis of his theory. Again, your dictionary's self-made definition does not match the scientific one.

In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.

So much for self made definitions. You've made my point for me.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's see what a dictionary of biology has to say:
Evolution pertains to the sequence of events depicting the gradual progression of changes in the genetic composition of a biological population over successive generations. Accordingly, all life on earth originates from a common ancestor, which is referred to as the last universal common ancestor, some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.

In order for evolution to occur, there must be genetic variation. Genetic variation brings about evolution. Without it there will be no evolution. There are two major mechanisms that drive evolution. First is natural selection. Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, passing these traits to the next generation. This kind of evolution driven by natural selection is called adaptive evolution. Another mechanism involves genetic drift, which produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Evolution that arises from genetic drift is called neutral evolution.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution

Notice that it's very, very different from the creationist notion of "evolutionism." If you're still having some confusion, got to the OP and note the differences.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evolution does not say anything about morals or ethics.

Well there is a wikipedia article that seems to disagree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Each species of primate,for example, has different ways of interacting with others it's kind. Ethology is concerned with behavior, but neither ethology (one of my favorite pastimes) nor evolutionary theory has anything to say about what morals or ethics should be, or even if there should be morals or ethics.

But then, we know we get our sense of Morality from our creator...don't we?

St. Paul says:
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

So there is a natural law, which every man understands. And so that is indeed given by the Creator.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I love it.....
I don't agree with you therefore you are wrong......
Talk about arrogance.......

 

[Cygnus]

So, this quote came from the category of Evolution as seen in the first post.

Evolution is consistent with the Bible.

......Now, a-hem, clears throat........last time I read the Bible it tells us Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from Adams rib. Yeah, that's pretty much a description of evolution. Sounded pretty consistent with the Bible.
Now considering the following

Populations evolve, not individuals. AND, Evolution does not say anything about morals or ethics.

How does this "evolution" become consistent with the Bible when it fails to explain original sin and well as one man spreading sin and death rather than an evolving population?

Apparently, Cygnus didn't really want any answers after all.

I'll be hanging around waiting for you to answer the above.

 

[Cygnus]

I love it.....
I don't agree with you therefore you are wrong......
Talk about arrogance.......

I hope he doesn't really mind, but I think I'll stick with the term evolutionism.
If it hasn't began to happen already I think Barbs next ploy will be to get the word evolutionism banned.

 

[Barbarian]

.I don't agree with you therefore you are wrong......

As you admitted, you were trying to pass a colloquial use of the word as the real thing. You may not agree with the scientific term, but that doesn't mean scientists are wrong.

Talk about arrogance.......

 

[Barbarian]

So, this quote came from the category of Evolution as seen in the first post.

.....Now, a-hem, clears throat........last time I read the Bible it tells us Adam was formed from the dust

Man was brought forth by the earth. You just don't approve of the way God did it.

then Eve from Adams rib.

That wouldn't work if it was literally true, instead of a parable. Genes would be all wrong. So we know it's a parable for man and woman.

As you see, it's entirely consistent with evolution.

How does this "evolution" become consistent with the Bible

Because there's nothing in Scripture that is inconsistent with evolution.

when it fails to explain original sin

Because evolutionary theory, like all scientific theories, say nothing about the supernatural.

and well as one man spreading sin and death rather than an evolving population?

There's nothing in evolution that says we can't have descended from a single pair. You're drifting off into evolutionism, again, and we're talking about evolution.

I'll be hanging around waiting for you to answer the above.

No problem. If you're willing to believe some of what God tells you, why not just accept all of it? And why would you want science to tell you things that are the province of God? And it's a bad idea to add new doctrines that are not in scripture.

 

[Barbarian]

I hope he doesn't really mind, but I think I'll stick with the term evolutionism.
If it hasn't began to happen already I think Barbs next ploy will be to get the word evolutionism banned.

"Evolutionism" is a perfectly good word, for misconceptions creationists have about evolution. We'll continue to use it for that purpose; we can just remind you if you confuse the two again.

 

[Cygnus]

Man was brought forth by the earth. You just don't approve of the way God did it.

I approve of Adam being formed from the dust..THEN...Eve being made from Adams rib....seems as if you don't approve of that version seeing how it doesn't agree with the religion of evolutionism.

Speaking of the rib..

That wouldn't work if it was literally true, instead of a parable. Genes would be all wrong. So we know it's a parable for man and woman.

As you see, it's entirely consistent with evolution.

Why wouldn't the Eve from the rib work? It's what the Bible says happened and it's also what you deny.

There's nothing in evolution that says we can't have descended from a single pair.

Will you make up your mind...do population evolve or distinct individuals?

 

[Cygnus]

"Evolutionism" is a perfectly good word, for misconceptions creationists have about evolution. We'll continue to use it for that purpose; we can just remind you if you confuse the two again.

I had to laugh when I read your definition of evolutionism.

 

[calvin]

That wouldn't work if it was literally true, instead of a parable. Genes would be all wrong. So we know it's a parable for man and woman.

Hello calvin here.
It seems that by the same logic, the virgin birth of Jesus wouldn’t work either.
So Jesus' life was a parable?......surely not!
But it is interesting that the Lord took hold of Adam and brought forth a female..Eve, then later took hold of a female...Mary, and brought forth a male. It seems the Lord can do whatever He wishes without getting permission from evolution, genetics or even DNA.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Evolution is consistent with the bible because the bible is consistent with evolution???????????????????
Talk about circular reasoning....

 

[civilwarbuff]

God can create a universe but a little genetic manipulation is beyond His abilities? Evolutionists will grasp at any straw to satisfy their way out theories......

 

[Barbarian]

Hello calvin here.
It seems that by the same logic, the virgin birth of Jesus wouldn’t work either.

Why is a miracle outside of God's ability? The text very clearly shows that the conception of Jesus was miraculous. On the other hand, the poetic language of Genesis shows a parable.

So Jesus' life was a parable?

Not if you accept scripture as it is. Just because God can do all things, does not mean He did all things.




.

 

[Barbarian]

God can create a universe but a little genetic manipulation is beyond His abilities?

Scripture says He created the universe. Could he have miraculously changed DNA? Sure. But adding non-scriptural miracles to your beliefs to patch up the places where they don't fit scripture, is probably not a wise idea.

Creationists will grasp at any straw to satisfy their new doctrines.