[_ Old Earth _] Evolution; mechanism or worldview?

[Tri Unity]

I skimmed your articles and I have to say, that all three are bent on trying to conflate the theory of Evolution with Evolutionism and refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference.

All I know is that when people start trying to claim my entire world view based on one of millions of things that impact my thought process, I tend to think of that person as simple minded.

That is because you have placed a value on what you believe to be true. Genuine atheism or darwinism cannot have value systems, for value systems belong to a philosophy. Accidental colliding atoms do not have value systems. You care because you are not an accident. Creation is dripping from your frown.

 

[Free]

That is only your opinion. My opinion is that Evolution is a worldview. It has nothing to do with theistic or non-theistic lens. That is just your way of justifying what you believe.

Well your opinion is not correct. It has been made clear to you that you are confusing definitions and making a category error.

What has nothing to with a theistic or non-theistic lens? Are you seriously going to suggest that peoples' worldviews don't effect how they view everything, in this case, scientific data, that everyone is unbiased? It has everything to do with whether one is a theist or non-theist; it has everything to do with one's worldview.

 

[Milk-Drops]

That is because you have placed a value on what you believe to be true.

Yep, I also understand that since I know what the theory of evolution is, that it is not a world view, but just one of thousands of Scientific theories that only impact my personal world view.

Genuine atheism or darwinism cannot have value systems,

Atheism is only an answer for the one quesiton of whether or not a God exists. I wouldn't expect it to be any more detailed then that. For Darwinism, I can't seem to find a common definition that isn't different based on the apologist I'm speaking with.

for value systems belong to a philosophy.

Exactly, scientific theories are not philosophies.

Accidental colliding atoms do not have value systems.

Oddly enough, that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Not to mention that we don't seem to have this same type of discussion when hammers fall on the floor. Those hammers don't have value systems, yet no one is being called a Gravityist

You care because you are not an accident.

Actually, I was an accident. I'm the product of an unplanned pregnancy. Though I don't believe I'm a cosmic accident, but more of a reaction to another action. Accident implies there was another plan.

Creation is dripping from your frown.

This is actually quite creepy and odd since I'm not frowning and this sounds like overly pretentious nonsense.

 

[Tri Unity]

Well your opinion is not correct.

Again, that is your opinion. Your opinion is not a universally accepted view.

It has been made clear to you that you are confusing definitions and making a category error.

No, it has been made clear that you are splitting hairs. Both "catergories" are two sides of the same coin.

What has nothing to with a theistic or non-theistic lens? Are you seriously going to suggest that peoples' worldviews don't effect how they view everything, in this case, scientific data, that everyone is unbiased? It has everything to do with whether one is a theist or non-theist; it has everything to do with one's worldview.

I have already covered this. You are trying to confuse the issue by making it a theistic or non-theistic distinction. It is not. That is just the way you wish to see it. I (and many others) see it otherwise. There are more YEC in America than evolutionists, so your view is in the minority. Don't try to bully me.

 

[Tri Unity]

This is actually quite creepy and odd since I'm not frowning and this sounds like overly pretentious nonsense.

LOL.

Thanks for your opinions.

 

[Milk-Drops]

LOL.

Thanks for your opinions.

Do you beleive in gravity?


If you do, then I suggest you abandon it since It takes away and misguids people into believing that the Earth is a spherical object rotating around the sun by a natural force instead of being moved by God.

Abandon your beliefs of Gravityism.......................... Sounds just like your ideas of Evolution as a worldview.

 

[Tri Unity]

Do you beleive in gravity?


If you do, then I suggest you abandon it since It takes away and misguids people into believing that the Earth is a spherical object rotating around the sun by a natural force instead of being moved by God.

Abandon your beliefs of Gravityism.......................... Sounds just like your ideas of Evolution as a worldview.

LOL

You're getting funnier all the time. Why do you care anyway?

 

[Free]

Again, that is your opinion. Your opinion is not a universally accepted view.

It is in this thread.

No, it has been made clear that you are splitting hairs. Both "catergories" are two sides of the same coin.

No, they are not. One is a mechanism, the other an intelligent agent. Do you think Henry Ford was a Model T? Was he a combustion engine? Or was he an intelligent agent who designed a mechanism?

And you still seem to be confusing "evolution" with "evolutionism," as Grazer pointed out.

I have already covered this. You are trying to confuse the issue by making it a theistic or non-theistic distinction. It is not. That is just the way you wish to see it. I (and many others) see it otherwise.

Yes, that is the issue. Evolution is a mechanism. The scientific naturalist will say it happened on it's own and may use it to support atheism. The Christian can look at that and be in complete awe that God could so design everything in such a way. It is much like an artist that creates a masterpiece, knowing how it will look in the end but creating it with what appears to us as random, meaningless strokes of a brush.

There are more YEC in America than evolutionists, so your view is in the minority. Don't try to bully me.

That's a fallacious appeal to popularity. A majority of western civilization, including the Church, once believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This was even backed up using Scripture. Then it was proven false and the Church rightly corrected itself.

 

[Tri Unity]

No, they are not. One is a mechanism, the other an intelligent agent.

You believe this. You are gullible (IMO). We are all a product of our own thinking. What led you to think and accept these beliefs is different to my thinking and beliefs. What will convince you will not necassarily convince me. In my opinion you have not researched most of these subjects very carefully (if at all). That's up to you. You fly with other atheists - birds of a feather. Everyone chooses their own destiny!

 

[Grazer]

I really don't understand what "evolutionism" is.


To me, it is an ad hom on evolution, meant to suggest that anyone who accepts the theory 0f evolution must be doing so on the basis of strict adherence and conformity. It also suggests that there are no valid reasons for accepting the theory.

I have seen no real world examples of what one might call "evolutionism."


Just another conspiracy theory, imho

I gave a definition of evolutionism in my OP

 

[Adam]

This seems to have generated a lot of heated discussion on another thread so thought I'd give it one of it's own.

Before we can begin to answer the question, I think we need to define evolution and what it is. The best place to look at definitions is the dictionary:

1) The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

2) the gradual development of something:
the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution

3) Chemistry the giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat:
the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process

4) [count noun] a pattern of movements or manoeuvres:
flocks of waders often perform aerial evolutions

5) Mathematics, dated the extraction of a root from a given quantity.

Origin:
early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n-) 'unrolling', from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ manoeuvre in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense 'development'

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evolution?q=evolution

With the exception of definition 1, which I'll come back to in a moment, all the others simply mean 'change over time' in various contexts. First we had state a, now we have state b. Changes in species have been observed albleit in smaller organisms. Some viruses have evolved to now be resistant to most anti-biotics which I will refer to later.

Now definition 1 is generally what is meant by the theory of evolution. The view that life on earth has evolved from something to what it is now over a long period of time (note that it has to pre-suppose the existence of something to evolve, it offers no explanation for where that came from, a point to which I return) At this point I need to bring in the concept of common ancestry. I will be quoting defintions from chapter 5 an article by Dr Allan Harvey (http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature):

For a readable overview of common ancestry, I recommend The Language of God by Francis Collins, former director of the human genome project.

Coming back to the fact that viruses have evolved, another definition involves the mechanisms behind this:

So now that we have established some definitions (change over time, common ancestry, evolutionary mechanisms) lets look at what is meant by the theory of evolution:

Essentially it brings together the 3 established previous definitions of evolution and offers a theory to explain them.

The last sentence of the previous definition brings us onto the world view known as Evolutionism:

The age of the earth is a different question and the evidence for which will not be found in biology.

We need to be extremely careful in being clear in what we mean when talking about evolution. Are we referring to changes over time, the theory of evolution, or the evolutionism world view? They are 3 very different things. Regarding how this fits with the Christian faith, there is no conflict since the central claim of the Christian faith is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised again. How it fits with the Genesis creation account? Well that's a massive topic for another time and beyond the scope of the purpose of this thread.

But on that note, I would like to end with one of my favourite quotes from the late Stephen Jay Gould (taken from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_darwin-on-trial.html)

Peace with you all

It seems that "evolutionism" is just "evolution" with some claims attached, such as "non-science masquerading as science" or "evolution if there were no evidence."

As I have said, there are no real world examples of a philosophical/metaphysical ideology that excludes God from the natural realm.

AOnly people who claim such an ideology exists. Upon examination of a person who is accused og being an "evolutionist" there is no distinguishing characteristic that sets the accused apart from those who accept evolution based coon conclusions drawn from the evidence.

 

[Grazer]

It seems that "evolutionism" is just "evolution" with some claims attached, such as "non-science masquerading as science" or "evolution if there were no evidence."

As I have said, there are no real world examples of a philosophical/metaphysical ideology that excludes God from the natural realm.

AOnly people who claim such an ideology exists. Upon examination of a person who is accused og being an "evolutionist" there is no distinguishing characteristic that sets the accused apart from those who accept evolution based coon conclusions drawn from the evidence.

I think that was the general gist of what I put yes

 

[Free]

You believe this. You are gullible (IMO). We are all a product of our own thinking. What led you to think and accept these beliefs is different to my thinking and beliefs. What will convince you will not necassarily convince me. In my opinion you have not researched most of these subjects very carefully (if at all). That's up to you. You fly with other atheists - birds of a feather. Everyone chooses their own destiny!

It really is amazing just how many times on these forums you accuse others who disagree with you of being uneducated in the matter being discussed. That is presumptuous and arrogant. Such personal attacks are unbecoming of Christian discussion.

If you must know, my research includes some of the top Christian apologists, philosophers and scientists.

 

[cupid dave]

 Evolution; mechanism or worldview?

Both...

The mechanism of Social Evolution has matured into a perspective by which we now view the past as part of a process that creates the Future.

Marx attempted to explain this in economics as the process whereby anarchy becomes a monoarchy the leads to democ-rachy, followed by the failure if Socialism that ends in Communism, from which there is no escape without revolt and a return to anarchy.

 

[Adam]

Off topic.

 

[cupid dave]

It really is amazing just how many times on these forums you accuse others who disagree with you of being uneducated in the matter being discussed. That is presumptuous and arrogant. Such personal attacks are unbecoming of Christian discussion.

If you must know, my research includes some of the top Christian apologists, philosophers and scientists.

Don't let these people who post lame retorts to things you say annoy you.

The OP is interesting and everyone who posts reveals insights into the subject and inot the frozen paradigm of a dying set of ideas that are essentially medieval intheir source.

It is apparent that some "mechanism" is at work which has pushed all existing life into a survival mode not inclusive of extinct forms were have been digging up.
That "mechanism" seem logically to be the forces of the Natural Laws which say, figuratively speaking, "Let us mold these creatures into different species and kinds so they can live with us forever, perhaps."

 

[cupid dave]

The OP is interesting and everyone who posts reveals insights into the subject.
The frozen archaicl paradigm is a dying set of ideas that are essentially medieval intheir source.

It is apparent that some "mechanism" is at work which has pushed all existing life into a survival mode.
That mechanism is the Force behind the ever unfolding, eternally changingface of Reality.

That "mechanism" seem logically to be the forces of the Natural Laws which say, figuratively speaking, "Let us mold these creatures into different species and kinds so they can live with us forever, perhaps."

The issue in these discussions revolve around the competition between two sides.
One side is those people who insist that each sample of living organisms has been Spontaneously Generated without and relationship to previously existing life.

The other side contends that Life has come from an initial Spontaneous Generation which has diversified and chnaged.

The real debate is whether Spontaneous Generation occured once or for every creature, germ, plant, organism that has ever lived.

 

[cupid dave]

The issue in these discussions revolve around the competition between two sides.


One side is those people who insist that each sample of living organisms has been Spontaneously Generated without any relationship to previously existing life.

The other side contends that Life has come from an initial Spontaneous Generation which has diversified and chnaged.

The real debate is whether Spontaneous Generation occured once, or each time, for every creature, germ, plant, organism that has ever lived.

The ID people are in a quandry if they agree with the church that claims God was too dumb to use a process like Eloution, but he is intelligent.


The church people themselves are stuck with problem that mass extinctions wiped out many species and a whole new diversity of life appeared afterwards even though God had rested from all his work.
That would mean God did not individually create all the new creatures that appeared after these mass extinction.

 

[Sparkey]

Just putting the question (as a question): Isn't Evolution a more a system of examination that attempts to explain observation(s)? Seems pretty basic to me, but that is most likely just me.

• Observe and collect data.
• Attempt to form an hypothesis (A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation)
• Continue to observe and collect data. Determine if the hypothesis is falsifiable (for instance).
• When satisfied, publish the information (and supposition(s)) for peer review.
• Propose and consider (where possible) a theory that may support the hypothesis.
• Rely on collaborators and opponents alike to participate in the now ongoing discussion.

That sort of thing seems like a system of examination; one that looks for mechanisms more so than at a specific mechanism itself.

It would be nice, of course, to discover a mechanism or an explanation so plausible that it becomes a known mechanical process (Gravity comes to mind). But that examination would not cease at the first notice. Considerations would still be offered. For instance, by what mechanism exactly does Gravity exert force over a large distance. The possibility of gravitons or a universal field theory could be considered.
​

Given a large population of inquisitive, trained minds, many different individuals with many different world-views may participate. This improves the process and refines the outcome.

It seems pretty basic or, like I say, maybe that's just me.

here is my Google search string for this (using site:.edu to search educational institutions only): site:.edu What considerations are still open in the mind of scientists regarding the theory of evolution?

 

[Stone-yarder]

Evolution is not just an observed mechanism of the processes of life; it is a filter in which to explain what is observed. Many christians have been duped by this process because of the exposure to secularism they have had all their lives. Secularism is so infused into their thinking that the worldview of evolution has become as natural to them as breathing. They are fooled into believing a hybrid and untenable construct through over exposure. Like anyone who believes in UFO's or Scientology, a deceived person will always be able to give reasons why they believe what they do. Evolutionists are doubly deceived; for they think that the observed mechanism is the justification for the worldview, when both of them are exactly the same thing.

See also:

Creation vs Evolution: The War of the Worldviews

http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/creation_evolution.htm

Evolution and Worldview

http://www.challies.com/articles/evolution-and-worldview

The Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/morality-and-irrationality-evolutionary-worldview

EXACTLY! Hooray!!! Someone who stands on absolute biblical authority and see's the truth, God bless you brother.