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

[Barbarian]

am so glad to see you are accepting the word of God instead of all the evolutionism crap

Of course. "Evolutionism" is a false doctrine invented by creationists. If you go to the OP, you'll see why evolutionism is false and evolution is a fact. God is truth. So the creationist doctrine of "evolutionism" is not of God.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Of course. "Evolutionism" is a false doctrine invented by creationists. If you go to the OP, you'll see why evolutionism is false and evolution is a fact. God is truth. So the creationist doctrine of "evolutionism" is not of God.

I will do a repeat since you did not seem to grasp it the first time:

I am so glad to see you are accepting the word of God instead of all the evolutionism crap that has been floating around this forum.....I have high hopes for you....

 

[Barbarian]

Remember "evolutionism" is your belief.

See the OP to understand the difference between creastionist's belief in "evolutionism" and evolution. Two entirely different things.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

When astronomers speak of "stellar evolution", they are not speaking of anything remotely like a change in allele frequency. Personally, I wish we had kept Darwin's preferred term "descent with modification." "Evolution" in the general sense, means "gradual change." Hence, it's another of those terms often used by some to conflate meanings where that should not be.

There were certainly those who tried to take Darwin's insight and apply it where it did not work. "Social Darwinism" is an example. Racists tried to show a "scala natura" of humans in order of fitness, something completely contrary to Darwinian theory, which overturned the old idea of a scale of organisms.

Social Darwinianism is indeed a sad smaer in history. Today I hear people talk simularily with causal regard to pwople making mistakes or living off the consquences of other peoples evil actions and cruel scams. The line I hear is "oh well it's population control. " I know they don't wholely mean it but the idea of socual darwinsim still extist in one form or another. Sad sad state.
....
Also thankyou for acknowledging the amount of use evolution is used, even past it's origional intent. Hopefully that will help the conversations as a whole and not feel like both sides of a debate are sidestepping eachother. So thankyou for that.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

The term evolutionist/evolutionism should be seen in the same vein as 'physician' describing many facets of belief and practice under one term without abscribing any particular belief or practice to an individual.

Civilwarbuff. Please understand I get where Barbarian is comming from when He wants the record streight for what is evolution and what isn't. I see the same frustratiom when people say they hate religion and everything in it. It's not christianity you have to defend from there, because christianity is just part of it but you have the struggle of helping with the issues that are related with christanity along with a whole lot other stuff not christian mixed in because "they're all the same."

It's probabley more difficult for him because the science is flooded with misinformation. To someone less informed such as myself, it looks like a bunch of science guys saying "he said, she said" with their experiments, trying to disprove eachother with neither one in a better standing as an authority.

I'm not saying agree with him. But be fair in your assessnent and your arguments.

 

[Barbarian]

It's not like strawmen are that unusual. "Evolutionism" and evolution are entirely different things, as the OP shows. For anyone interested in the truth, the two should not be conflated.

 

[Cygnus]

Of course. "Evolutionism" is a false doctrine invented by creationists. If you go to the OP, you'll see why evolutionism is false and evolution is a fact. God is truth. So the creationist doctrine of "evolutionism" is not of God.

Evolution and evolutionism are the same thing. Have you grasped that yet?

 

[Cygnus]

Remember "evolutionism" is your belief.

See the OP to understand the difference between creastionist's belief in "evolutionism" and evolution. Two entirely different things.

Evolution and evolutionism are the same thing. Have you grasped that yet?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Evolution falls under the umbrella of evolutionism in the same way that cardio-thoracic surgeon falls under the umbrella of physician......it is a very simple concept; surprising that some evolutionists have trouble grasping it.

 

[Cygnus]

Evolution falls under the umbrella of evolutionism in the same way that cardio-thoracic surgeon falls under the umbrella of physician......it is a very simple concept; surprising that some evolutionists have trouble grasping it.

All the Theo-Evos get it. Every single one of them....the problem is they can't fit original sin in to their doctrine. You know that, I know that and they know that.
So, the Theo-Evo sect must muddy the water...divert...and change the topic into a "what does the word mean" topic.

Now, I've tried several times to get the view of the Theo-evo's as to where original sin and our sin nature came from....but they refuse, or better yet CAN'T answer the question.....so they do the best they can....muddy the waters and divert.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution falls under the umbrella of evolutionism in the same way that cardio-thoracic surgeon falls under the umbrella of physician....

No, it would be like "brain surgeons fall under the umbrella of witch doctors." As you learned, evolutionism is a straw man, invented by YE creationists, which differs with evolutionary theory in almost ever possible way. It's just a story they made up.

To recap:
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.

Couldn't be more different. I can understand why some people so desperately want to conflate the two. But it won't work.

 

[Cygnus]

Evolutionism:
Evolutionism is a random process.

Wrong. Evolutionism says mutations are a random process.

Evolutionism about the origin of life.

No. Abiogenesis s about the origin of life. Often it rolls right into the process of bringing about man.

Evolutionism says individuals evolve.

Why do you continue to spread lies? Evolutionism theory states that the organisms progeny evolves

Evolutionism says that if there are humans, there shouldn’t be any apes left.

I would love to see you document that.

Evolutionism says organisms try to adapt.

Oh, I'm a fish and I need legs....so I'm going to try to grow a set.

Evolutionism has no evidence.

You finally got one right.

Many scientists doubt evolutionism.

Yikes, your on a roll.

Evolutionism leads to immoral behavior.

It can, but not always.

Evolutionism says scientists should want humans to have lots of mutations.

Huh?

Evolutionism is contrary to the Bible

Another truth. To date not one who follows the religion of evolutionism can show where it doesn't.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionism:
Evolutionism is a random process.

Wrong. Evolutionism says mutations are a random process.

No, you're wrong. Creationists are always saying that evolutionism is random. Would you like me to show you?

Evolutionism about the origin of life.

No. Abiogenesis s about the origin of life.

You're confusing evolution and the creationist invention of "evolutionism."

The major problem with evolution is not the process of adaptability and change, but the origin of life itself, and that is where evolution fails. Most people who are not biologists or geneticists view the theory as saying that the changes in animal and biological species within the last billion years or so, are the most important and hardest to explain, ignoring the origin of life itself.
http://blogs.christianpost.com/creationvsevolution/why-evolution-fails-in-the-origin-of-life-1010/

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionism says individuals evolve.

Evolutionism theory states that the organisms progeny evolves

That's what I just told you. But individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. This is another important difference between the creationist idea of evolutionism and evolution.

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionism says that if there are humans, there shouldn’t be any apes left.

I would love to see you document that.

If people evolved from apes, then why are there still apes???
This is a good question, and it points out a common misconception. The quick answer is that humans didn't actually evolve from modern apes. But we did both evolve from a common ancestor who happened to look more like an ape than a human.
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask150

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionism says organisms try to adapt.

Oh, I'm a fish and I need legs....so I'm going to try to grow a set.

Yeah, like that. That's not part of evolution, but it's part of the creationist doctrine of evolutionism.

Evolutionism has no evidence.

You finally got one right.

Evolution has abundant evidence. But there's no evidence for evolutionism.

Barbarian observes:
Many scientists doubt evolutionism.

Yikes, your on a roll.

But last comparison of the Discovery Institute's list of scientists who doubt Darwin with the list from Project Steve, about 0.3 percent of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field, doubt Darwinian evolution. That's not 3 percent. That's three-tenths of a percent. Would you like me to show you?

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionism leads to immoral behavior.

It can, but not always.

While evolution has nothing at all to do with ethics or morals. You might as well claim gravity is about morals.

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionism says scientists should want humans to have lots of mutations.

Huh?

The usual question is "if scientists think evolution is so good, why don't they want their kids to have mutations?"

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionism is contrary to the Bible

Another truth.

Yep. The creationist doctrine of evolutionism is contrary to the Bible. The Bible is completely consistent with evolution.

To date not one who follows the creationist doctrine of evolutionism can show where it doesn't.

 

[Cygnus]

Cygnus: Evolutionism theory states that the organisms progeny evolves

Barbarian: That's what I just told you. But individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. This is another important difference between the creationist idea of evolutionism and evolution.

Cygnus: Really Barbarian? You'd twist a pretzel if you could. The progeny and the progenies, progeny is the population...the offspring of the individual that had the make believe beneficial mutation.

So, Barbarian....stop trying to confuse a term that you know what is meant by it in an attempt to prop up your failed process of evolutionism.

 

[Barbarian]

Social Darwinianism is indeed a sad smaer in history. Today I hear people talk simularily with causal regard to pwople making mistakes or living off the consquences of other peoples evil actions and cruel scams. The line I hear is "oh well it's population control. " I know they don't wholely mean it but the idea of socual darwinsim still extist in one form or another. Sad sad state.

And Darwin denounced the idea as an "overwhelming evil." Later Darwinists like Morgan and Punnett, pointed out that it was not only evil, it was scientifically unsupportable.

One of the main eugenicists in the United States was a founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.


Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves”, producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population”[8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution:

"It is an excellent plan to keep defective people in institutions for here they are not permitted to marry and bear children."[8, p. 131]
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr-west-meet-dr.html

 

[brother Paul]

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.

I have no problem believing He made DNA to be something that changes with circumstance and time. I notice that even though "evolutionism" was used before creationists coined the phrase, that in our time it is largely a response. When evolutionists started calling the belief in creation to be "creationism" that those Christians and Jews who believe in a creator called what SOME evolutionists teach (in response) "evolutionism".

For example, though NOT a "creationist", Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin once said, “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

So it is not that the possibility is not an equally legitimate position to assume, it is that Atheists CANNOT allow for consideration of the data in light of "God" or primordial intelligence. Their unfounded beliefs (see the two demarcations above) are equally a faith system...equally a philosophical point of reference...hence an -ism...

 

[brujaq]

God created every kind in the beginning, each kind had DNA created that included every variation of that kind that would ever exist . All forms of life with breath except for the sea animals we see today were represented on Noahs Ark and God selected which pairs of animals he wanted on the Ark .. God is much bigger than most give him credit .. Much, much, bigger ...

 

[Barbarian]

I have no problem believing He made DNA to be something that changes with circumstance and time. I notice that even though "evolutionism" was used before creationists coined the phrase, that in our time it is largely a response. When evolutionists started calling the belief in creation to be "creationism" that those Christians and Jews who believe in a creator called what SOME evolutionists teach (in response) "evolutionism".

That's symmetrical. There is a huge difference between evolution and "evolutionism", just as there is a huge difference between creation and "creationism."

For example, though NOT a "creationist", Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin once said, “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

That quote has been widely twisted to mean that scientists can't accept the divine acting in this world. But that is obviously false, since the many, many scientists who are devout Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. recognize the fact of God, while accepting that science is unable to include the supernatural in its workings. Science can't say anything at all about God, but scientists can.

So it is not that the possibility is not an equally legitimate position to assume, it is that Atheists CANNOT allow for consideration of the data in light of "God" or primordial intelligence.

They can, and occassionally do. However, it is like a creationist opening himself to the possibility that his interpretation of scripture might not be correct. It's slippery slope, because once you open yourself to the truth regardless of where it goes, you don't know where you'll end up, except with the truth. So such atheists and creationists quite often become theists and evolutionists.

heir unfounded beliefs (see the two demarcations above) are equally a faith system...equally a philosophical point of reference...hence an -ism...

Yes. If you accept evolution as a given ideology that cannot be questioned, then you don't understand evolution at all. Likewise, if you accept a particular interpretation of the Bible as a given ideology that cannot be questioned, then you don't understand creation at all. The good news is that you don't have to understand creation in order to be saved.

But notice that scientists are constantly questioning evolution. Indeed, major revisions to Darwin's theory have been made precisely because we constantly question it. Similarly, our understanding of creation, if it is correct, will thrive when questioned critically.

 

[Barbarian]

God created every kind in the beginning, each kind had DNA created that included every variation of that kind that would ever exist .

Almost. Whatever "kinds" of life there were in the early earth, only one "kind" survived. Likely RNA was there in living things before DNA, and of course the information for life's diversity was not there at the time,but the potential for such diversity was built into the very structure of nucleic acids. This "front loading", as the IDers call it, is amazing, and an astonishing example of Divine Providence which surpasses our attempts to understand Him.

All forms of life with breath except for the sea animals we see today were represented on Noahs Ark

No. Since whales have the breath of life, then according to a literalist reading of the Bible, seven pairs of whales of each kind were on the Ark. It doesn't say "except for the sea animals." But if you accept it as it is written,then Noah took aboard the animals living in that particular land, not every animal in the world.

 

[brujaq]

Genesis 7:22 ..