That is nonsense! This is your conjecture that is not supported by the facts of science:
Notice the numerous misconceptions that Cygnus has attached to his now doctrine of "evolutionism." You actually confused one element of it, yourself, linking to a site that presented the "monkey to man", orthogenesis belief as evolutionary theory.
So why is there a seeming reluctance to admit the very existence of such a commonly used word as evolutionism?
I use it myself. "Evolutionism" is the set of misconceptions that creationists have about evolution. There are numerous examples. Here's a short (but by no means complete) set of differences between the creationist doctrine of "evolutionism" and evolution:
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.
Most likely it involves the shade of meaning that the suffix -ism adds to the word evolution.
Yep. We also have the false doctrine of "scientism", which is very different from science, and "creatonism", which is quite unlike creation.
When the -ism suffix is added to a word it forms complex nouns that often imply a system of belief or worldview, and this is what many evolutionists refuse to acknowledge about evolution.
How silly. You might as well say that chemistry is a belief system or a world view.
To put a point on it, evolutionists do not want you to associate belief with evolution
"Belief", in the usage of so many creationists, depends on conflation of meanings:
"Scientists believe (based on evidence from physics and geology) that the there was one continent hundreds of millions of years ago."
"I believe (based on my intuitive knowledge of human nature) that you are joking."
"I believe (based on faith and natural law given to all men) that there is only one God, and He is the creator of all things."
"I believe (based on my preferences) I will have another Guinness."
Pretending that these are all the same, is the game of too many YE creationists.
Evolutionism demonstrates a belief in evolution.
No. As you see, it's a rejection of many parts of evolution, in favor of imaginative but untrue beliefs.
Evolutionists who believe in the worldview of evolution are practising evolutionism.
"Chemists who believe in the worldview of chemistry are practicing chemicalism." Just as silly as yours.
So is evolution a belief system? Evolution is necessarily a belief because molecules-to-man evolution is not observable but rather must be inferred and believed.
Ah, your guy is talking about the creationist belief of "evolutionism", not evolution. As you just discovered, evolution is not about the origin of life.
This is why evolutionists are stumped when asked to give an observable example of one kind of creature evolving into a different kind of creature.
This is why botanists are stumped when asked to give an observable example of a giant redwood growing to maturity from a seedling. However, they know it's a fact, because genetics shows that they are the same, there are all sorts of transitional forms between them, and we can see the process of growth proceeding.
That's how we know evolution is a fact, also. When it became apparent that speciation was a fact, YE creationists retreated to higher taxa as being the only valid form of evolution. But they have no evidence whatever for their new belief that there is some kind of barrier at the level of family or order, or whatever. And genetics clearly shows that all life on earth has a common ancestor.
It clearly takes a lot of credulity (willingness to believe without evidence) for evolutionists to believe that an expanding cloud of hydrogen turned into people over 14 billion years.
Not part of evolutionary theory. See, you've been conditioned to believe that evolutionism is the real thing. And as you now see, it's not.
You have been promoting a lot of evolutionism on this thread.
Nope. What's been upsetting the YE creationists (well some of them) is that I've been showing the differences between evolutionism and evolution as it is.
It's your belief in evolution that you consider to be fact
Directly observed to happen. Remember what evolution actually is: "Change in allele frequency in a population over time."
but it is a theory that cannot be observed
Now you're confusing the theory with the phenomenon it describes. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the way scientists describe and explain it.
