Evointrinsic
Member
This has been coming about more and more it seems. I see in a lot of posts that people are stating that Evolution is a Belief or even that it is a faith. Could someone explain this to me?
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Evointrinsic said:Barb has already stated that he doesn't accept evolution as a belief or an ideology, he accepts evolution based on the evidence of it.]/quote]
Oh ya? He sure fooled me!
Feel free, however, to explain how it an Ideology.
Well, we first need definitions to base this off of. So, what is an ideology?
[quote:3ulj2h93]Ideology- 1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
(MWED)
An ideology is a set of ideas that discusses one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.
An ideology is a set of ideas that discusses one's goals, expectations, and actions.
An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization).
The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process.
[/quote:3ulj2h93]Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.
Oh ya? He sure fooled me!
An ideology is a set of ideas that discusses one's goals, expectations, and actions.
An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process.
Nothing to say here. That is plainly obvious...
In every public school in America children are taught a single theory that answers the question "How did we get here?".
What is that sole answer? Is it creation? No. Is it evolution? Yes, yes it is.
Furthermore, anyone who even breathes creation near a public school gets a slap on the wrist and a court date from the ACLU.
This is not only in the public school systems, however. Many (the VAST majority) of colleges only endorse a evolutionary stand-point
Has the advent of the theory of evolution made a change in society? Yes it has, this is evident.
Is it relatively uniform in its doctrine? Yes it is. How? Because it is discussed in the same way in essentially every high school and middle school text book.
So yes, I would have to say that evolution is an ideology.
One could go so far as to say a faith of the religious kind (since there are many forms of faith that do not touch on religion at all; i.e. faith in the US Postal Service...)
Pard said:Well, we first need definitions to base this off of. So, what is an ideology?
Ideology- 1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
(MWED)
Pard said:That is a giant paragraph, so it needs to be broken down into bit sized pieces...
An ideology is a set of ideas that discusses one's goals, expectations, and actions.
Nothing to say here. That is plainly obvious...
Pard said:An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization).
I'd suggest the latter of the options, that is "a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society." Now why would I say this? Easy. In every public school in America children are taught a single theory that answers the question "How did we get here?". What is that sole answer? Is it creation? No. Is it evolution? Yes, yes it is. So right there we see it is a set of ideas that one class (and evidently the "dominant" one, since we live in a republican country). Furthermore, anyone who even breathes creation near a public school gets a slap on the wrist and a court date from the ACLU. This is not only in the public school systems, however. Many (the VAST majority) of colleges only endorse a evolutionary stand-point and teachers have been fired (in some colleges) for even mentioning that creation is an alternative view to evolution.
Pard said:The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process.
Has the advent of the theory of evolution made a change in society? Yes it has, this is evident. Is it relatively uniform in its doctrine? Yes it is. How? Because it is discussed in the same way in essentially every high school and middle school text book. This will ensure that by the end of the previous generation the majority of adults will hold evolution as the answer to the question posed above, and furthermore it will be more or less a uniform answer, unless of course the adult did further research into and has drawn a different conclusion, or they are of a religious faith that professes a different answer to this question posed above.
Pard said:Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.
Pard said:One could go so far as to say a faith of the religious kind (since there are many forms of faith that do not touch on religion at all; i.e. faith in the US Postal Service...). I would not be able to help make that argument, as I have no idea why someone would want to stand their faith on such shaky and unfounded grounds. However, perhaps due to that fact that many professing atheists turn to evolution it has become a faith for those who have little faith in anything else.
The faith of the US postal service is much different from religious faith. I may have faith in a person to do something, but that is in no way similar to religious faith. One is confidence or trust, the other is a belief that is not based on proof.
Pard said:The faith of the US postal service is much different from religious faith. I may have faith in a person to do something, but that is in no way similar to religious faith. One is confidence or trust, the other is a belief that is not based on proof.
Evo, what are you talking about? Well, I know what you are talking about, but I would prefer if you didn't rip off my exact example to make the exact same statement I made, which is that many things can mean faith and I had to state that I was referring to religious faith since there are other types and I went on to give an example of a NON religious type of faith. I do not know how I can make it any clearer for you...
Pard said:My answer to your last words would be the same as to Barb. I am well aware that real scientists will not put faith of the religious kind into their studies, however the normal person does take it to heart as true faith. Science needs to learn that, people trust them and they do take this to heart and many take it on as though it was a religious faith.
logical bob said:It's the label "evolutionist" that gets me.
You don't call anyone a gravitationist, electromagnetismist, thermodynamicist, inorganic chemistryist or quantum chromodynamicist, so what gives?
I still have to argue this point however. As Barbarian and I have stated before, You can accept the evidence or you can reject it. You don't simply believe in science (whatever the theory or law or so forth is). There are only two options, acceptation or rejection. could you give us an example of how a "normal person" takes it to heart as true faith. Also, are you referring to people accepting science faithfully (that whatever thing they accept is true) or that people believe science is based on faith? just to clarify.
to all care to explain why social darwinisim is still around?Pard said:My answer to your last words would be the same as to Barb. I am well aware that real scientists will not put faith of the religious kind into their studies, however the normal person does take it to heart as true faith. Science needs to learn that, people trust them and they do take this to heart and many take it on as though it was a religious faith.
jasoncran said:to all care to explain why social darwinisim is still around?Pard said:My answer to your last words would be the same as to Barb. I am well aware that real scientists will not put faith of the religious kind into their studies, however the normal person does take it to heart as true faith. Science needs to learn that, people trust them and they do take this to heart and many take it on as though it was a religious faith.
jasoncran said:the book i am reading mentions that the physcology field is doing that and also the the social engineering of society is based on that.
but i will double check this.
Pard said:logical bob said:It's the label "evolutionist" that gets me.
You don't call anyone a gravitationist, electromagnetismist, thermodynamicist, inorganic chemistryist or quantum chromodynamicist, so what gives?
You call me a creationist... Don't deny it, I have seen all you of use the word at one point or another. That and... do you see anyone putting up an alternative view to gravity? magnets? thermodynamics?
AronRa said:The problem creationists have with evolution is not that it challenges belief in God, because it doesn’t. Their problem is that evolution, -like every other field of science- challenges the accuracy and authority of the storybooks which creationists equate to God. Consequently, they tend to reject science almost entirely, and will often take all the sciences they perceive as threatening, and lump them all together under one heading, which they then refer to as “evolution-ismâ€. It’s an attempt to minimize the sheer volume of sciences allied against them. This is also part of their intentionally-erected illusion of equality; a false dichotomy that if their legendary folklore isn’t the absolute authority -being both literally and completely true, then God couldn’t create or even exist any other way.
Sometimes they’ll say that if it wasn’t that way, or if they couldn’t believe that it was, then they’d all go mad and do terrible things to people just for the fun of it, as if causing people to suffer would be fun. Its a desperate and destitute delusion of dichotomy that if their legends aren’t right, then nothing is right.
So they insist that for evolution to be true at all, it must utterly replace God and account for everything they attribute to God. So whenever they meet someone trying to explain or endorse evolution, the first thing creationists may ask is where “everything†came from; not just living things, but all matter and energy in the universe, as if evolution should account for the origin of “Life, the Universe, and Everythingâ€.
Pard said:Evointrinsic said:I still have to argue this point however. As Barbarian and I have stated before, You can accept the evidence or you can reject it. You don't simply believe in science (whatever the theory or law or so forth is). There are only two options, acceptation or rejection. could you give us an example of how a "normal person" takes it to heart as true faith. Also, are you referring to people accepting science faithfully (that whatever thing they accept is true) or that people believe science is based on faith? just to clarify.
Well, what I mean is people who are taught evolution is the answer (and it is taught that way, I have endured it... and despite what barb may claim, I was never given any alternatives to evolution. Actually, I was a card caring member of the evolution club, and my doubts toward evolution drove me to faith in the Lord, not the other way around). When someone is given only one answer they can accept it or deny it, you are right. However, because public schools are not college science courses, the little they teach you about evolution leaves you with enough to claim it is true and not enough to actually know anything about it (if that makes sense). I have seen it happen before.
Pard said:It happens in children, and my point was that by the time the baby boomers die out the next generation (mine generation, just about) will have grown up learning evolution in high school and it is very much a possibility that they will still treat it the way I see them treat it in school.