The evidence for Evolution.

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know if you did or not.
It doesn't matter. Whatever points your were discussing, right or wrong, justified or not, it does not belong in this thread. Because it has nothing to do with the validity of the scientific theory of biological evolution.

You do realize that whatever tangent you think I've introduced into this thread was actually introduced by another person who I was attempting to assuage of his heightened concern about the "Satanic Influence" of Darwin's ToE?

It might very well be that I agree with your points.

...well, that sounds promising.

That's a given, as that is the way every idea in science is treated.

Well, that probably depends on whether one subscribes to Methodological Materialism or Philosophical Materialism.

Because there is no reason to.
It only confuses people about what the word means in a scientic context.

Is that what you were shooting for, by the way, by putting so much explicit emphasis on that word? To imply that, because it is called a "theory", that it doesn't need to be taken terribly seriously or something of the sorts?

I only do it for emphasis to try to get those TO WHOM I'm addressing to take notice and hopefully think a little more on the subject. And no, I didn't emphasize the term "theory" to imply a colloquial denotation, but in the context of the dialogue I had with those I was speaking to (i.e. a fellow Christian, initially), I was attempting to emphasize the difference between the biological fact of evolution apart from the scientific theory of evolution. Do you think I am wrong in doing so?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then what was with the emphasis on the word? What point were you trying to make, by doing so?

Christians are often confused by this very thing. AGAIN, I was initially speaking to a fellow Christian (who is of the more Fundamentalist variety). They need this 'explained' to them...often. Sometimes, non-Christians need it explained to them too because they've listened too much to those like Richard Dawkins.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then why did you feel the need to capitalize the word theory?

Basically to differentiate it from the colloquial term, "theory." Christians many times don't understand that there is a difference in the denotations involved between simply saying "theory" and instead saying "scientific theory."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Basically to differentiate it from the colloquial term, "theory." Christians many times don't understand that there is a difference in the denotations involved between simply saying "theory" and instead saying "scientific theory."

Then perhaps you could have simply said 'the scientific theory of evolution', since there is a long history of Christians who believe in a literal reading of the Bible more often than not capitalize the word theory to try and prove a poor point about the theory of evolution.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then perhaps you could have simply said 'the scientific theory of evolution', since there is a long history of Christians who believe in a literal reading of the Bible more often than not capitalize the word theory to try and prove a poor point about the theory of evolution.

In this particular thread, the focus of my interlocution with one of the other posters--a Christian--was specifically upon Darwin's ToE. (Of course, you and I know that we no longer adhere to a "Darwin only" scientific model of evolution. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians can never get past Darwin, and they tend to think of him as the sole designer of the whole concept.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, that probably depends on whether one subscribes to Methodological Materialism or Philosophical Materialism.

No, I'm just talking about science. All ideas in science are provisional. Which is why the word used for the "graduation stage" of such ideas is the word "theory", not "fact".

The provisional nature of these ideas is implied by the word "theory".

I only do it for emphasis to try to get those TO WHOM I'm addressing to take notice and hopefully think a little more on the subject. And no, I didn't emphasize the term "theory" to imply a colloquial denotation, but in the context of the dialogue I had with those I was speaking to (i.e. a fellow Christian, initially), I was attempting to emphasize the difference between the biological fact of evolution apart from the scientific theory of evolution. Do you think I am wrong in doing so?

No, I just think it is confusing, because you put emphasis on the word while talking to me, not your fellow christians.

But nevermind then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, a lot of Christians can never get past Darwin, and they tend to think of him as the sole designer of the whole concept.

What's the difference between Darwinism and the THEORY of evolution?

 

[HitchSlap]

What's the difference between Darwinism and the THEORY of evolution?

Think of it as an idea that changed the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Think of it as an idea that changed the world.

No, seriously ... what's the difference please?

 

[HitchSlap]

No, seriously ... what's the difference please?

For your purposes, none.

 

[Speedwell]

No, seriously ... what's the difference please?

Mostly in the science of genetics, which was in its infancy in Darwin's day. He observed heritable random variation and selection at work in nature and based his theory on those observations, but he had no inkling as to how that variation was produced.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mostly in the science of genetics, which was in its infancy in Darwin's day. He observed heritable random variation and selection at work in nature and based his theory on those observations, but he had no inkling as to how that variation was produced.

Is Darwinism the same thing as Evolution?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is Darwinism the same thing as Evolution?

For your purposes, yes.

Carry on.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What's the difference between Darwinism and the THEORY of evolution?

Well, AV............to answer that, I'd need to know "WHICH" Darwinism you're specifically referring to, and "WHICH" theory of evolution? Then we can slice and dice, and compare and contrast one to another.

By the way, AV, which historical model of Alfred E. Neuman represents "Neumanism" as you think of it today?

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, AV, which historical model of Alfred E. Neuman represents "Neumanism" as you think of it today?

LOL -- that's funny.

 

[Speedwell]

Is Darwinism the same thing as Evolution?

Strictly speaking, "Darwinism" is the theory of evolution conceived of by Darwin. It is not the same as the modern theory of evolution, which has moved on since Darwin's original insight. Neither is the same as evolution. Evolution occurs; both Darwinism and the modern theory of evolution which is based on it are theories which attempt to explain evolution.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

LOL -- that's funny.

I'm glad you have a sense of humor ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Strictly speaking, "Darwinism" is the theory of evolution conceived of by Darwin. It is not the same as the modern theory of evolution, which has moved on since Darwin's original insight. Neither is the same as evolution. Evolution occurs; both Darwinism and the modern theory of evolution which is based on it are theories which attempt to explain evolution.

Sorry ... I don't understand.

I'm sure the theory of gravity has moved on since Newton, but it's still called the theory of gravity.

I would think that Darwinism, even though it's "new and improved," would still be Darwinism.

Ditto for geocentrism and other isms.

Just trying to find out.

But I will say this much:

I suspect scientists today have found something in Darwinism they don't like, and are therefore trying to distance themselves from it for some reason; and I'm wondering if that "something" isn't racism.

Just trying to find out.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm glad you have a sense of humor ...

Thank you!

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry ... I don't understand.

I'm sure the theory of gravity has moved on since Newton, but it's still called the theory of gravity.

And it's not called "Newtonianism" either.

I would think that Darwinism, even though it's "new and improved," would still be Darwinism.

Why should that be the case for the theory of evolution? We don't call the theory of relativity Einsteinianism either. In fact, science does not tend to call it's theories after the name of the originators

I suspect scientists today have found something in Darwinism they don't like, and are therefore trying to distance themselves from it for some reason; and I'm wondering if that "something" isn't racism.

In fact it is Creationists who insist on calling the theory of evolution "Darwinsim" for that very reason.