justlookinla
Regular Member
As I've explained many times, I do not use the term pejoratively, I use the term to present the view that all of life is created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic processes.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Some tidbits, but I see nothing to support what you claim. You need to work on that. I wouldn't want to think you are making blind claims with no objective evidence, as I don't think science made you one of their spokespeople.
I never would have thought, that in the United States, the term Darwinism is used by creationists and ID'ers as an epithet to attack evolution. Who would do such a thing with the 9th commandment and all? I also found it interesting, that outside the United States, the term is used quite differently.
Other uses[edit]
The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.[15] For example, Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?.[16] However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin's natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism."[17][18][19] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[20] In the 2008 movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which promotes intelligent design, Ben Stein refers to scientists as Darwinists. Reviewing the film for Scientific American, John Rennie says "The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin's original ideas... Yet the choice of terminology isn't random: Ben Stein wants you to stop thinking of evolution as an actual science supported by verifiable facts and logical arguments and to start thinking of it as a dogmatic, atheistic ideology akin to Marxism." [21]
However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories, sometimes called "Neo-Darwinism", from those first proposed by Darwin. Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern synthesis.
In political discussions in the United States, the term is mostly used by its enemies. "It's a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like 'Maoism,'" says Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson. He adds, "Scientists don't call it 'Darwinism'."[22] In the United Kingdom the term often retains its positive sense as a reference to natural selection, and for example Richard Dawkins wrote in his collection of essays A Devil's Chaplain, published in 2003, that as a scientist he is a Darwinist.[23]
In his 1995 book Darwinian Fairytales, Australian philosopher David Stove[24] used the term "Darwinism" in a different sense than the above examples. Describing himself as non-religious and as accepting the concept of natural selection as a well-established fact, Stove nonetheless attacked what he described as flawed concepts proposed by some "Ultra-Darwinists". Stove alleged that by using weak or false ad hoc reasoning, these Ultra-Darwinists used evolutionary concepts to offer explanations that were not valid (e.g., Stove suggested that sociobiological explanation of altruism as an evolutionary feature was presented in such a way that the argument was effectively immune to any criticism.) Philosopher Simon Blackburn wrote a rejoinder to Stove,[25] though a subsequent essay by Stove's protegee James Franklin's[26] suggested that Blackburn's response actually "confirms Stove's central thesis that Darwinism can 'explain' anything."
No. However, it grew from just 2 cells provided by me and my wife. The human came into existence. By your definition it was created. I'm only going by what you claim, and by that claim, I am a co-creator of human beings.Did a human evolve from non-human life forms by entirely naturalistic processes? I don't think so.
As I've explained many times, I do not use the term pejoratively,
As I've explained many times, I do not use the term pejoratively, I use the term to present the view that all of life is created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic processes.
Just bringing up a question you didn't answer.The process must be God involved. There is no evidence that humanity is the creation of only naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.
As I've explained many times, I do not use the term pejoratively, I use the term to present the view that all of life is created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic processes.
No. However, it grew from just 2 cells provided by me and my wife. The human came into existence. By your definition it was created. I'm only going by what you claim, and by that claim, I am a co-creator of human beings.
Translation: "I made it up."
Better translation:
I need to make it up, to deal with my cognitive dissonance.
Just bringing up a question you didn't answer.
1. What is your evidence that your God is incapable of producing humanity using only naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago?
I thought it was an astute observation. Take it as you will.
Create a human by yourself and then we'll talk.
Nah. Your defense mechanisms are far too developed for that just. You have the hurt thing licked. Other issues, not so much, but that is a different story.
Yes, because when two people create a human being, it doesn't count.
Personal psychology would be a better fit to place blame on.
It would be amazing if one person created a human, wouldn't it?
How long does it take for the two people to make a human?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?