Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[DerelictJunction]

cre·a·tion
krēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.

Technically, evolution is only modifying something that already exists. No creation involved.

 

[justlookinla]

It looks like you responded to this sentence.

And replied with "nuh-uh!", which persuaded no-one toward your point of view.
You also ignored much of my post which points out that the Bible doesn't describe the process only the designer. So the process could be anything. Science has investigated and has significant and abundant evidence that the process was evolution. Your reply? "Nuh-uh!" How adult of you.

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.

This must be in reply to:Rather than following your lead, I will be a little more verbose in my reply.
Nuh-uh! While it is easy to find someone much smarter than you who has presented the proposal that there is an intelligent designer, their "evidence" typically consists of God-of-the-Gaps and Incredulity arguments. Those are not really evidence.

Of course it's not evidence to those who reject any form of theistic creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

Point me to it...a link perhaps?

The problem with links is when someone gives a link to a anti-Darwinist creationist site, the site is immediately rejected as not a legitimate site by those who embrace the creationist view of Darwinism.

It's an exercise in futility.

 

[justlookinla]

No question, the scientific community doesn't accept what the ID community deems as evidence as support of ID, you are correct.

The scientific community also rejects the view of Darwinist creationism, i.e., that life as we observe it today is the creation of an entirely naturalistic process.

 

[Loudmouth]

cre·a·tion
krēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.

You are using the term creaitonism. Here is the definition of the term.

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Now, please try to use the term correctly.

 

[Loudmouth]

The scientific community also rejects the view of Darwinist creationism, i.e., that life as we observe it today is the creation of an entirely naturalistic process.

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect

Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Please try to rewrite that last post.

 

[justlookinla]

Technically, evolution is only modifying something that already exists. No creation involved.

I disagree. Humanity is a creation of something, somehow, somewhere. Humanity didn't exist as a life form at some point in the past, now it does. That's creationism.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

Your assertion that God is incapable of using naturalistic processes to create, does not have evidence to support it.

Of course it's not evidence to those who reject any form of theistic creationism.

Show me how the stuff presented so far by the ID community constitutes scientific evidence.
I could say the same about your rejection of evidence. "Of course it's not evidence to those who reject any form of scientific investigation."

 

[justlookinla]

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect

Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Please try to rewrite that last post.

There's nothing to rewrite.

cre·a·tion
krēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.

 

[bhsmte]

The scientific community also rejects the view of Darwinist creationism, i.e., that life as we observe it today is the creation of an entirely naturalistic process.

Have any evidence of the scientific community discussing "Darwinist creationism" so this claim can be verified?

 

[DerelictJunction]

I disagree. Humanity is a creation of something, somehow, somewhere. Humanity didn't exist as a life form at some point in the past, now it does. That's creationism.

However, life forms existed and populations of them were modified by evolutionary mechanisms to result in humanity. No creation involved.

 

[justlookinla]

Have any evidence of the scientific community discussing "Darwinist creationism" so this claim can be verified?

Google "Darwinism".

 

[justlookinla]

However, life forms existed and populations of them were modified by evolutionary mechanisms to result in humanity. No creation involved.

Sure it was creation involved. The single life form of long long ago weren't humans, humans did not exist in the creationist view.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Google "Darwinism".

For the record "Darwinist creationism" is not the same phrase as "Darwinism", in case you were confused.

 

[Loudmouth]

There's nothing to rewrite.

cre·a·tion
krēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.

You are using the term creationism. Here is the definition.

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Please rewrite your post with the correct usage of the term.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Sure it was creation involved. The single life form of long long ago weren't humans, humans did not exist in the creationist view.

So, by that point of view, my wife and I actually did create other humans.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, by that point of view, my wife and I actually did create other humans.

Using such loose definitions, every theory in science is creationism.

First, we have atheistic Kochist creationism where microorganisms create diseases purely through atheistic and natural processes.

Next, we have atheistic Einsteinist creationism where mass creates gravity through the completely natural process of warping spacetime.

I'm sure we can go all day with these.

 

[bhsmte]

Google "Darwinism".

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."

 

[justlookinla]

So, by that point of view, my wife and I actually did create other humans.

Did a human evolve from non-human life forms by entirely naturalistic processes? I don't think so.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did a human evolve from non-human life forms by entirely naturalistic processes? I don't think so.

Do a mother and father create a baby? If so, does that make it creationism?

Do microbes create diseases? If so, does that make it creationism?