What's with the "-ist"? (Darwin, evolution, doctrine, church)

[Random]

E-Prime, "Is-ness". Gives rise to all the "-ists". From "to be". Language is a b*t*h.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Alceste

The terms "evolutionist" and "Darwinist" seem to be bandied about in here quite freely. If I accept that the theory of relativity somewhat accurately describes the structure of space time, does that make me an "Einsteinist?" (heh, or a "relativist"?) Am I a Newtonist for accepting the concept of gravity?

I would argue that believing in a specific religious doctrine that happens to be at odds with all the empirical evidence merits an "-ist" suffix, but "Darwinist" is a ridiculous concept. Darwin's theory of natural selection doesn't require "belief" in any specific doctrine. That's why it is called a "theory". Also, being science, it is very flexible and accommodating to the findings of other scientists Attributing the whole of our empirical understanding of the world we live in to Darwin is insulting to hard working biologists and geologists.

Any thoughts?

Your wasting your time. Religionists think every other concept of reality is a "religion". That's how they equal the playing field for their own concepts, in their own minds. It's also how they can ignore the vast quantity of practical evidence opposing their own views of origination and favoring scientific evolution.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

No, because creationism and secularism are not exclusive principles. One could be creationist and still believe in church/state separation.. It is necessary to highlight the actual contended issue in the pair of terms we use.

Unavoidably, that is creationism and evolutionism.

Exactly! How must all those people (the majority of the Christians I know) feel about being lumped into some arbitrary category of Darwin-worshippers, simply because they are opposed to sneaking their personal beliefs into everybody's else's children by disguising them as science?

I think this issue is only "hot" because it is a battle over the minds of children who haven't yet mastered the art of critical thinking. If it were a matter of secular Christians discussing the miracle and mystery of life with secular non-Christians it would not be so controversial.

So essentially we are talking about whether or not the state should impose religious dogma in public schools.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by PureX

Your wasting your time. Religionists think every other concept of reality is a "religion". That's how they equal the playing field for their own concepts, in their own minds. It's also how they can ignore the vast quantity of practical evidence opposing their own views of origination and favoring scientific evolution.

Not all of them. I'm only really interested in talking to the reasonable ones anyway.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Alceste

Exactly! How must all those people (the majority of the Christians I know) feel about being lumped into some arbitrary category of Darwin-worshippers, simply because they are opposed to sneaking their personal beliefs into everybody's else's children by disguising them as science?

I think this issue is only "hot" because it is a battle over the minds of children who haven't yet mastered the art of critical thinking. If it were a matter of secular Christians discussing the miracle and mystery of life with secular non-Christians it would not be so controversial.

So essentially we are talking about whether or not the state should impose religious dogma in public schools.

I'm a little confused as to how we came from defining terms to a debate on the need for secularism... but I'll let it pass because I agree with what you are saying.

Essentially, what we appear to have superficially is creationism vs. evolutionism, when in fact, as you say, some of the creationists are pushing a non-secularist agenda at the same time as advocating creationism.

Mirrored with this pretty much all the evolutionists are pushing secularism as well as advocating evolutionism.

The two should be completely seperate debates, but they have been rather clouded together.

As a side note, I have actually recognised I have to consciously attach the ism on the end of evolution whereas it comes naturally on the end of creation.

[Alceste]

Hi, MC, I didn't mean to deviate from the subject - I suppose I am trying to present a case for the establishment of less inflammatory terms of the debate ordinarily referred to as "Creation(ism) vs. Evolution(ism)". I think perhaps the inaccurate language is unnecessarily polarizing.

Ie. a secularist is more likely to be dismissive and condescending toward someone who equates their position regarding religious education in public schools with a particular theorist, and a theist is more likely to express their faith and the reasoning behind it from the heart when their beliefs are being condescendingly dismissed. And so you get a "hot issue" instead of a discussion.

[misanthropic_clown]

I think we are in the unfortunate domain in that it doesn't matter what labels you give the debate, it will still be a heated mess.

For some people, the evolution vs. (literal) creation is still an open debate. To them, the whole situation must appear to be one where evolution gets preferential treatment over creationism. They don't see how creation is nowhere near evolution's caliber and would therefore naturally demand creationism get a fair hearing alongside it.

The only way to cure this is to reengage, or indeed engage for the first time, the religious with the scientific community. Unfortunately, with the inflammatory domain that has now been thrown up thanks to rather hounding attacks by some prolific atheists and secularists, it seems it will be some time before the two can engage each other in a peaceable manner.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Alceste

If I accept that the theory of relativity somewhat accurately describes the structure of space time, does that make me an "Einsteinist?" (heh, or a "relativist"?)

According to some.

Originally Posted by Alceste

I would argue that believing in a specific religious doctrine that happens to be at odds with all the empirical evidence merits an "-ist" suffix, but "Darwinist" is a ridiculous concept. Darwin's theory of natural selection doesn't require "belief" in any specific doctrine. That's why it is called a "theory". Also, being science, it is very flexible and accommodating to the findings of other scientists Attributing the whole of our empirical understanding of the world we live in to Darwin is insulting to hard working biologists and geologists.

Any thoughts?

And I agree; but still Darwinist is a term that Creationists use that is here to stay, simply because they place a specific emphasis on it. Heck, I prefer it to 'Evolutionist'.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Random

E-Prime, "Is-ness". Gives rise to all the "-ists". From "to be". Language is a b*t*h.

You reminded me of Robert Anton Wilson. Cheers!

[.lava]

Originally Posted by Alceste

The terms "evolutionist" and "Darwinist" seem to be bandied about in here quite freely. If I accept that the theory of relativity somewhat accurately describes the structure of space time, does that make me an "Einsteinist?" (heh, or a "relativist"?) Am I a Newtonist for accepting the concept of gravity?

Any thoughts?

-ist or -ism, mainly generalize people. when you generalize people you begin to ignore individual. imagine there are 1 million people who loves green colour. saying they love green is generalization. there are tones of green close to blue, there are tones of green close to yellow. there are many varieties. with generalization of -ist, all the characteristic of individual disappears. each unique individual turns into an ordinary number and they are all equal to each other. then powers could calculate us. -ist/-ism causes polarization of masses which serves leaders and politics of the world.


imo
imo
imo