exchemist
Veteran Member
Many people recognise there is more than one kind of creationism, that's all.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationism and Darwin, are they cloven, parallel, or just "you never know"?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
In other words you don't like my answer so indirectly accused me of being disingenuous.
Yawn.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
The narrative in your first paragraph as I quoted.
I can only speak from my own experience. Note that I was making a distinction between people who specifically criticise "Darwinism" as a generic pejorative and those who criticise actual evolutionary theory. Maybe "Darwinism" is a problematic a term as "Creationist" and both are best avoided.
You mean why is faith and religion involved in the discussion? As I said, people are flawed.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I don't think theistic evolution should be lumped with creationism, which tends to be the literal interpretation of creation myths.
The theory of evolution has gotten more accurate and precise as time goes on. It's referred to as the "theory of evolution". It has nothing to do with Darwin. Darwin (and Wallace) just happens to be the first to publish the observations and predictions about the process of evolution. Darwin was wrong about a lot, but that was in the 1850's.
"Darwinian evolution" is a misnomer and tends to be used by creationists as a means of discrediting evolution. How they attempt this is by associating evolution with Darwin, and then point out how Darwin was wrong about certain things. It's part of their disingenuous debate tactics.
Science only deal with facts. There is no supernatural phenomenon known to exist so these religious ideas are simply irrelevant. There are religious scientists, but they know to keep their religion out of science.
This is misleading. Science deals with facts and data. These have to be verifiable. It's all a natural process and nothing has to be assumed.
They have to if they want to keep their jobs.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Okay I understand.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Err. OK.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
Just call evolution a fact and move on. Works for me. I don’t buy evolution but it still remains a fact, all day long, in the world of facts.
No one ever said you had to buy a fact.
No one ever said you had to buy a fact.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Evolution is fact. True. But the thread is more than that.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
U were askin if creationists have a problem. What I wrote solves the problem if they have one.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I understand that. But see, there are some people who call themselves or fall into the bracket of creationism who oppose evolution. But even they will not be swayed by a statement that says "evolution is fact, so move on".
Anyway Jimmy, what you must understand is that the question is to discuss the problem. Also, it is to note and explore if everyone has a problem. Do they have a problem with evolution per se or is it with one theory?
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
I don’t know. I keep things simple. Works for me. Who knows what there problem is. To be honest I don’t really care
firedragon
Veteran Member
No problem.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
I mean I care, I just don’t get involved with peoples beliefs.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I understand.
Modern theory of biological evolution is not called "Darwinian Mechanism". Darwin is the founder and pioneering contributor, but since his time many other mechanisms, theories and models have been incorporated into it that were unknown by Darwin.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Okay. So the Darwinian theory of evolution has any other mechanism other than the darwinian mechanism? Is it?
As I said it is NOT called Darwinian theory of evolution. Please find me a science textbook on the topic that uses this name. If not, then please do not call it by a wrong name.
Second yes. Biological Evolutionary theory has several mechanisms apart from those proposed by Darwin. Several mechanisms proposed by Darwin are also not a part of the theory due to lack of evidence.
Mechanism proposed by Darwin that ARE included: Natural selection, sexual selection
Mechanisms proposed by Darwin that are NOT included: group selection
Mechanisms included but are NOT proposed by Darwin : Neutral theory, genetic drift, endosymbiosis, constraints coming from developmental biology, epigenetic changes, horizontal gene transfer
firedragon
Veteran Member
I am referring to darwinian theory specifically. If there is a rule in the forum not to use it, then of course you can delete this thread. No problem. But I will use it.
I dont know textbooks because I am not an evolutionary biologist. Yet you want to see it in use? No problem.
1. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy page number 1232
2. God the failed hypothesis by Victor J Stenger
3. American Heritage dictionary - 3rd edition
4. Michael Ruse in many of his books.
5. Relativity - Albert Einstein, Roger Penrose introduction and commentary by Robert Geroch
6. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
7. Encyclopedia of time
8. The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
9. Encyclopedia of Human Ecology
Maybe you should go to all of them and tell them all "we have a rule. You can't use the term Darwinian Evolution because you are wrong".
Peace.
Yes they should not have used it. Its scientifically wrong terminology. I notice that most of them are not actual science books are they? But I have to see the context.
My problem is that since the word "Darwinian theory" or "Darwinian mechanism" is not used in science, I do not know what is meant by it. If it means whatever Darwin wrote in his original book, then half of it is no longer accepted by modern biological sciences...especially since he did not know about genes and posited mechanisms of hereditary change that proved to be wrong. If it means only those parts of Darwin's proposals that are accepted by todays biological sciences (like natural selection based in fitness, evolution through reproductive competition among variants, sexual selection) then yes, those I do accept, with the important caveat that there are several other evolutionary mechanisms as well beyond those that were discovered after Darwin. Many more may also be discovered in future.