Can An Evolutionist Be a Christian ?

Originally posted by twhitehead

Which seems to suggest evolution is either a religion or political view. It is neither.
Sorry, but that definition does not fit RD, nor does it fit me.

As much as you might like to control the English language, the term evolutionists has worked its way into modern speech.

Go out on the street and randomly select about 30 people and ask them whether or not Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist. I think most people familiar with the name of the author of The God Delusion will have no problem reminding you that he is an evolutionist.

Of course he could also be described as a biologist with ideas about evolutionary theory.

As to your sister?
I prefer not to comment on your personal relative's beliefs.

But there are really three levels of what is called Evolution.
The strongest form is a all-incompassing world view as a philosophical belief that gradualism in natural selection upon random mutations can explain the entire biosphere.

Some extend this gradualism beyond biology.
The people most likely to object to this form being thought of as a religion are the ones who probably would object to the phrase "Evolutionist".

Any biologist who feels the need to write a book vehemently saying if anyone does not believe in evolution he should be described with as many negative pejoratives as Richard Dawkins lists, including "wicked", should not be objecting to being called - "an Evolutionist".

And you shouldn't object either.

Hopefully, I can help you to understand your error. Slim chance given your history of never admitting a mistake however obvious.

I don't think it is an error at all to say RD is an evolutionist.
Rather I recognize that you wish to jury-rig the English language to make it "incorrect" to refer to the most vehement proponents of your theory, to the point of saying one is retarded or insane not to believe in it, can be identified as an evolutionist.

He believes it so strongly that he has to write a book called "The God Delusion" to say at worst, doubters of Evolution are also "wicked" - yet he'd rather not say that. But he did anyway.

So like it or not Dawkins is an evolutionist.

Which seems to suggest evolution is either a religion or political view. It is neither. Sorry, but that definition does not fit RD, nor does it fit me.

Are you similarly concerned about some of the generalizations, stereotypings, broad brushed accusations, and blanket catogorizings made in some of these statements by Richard Dawkins ?


Richard Dawkins Quotes

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_dawkins.html

" An evolutionist agreeing to debate with a creationist is like a reproductive scientist agreeing to debate with an advocate of the stork theory" - Richard Dawkins

This probably explains why "evolutionist" Richard Dawkins refused to debate William Lane Craig, Christian apologist.

Sounds like some of Dawkins' fans refer to him as an evolutionist too.

" Has anyone read any of Richard Dawkins' books or seen him on TV? If not, here are a bunch of videos on YouTube. He's an evolutionist for those who don't know. The series is called "The Root of All Evil". He's talking about faith without evidence. I recommend that everyone watch them."

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrB89SOLTFVg1YAlUZPmolQ?qid=20061005115317AAAYCEI

[My bolding]

Originally posted by sonship
As much as you might like to control the English language, the term evolutionists has worked its way into modern speech.

I am well aware of that. I have not claimed the word is not English. I am claiming it is not suitable.

Go out on the street and randomly select about 30 people and ask them whether or not Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist. I think most people familiar with the name of the author of The God Delusion will have no problem reminding you that he is an evolutionist.
In the US, that may be true. But that doesn't make them right.

Of course he could also be described as a biologist with ideas about evolutionary theory.
A much better description. Even better is 'a biologist who studies evolution.'

But there are really three levels of what is called Evolution.
The strongest form is a all-incompassing world view as a philosophical belief that gradualism in natural selection upon random mutations can explain the entire biosphere.

Some extend this gradualism beyond biology.
The people most likely to object to this form being thought of as a religion are the ones who probably would object to the phrase "Evolutionist".
I must have missed one. Where is the third? The evolution I know from science, is neither of the two you listed, and the one RD writes about is neither.

Any biologist who feels the need to write a book vehemently saying if anyone does not believe in evolution he should be described with as many negative pejoratives as Richard Dawkins lists, including "wicked", should not be objecting to being called - "an Evolutionist".
I can see you haven't read RDs books. Or read it with your usual mindset of 'he thinks what I want him to think, not what he actually writes!'.

And you shouldn't object either.
I don't think I would.

I don't think it is an error at all to say RD is an evolutionist.
That is because you clearly don't understand either what RD or I mean by evolution, nor do you understand RDs writings. Worse, you have no intention of understanding either of us.

He believes it so strongly that he has to write a book called "The God Delusion" to say at worst, doubters of Evolution are also "wicked" - yet he'd rather not say that. But he did anyway.
Can you quote him on that?

Originally posted by sonship
Are you similarly concerned about some of the generalizations, stereotypings, broad brushed accusations, and blanket catogorizings made in some of these statements by Richard Dawkins ?

Any particular one you have in mind?

Originally posted by twhitehead

He believes it so strongly that he has to write a book called "The God Delusion" to say at worst, doubters of Evolution are also "wicked" - yet he'd rather not say that. But he did anyway.
.
Can you quote him on that?

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” - Richard Dawkins

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/273975-it-is-absolutely-safe-to-say-that-if-you-meet

[my bolding]

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.

From "Ignorane is No Crime" by Richard Dawkins

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/114

Let me guess. You're going to make an issue out of - rather not consider - verses - rather not say.

Originally posted by sonship
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” - Richard Dawkins

Well I am very close to calling you wicked because I think your grasp of English is good enough to know that what you have quoted him saying is not what you earlier suggested he said. Do you perhaps not know what the English word 'or' means?

You also failed to read this sentence that you quoted:
"Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true."

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I am very close to calling you wicked because I think your grasp of English is good enough to know that what you have quoted him saying is not what you earlier suggested he said. Do you perhaps not know what the English word 'or' means?

I'm close to calling you lazy. Go fetch the quote yourself next time.

Originally posted by sonship
I'm close to calling you lazy. Go fetch the quote yourself next time.

How can I fetch a quote for something he didn't say? The quote you fetched doesn't match what you claimed he said.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How can I fetch a quote for something he didn't say? The quote you fetched doesn't match what you claimed he said.

As is typical your mind is running at warp factor 5 speed.

Okay, you make a deal out of the word "or". I know he said "or".
The effect that his statement was QUALIFIED was faithfully expressed by me. Though I did not use the word "or" in my reference, I did say that he would rather not SAY one matter - "wicked".

As it turns out to be precise he said he would rather not "consider" that.
Anyway if I wanted to exaggerate his remark I would not have volunteered to specify that he'd rather not say/consider "wicked".

That has the same effect of me saying "Well he said stupid OR ... wicked".

And by the way, just the other day I told poster, (?) stella ... that I was wrong about misunderstanding something he wrote about me. Go ask him about it.

Originally posted by sonship
Okay, you make a deal out of the word "or".

It is a big deal, because it changes the whole meaning of the sentence.

You originally said:

Any biologist who feels the need to write a book vehemently saying if anyone does not believe in evolution he should be described with as many negative pejoratives as Richard Dawkins lists, including "wicked", should not be objecting to being called - "an Evolutionist".

Clearly in your statement you are implying that Richard Dawkins called anyone who does not believe in evolution is [negative pejorative 1] and [negative pejorative 2] and .... and Wicked.

Richard Dawkins on the otherhand said: anyone who does not believe in evolution is ignorant or [negative pejorative 1] or [negative pejorative 2] or , and this is a logical possibility that he would prefer not to even consider, wicked.

If you can't see the difference the or's make, then you either have a very poor grasp of English, or you are wicked.

I am willing to consider that you don't understand the subtlety of the 'wicked' bit in RDs sentence, but you should be able to see the differences in the rest of it.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]" An evolutionist agreeing to debate with a creationist is like a reproductive scientist agreeing to debate with an advocate of the stork theory" - Richard Dawkins

This probably explains why "evolutionist" Richard Dawkins refused to debate William Lane Craig, Christian apologist.[/b]

The term "evolutionist" is never used outside of a debate involving creationism. It's a notion perpetuated by creationists to differentiate thier view on human origins from the one accepted by scientists.

That's not the only made-for- creationism term either; "macroevolution" is another one, made up to differentiate between "small" evolutionary changes (like breeding horses, or microbes evolving resistance to medicines) and the end result of millions of years of evolution (man evolving from ape ancestors). This is horse crap. Scientists don't make a distinction between the two. It's just "evolution".

"Evolutionist"is not a term Dawkins would use outside a discussion of creationism.

"Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the modern evolutionary synthesis as the best explanation of current data,[6] the term is seldom used in the scientific community; to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views,[7]unless specifically noted otherwise."

ttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

Just an observation, but there is a 'solution' in 'Evolutionist', and only a 'satire' in 'Creationist'. (As well as a 'Titanic).


Nothing to see here. Move along.