I don't usually go to debates, but Ivanhoe had a great post there that I wanted to reproduce here for the benefit of all:
"Usually, scientific theories are being discussed in the realm of the sciences .......... but it seems to me that in the present American ideological landscape "Evolutionism" ( ... with a capital "E" !) is more and more seen and treated as a new overall ideology, both by its advocates and its opponents. An ideology, not just capable of explaining how species evolved, but also capable of explaining how everything else "evolved" and "came into being", a new kind of ideological Darwinism, which is as dangerous, as pseudo-scientific and as pseudo-religious as its kindred predecessor was in ideological history, the social Darwinism .... The members of the American liberal scene and their European copycats are embracing this exciting "new" ideology more and more, under the "rational" and "enlightened" leadership of the Great Guru, Richard Dawkins himself. The man has stepped beyond the boundaries of science and has become the high priest of the New Ideology called "Evolutionism".
What do you think ? Is "Evolutionism" still a "normal" scientific theory or has it become a new ideology, a new "way of thinking" ? "
Originally posted by Red NightThanks Red Night, I appreciate this.
I don't usually go to debates, but Ivanhoe had a great post there that I wanted to reproduce here for the benefit of all:
"Usually, scientific theories are being discussed in the realm of the sciences .......... but it seems to me that in the present American ideological landscape "Evolutionism" ( ... with a capital "E" !) is more and more seen and trea ...[text shortened]... fic theory or has it become a new ideology, a new "way of thinking" ? "
Originally posted by Red Nightbut it seems to me that in the present American ideological landscape "Evolutionism" ( ... with a capital "E" !) is more and more seen and treated as a new overall ideology, both by its advocates and its opponents.
I don't usually go to debates, but Ivanhoe had a great post there that I wanted to reproduce here for the benefit of all:
"Usually, scientific theories are being discussed in the realm of the sciences .......... but it seems to me that in the present American ideological landscape "Evolutionism" ( ... with a capital "E" !) is more and more seen and trea fic theory or has it become a new ideology, a new "way of thinking" ? "
That capital E is all yours, Ivanhoe. The only reason people even discuss evolution at all in the US for anything other than academic reasons is because so many aggressive Christians are so obsessed with it. Remember when there was actually a proposal to teach ID, a completely unsupported hypothesis, to children? Talk about taking science out of the realm of science! You don't teach kids random unsupported hypotheses as something to take seriously!
Likewise, the opponents of this fictional "Evolutionism with a capital E" are the only ones who consider it an ideology.
not just capable of explaining how species evolved, but also capable of explaining how everything else "evolved" and "came into being"
Abiogenesis is not the same as the Theory of Evolution, though evolutionary processes are hypothesized to be a central part of it. At least I hypothesize that. In any case, what if it is capable of explaining all that? It's still science, not ideology.
What is "ideological Darwinism" and why are you attributing that concept to people who believe in the TOE's correctness?
Likewise, 99% of the people who talk about Dawkins are his haters. I'm an excellent example of an atheist who likes to think of himself as an intellectual and who believes in evolution. In fact I have a Bachelor's degree in a closely related field from an excellent school. I've never even SEEN Dawkins' book! Never bothered to look for it while I was in a bookshop or library. He's that unimportant to me. I imagine I'd like his book and I bet he has good stuff to say. But there are MANY little projects like that to work on - like my careful analysis of the Book of Daniel as a source of scientific predictions, which I also don't have time for but takes precedence over finding Dawkins' book. I don't have the time or energy. For some reason, only Christians have the time and energy for Dawkins in my experience.
You're being a paranoid drama queen.
By the way, why is this in Spirituality? It seems to be slander against people who believe that life came from non-life. Abiogenesis is no longer earthworms being made from mud and rain in the space of a day. It takes much longer than that, and the initial stages are vulnerable to free oxygen.
No, nobody's done it in the lab yet. Nobody's even tried.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI actually went and bought his book after it being mentioned so often on this site. I can certainly recommend it. Most of it was stuff I already knew and generally agreed with, but he made some very valid points that I have not previously thought about to the effect that as a scientist and atheist I should not simply 'let well enough alone' when it comes to religion but should actively discourage it, as religion is generally harmful to society - for a number of reasons that he lists.
I've never even SEEN Dawkins' book!
Originally posted by twhiteheadWWRDD?
I actually went and bought his book after it being mentioned so often on this site. I can certainly recommend it. Most of it was stuff I already knew and generally agreed with, but he made some very valid points that I have not previously thought about to the effect that as a scientist and atheist I should not simply 'let well enough alone' when it comes ...[text shortened]... urage it, as religion is generally harmful to society - for a number of reasons that he lists.