![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
like many -isms does this indicate a faith-based system? Should it read:
--MichaelTinkler (who'd like to write a page about 'scientism', but isn't up to the /talk section.)
No, it shouldn't, because they don't. -- AV
Dear Mike. I beg to disagree. The foundation of science is endless inquiry and questioning. This takes a bad "scientist" to leave a proposition without inquiry. Check my note on Piotr Wozniak to see that I myself also dug very deep into the inquiry (talking to my Catholic priests, talking to Jehova witnesses, talking to you and Tim Chambers, etc.). You can call me an evolutionist, but you cannot fairly accuse me of doing no inquiry. I spent hundreds of hours studying religious anti-evolutionary materials. With years I indeed become severely biased and rather impatient (usually "not again!" is the first thing that comes to my mind after a few paragraphs), but you cannot tell me I have not tried! I also belive the world with God would be a nicer place, but I cannot hope this to be true unless this is backed with evidence that I consider acceptable -- Piotr Wozniak
no, I'm not accusing you of being anything -- you're interested in the understanding of evolution in terms of the biological sciences. I am intending not to participate in evolution/creationism. There are, however, people who use science in exactly the way others use religion, as an excuse not to think very much. In contemporary English '-ism' is not a neutral termination, while '-ist' almost is. In fact, '-ist' tends to be a meliorative in exactly the intensity that '-ism' is a pejorative. That is how 'evolutionism' will be understood by most Anglo-American readers of English. --MichaelTinkler.
The belief that materialism is a necessary prerequisite to scientific inquiry is sometimes expressed by highly educated scientists with respectable educational credentials. For example, Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, wrote the following for the New York Review of Books in a critique of a book on Intelligent Design.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just–so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute..."(emphasis added)
I personally don't believe any such thing is necessary for the practice of good science. In fact, I frankly can't conceive of "scientific" evidence for an absolute naturalism. What would it look like? Perhaps science can make it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist," but it can't disprove the possibility of some non-mechanical force acting at some point in or prior to the history of the cosmos. I'm inclined to believe that, in spite of this, there are many who operate from explicit and unproven naturalistic assumptions. For others, like Lewontin, there are philosophical and metaphysical reasons behind their total commitment to materialism. But since these are the same kind of arguments theists have been using to support their systems since the time of Plato, I think it would actually be fair to call this kind of absolute and prior commitment to total naturalism "a faith-based system."
I also agree with Michael that "ism's" are commonly pejorative in common English use. This means that I doubt that Lewontin would enjoy being included in an article on "evolutionism."
These issues are important questions in the history of the philosophy of science. And they are equally important to anyone interested in the intersection between science and religion. But, though I'm sure they belong in the Wikipedia somewhere I just don’t think this is that place.
Nor, can I think of anything worth saying which really fits on this page... Perhaps it should be deleted? Evolutionism is a loaded word. -- Mark Christensen
Well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the mere existence of evolutionism as a word in my American Heritage (I'm at home without a scholarly dictionary) doesn't mean that we have to use it as an entry. The process of "starting entries and letting others elaborate them" seems to me often to lead to dictionary entries. --MichaelTinkler
Wikipedia got lots of shortcomings, but richness might be one of its greatest strenghts! If it is to live up to my dream, I want to find there EVERYTHING that I ever need to know. A word definition too. In that context, I will take the liberty to add ism entry. As a native Pole, I look at the language via dictionary, which is my language Bible and ultimate judge. I have never had pejorative associations with -ism. The association carries the load of a given personality. Hence Hitlerism would be negative. Marxism or Darwinism would carry the load dependent on your views, and Pavlovianism would be associated with the highest genius of behavioral physiology. Prompted by your claim I checked several dictionaries and ... no sign of (official) negativity there! -- Piotr Wozniak
The negativity attaches to new words, not to existing ones like Marxism or realism or idealism. So if there was a new theory stressing the importance of drumbicality in studying woosefuls, "drumbicalism" would carry a slightly pejorative meaning; it would tend to imply that people who advocate drumbicalism are fanatical in their devotion to drumbicalism, that they do not understand the various valid objections put forth by anti-drumbicalists, that they're backwater, that they're dogmatic, etc. People who defend the importance of drumbicality would probably prefer to call their theory "The theory of drumbicality" or "The drumbicality theory" or something similar, and would shun the label "drumbicalism".
However, if the term does catch on, after a generation or so it becomes neutral.
I'm in favour of abolishing this entry entirely, myself. -- AV
Drumbicalism is a first rate example. However, the 2 generation clause may not be true. Lord knows Marxism has been around for a while, and it is still subject to eye-rolling. Of course the Anglo-American problem is the belief that "common-sense" (i.e., everything opposed to all -ism designated belief systems) is not a belief system itself... --MichaelTinkler
Who uses the term "evolutionism"? I have never heard it used before. Is it used by creationists to characterize their opponents? If so I think the article should say so. -- Eob
I don't believe that this is a useful topic of a separate article. Instead, it should be merged elsewhere, and redirected to Evolution (disambiguation) - Mike Rosoft 15:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Quoting your opening salvo: <<Evolutionism is the advocacy of biological evolution as an explanation for the origins of life.>>
---
Right, you are the creationist, and it is principally creationists that use the word. Let's not get carried away here. :)
I agree that Abiogenesis needs mentioning too. I am using the term "origins" as a loose word to include abiogenesis in the first place and the evolution that followed it, like Darwin used the term origins in The Origin of Species. That ambiguation needs tidying up.
If however, we go onto usenet and Search for "evolutionism" we get many hits; and in talk.origins 27,200 of them. If we go to the dictionary defition, you neglect to point out the second meaning. Since it very clearly points to evolution, in which the scientific theory is explained, I do not think that that is a problem. (after all we have pages on creation and creationism). I'll post to t.o. and see if someone can help with the details. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 11:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Then there is Darwinism of course...
---
"But mortal man Was then far hardier in the old champaign, As well he should be, since a hardier earth Had him begotten; builded too was he Of bigger and more solid bones within, And knit with stalwart sinews through the flesh, Nor easily seized by either heat or cold, Or alien food or any ail or irk. And whilst so many lustrums of the sun Rolled on across the sky, men led a life After the roving habit of wild beasts. Not then were sturdy guiders of curved ploughs, And none knew then to work the fields with iron, Or plant young shoots in holes of delved loam, Or lop with hooked knives from off high trees The boughs of yester-year. What sun and rains To them had given, what earth of own accord Created then, was boon enough to glad Their simple hearts. Mid acorn-laden oaks Would they refresh their bodies for the nonce; And the wild berries of the arbute-tree, Which now thou seest to ripen purple-red In winter time, the old telluric soil Would bear then more abundant and more big." [3]
"[C]ivilization no longer appears to be a regular unfolding after a specific plan; but seems rather a development of man's latent capabilities under the action of favourable circumstances; which favourable circumstances, mark, were certain some time or other to occur. Those complex influences underlying the higher orders of natural phenomena, but more especially those underlying the organic world, work in subordination to the law of probabilities. A plant, for instance, produces thousands of seeds. The greater part of these are destroyed by creatures that live upon them, or fall into places where they cannot germinate. Of the young plants produced by those which do germinate, many are smothered by their neighbours; others are blighted by insects, or eaten up by animals; and in the average of cases, only one of them produces a perfect specimen of its species, which, escaping all dangers, brings to maturity seeds enough to continue the race. Thus is it also with every kind of creature. Thus is it also, as M. Quetelet has shown, with the phenomena of human life. And thus was it even with the germination and growth of society. The seeds of civilization existing in the aboriginal man, and distributed over the earth by his multiplication, were certain in the lapse of time to fall here and there into circumstances fit for their development; and, in spite of all blightings and uprootings, were certain, by sufficient repetition of these occurences, ultimately to originate a civilization which should outlive all disasters and arrive at perfection." [5]
"The advance from the simple to the complex, through a process of successive differentiations, is seen alike in the earliest changes of the Universe to which we can reason our way back, and in the earliest changes which we can inductively establish; it is seen in the geologic and climatic evolution of the Earth, and of every single organism on its surface; it is seen in the evolution of Humanity, whether contemplated in the civilized individual, or in the aggregation of races; it is seen in the evolution of Society in respect both of its political and economical organization; and it is seen in the evolution of all those endless concrete and abstract products of human activity which constitute the environment of our daily life." [6]
---
That's a nice bit of research; certainly its historical usage could be encyclopedic. Despite differences of opinion I think that this can be developed. VFD is a bit strong, yet, and the page should be kept though I have mentioned in at requests for comment. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 21:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have got some help off usenet. see [9]. Cheers, Dunc_Harris| ☺ 11:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't know of anyone within anthropology who uses the word "evolutionism" to describe an advocate of "cultural evolution." It might occur; all I can say is it is not common. Slrubenstein
---
You write: <<The word evolution was popularised during the 19th century by Herbert Spencer to mean cultural evolution; i.e. the improvement of cultures (see History of the theory of cultural evolution) — it was only later that it acquired its biological meaning.>>
---
Alright mate, I'm actually struggling a little with this history of anthropology stuff and would appreciate some help. Darwin's important contribution was to synthesise thought on origins and provide a mechanism for evolution [11]. Remember this is a wiki, and since you won't be able to get rid of this page through WP:VFD, you might as well help write it. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 09:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
Let me clarify again my personal interests. As an evolutionist, I think it is very important to get evolutionists to be realistic about how rabidly evolutionists continue to censor creationist speech; by law, by mob rule, and by monopoly. The current case-in-point is Wikipedia, specifically as evidenced by the knee-jerk vitriol of the evolutionists on the History pages of "creationism" [12] and "evolution" [13]. So I am not interested in playing the evolutionist reversion game of who gets the last reversion. What I am interested in is getting the creationists and the evolutionists to deal with the facts. Being an evolutionist, I have more hope for getting the evolutionists to deal with the facts. But the evolutionists repeatedly refuse to deal with the facts that the creationists pose to them. Let me suggest again a religion-neutral outline for the evolutionism page. If there is no God to make the politics of evolutionism a special cause different from any other political competition, then the evolutionism page should follow the outline of any Wikipedia religion-neutral summary of a political movement--such as communism. Accordingly, a religion-neutral outline for evolutionism might be derived from, for example, constructing the outline as a functional analogy to communism:
And I suggest any good evolutionist anthropologist's summary of the history of evolutionism as a sourcebook for filling out the above outline. I suggest to you the writings of the evolutionist anthropologists because they appear to me to be far more religion-neutral than the writings of the evolutionist biologists, as exemplified by the heavily religion-biased talk.origins propaganda that you cite. Here is a link [14] to give you an example of what I mean by "religion-neutral" writing. Specifically, I recommend that you purchase or borrow a copy of Robert Carneiro's excellent book, "Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology," and for your immediate perusal, I offer the on-line images of the first few pages of Carneiro's [15] First Chapter so that you can get an idea of the "religion-neutral" approach to "evolutionism" in this book. --- Rednblu 15:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
Okay, that makes sense. I did look at Carneiro's book; there is good material there that could find its way into evolution (disambiguation) and social evolution. Though please don't preach to me on the POV, your own user page speaks volumes; though that seems an odd philosophy to me; and I'm quite knowledeable on scientific philosophy. I promise I won't revert any edits you make, and we can discuss any of those here, and if neccessary go through appropriate process. Alternatively, let's try to make some notes at talk:evolution/sketch or somewhere.
As for censorship, there are two issues here. The first is that as a rationalist, I do not have a problem mentioning anti-evolutionist literature because it is patent nonsense; linking to it. However, it must be NPOV; the best way to do that is to represent the current scientific paradigm, then alternative scientific theories which meet the criteria of scientific philosophy, then the anti-evolutionist POV.
I agree that the first section needs expanding, but I'm an evolutionist (one who studies evolution); not a sociologist, and I'm slightly baffled. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 16:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
So how is the page Evolutionism different from Evolution and different from Creationism and different from Darwinism and different from Cultural evolution? What content or analysis would be on Evolutionism that would be on none of those other pages? --- Rednblu 17:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
<<That it is identified by creationists as a religion . . . >>
---
Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. Science is not a religion because science is by definition naturalistic; previous to The Origin the explanation that one would arrive at employing scientific principles would probably be Lamarckian in character. However, the problem with that is the philosophy of science develops somewhat after its publication, see Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn's philosophies. Rationalism comes from Bertrand Russell.
Popper said we cannot prove a positive, hence that evolution can't be proven, only implied hence it is a paradigm. By Occam's razor, the most probable explanation is the paradigm. Human's assessment of this probability changes with time, leading to paradigm shifts, atleast regarding those who study biology, though it needs to be pointed out that there was an "Eclipse of Darwinism" in which Lamarckism was often preferred, which wasn't really until over until the modern synthesis of the 1930s.
Humans hadn't really know this until about the 1960s however. And prior to evolution by natural selection becoming the accepted paradigm, advocacy of it was probably an ism.
However, some creationist are not religion-neutral and may consider evolutionism to be a religion. Because of Wikipedia's policy of self-identification and NPOV, it is only possible to say what the creationist POV is. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 22:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
---
"Philosopher of science Michael Ruse has more recently come to the conclusion that evolution is ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions."
The article says no such thing - I inserted a link. The Michael Ruse sentence above is not true (at least if it refers to this article) and should be removed. Is this just another typically dishonest creationist strategy?
This page should be merged with Creationism and Theory of Evolution. The essence of this page seems to condense down to the single sentence "Creationists refer to supporters of the Theory of Evolution as Evolutionism, seeking to treat it as a belief, rather than scientific theory". In addition, the existence of this page seems non NPOV. Therefore, for these two reasons, I have made this page a candidate for speedy deletion. CheeseDreams 20:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's obviously that anyone using the word ist or ism to describe something is obviously in in the great creationist conspiracy to label someone as an ist, for instance, there are some people that endorse science and believe that science is the way to benefit humanity and there are some people that practice science, thus, if people like myself that are creationists wanted to belittle them we could label them as SCIENTISTS and ruin them in light of the public, so fortunately, scientists aren't labeled as... oh wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ---
I'm sorry. I don't understand. Do you disagree with the disambiguation that starts the page?
I cut the following questionable paragraph here because the following paragraph is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. The Evolutionism page is not about the Creation vs. evolution debate.
I think you have in mind a speech that Michael Ruse gave to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1993. In my opinion, what he was talking about is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. If you get the whole speech and analyze it, I believe your analysis would be relevant to the Creation vs. evolution debate page. Would you agree? --- Rednblu | Talk 08:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The first section of this article is about the term's use in cultural anthropology / social sciences, though you'd be forgiven for not realising that as it really doesn't make it clear, and that the section spends so much time talking about Darwin may confuse things more.
The second section is about creation vs evolution, and whatever we decide here/VFD the two sections do not belong on the same page - if we vote to keep all content this must at least be a disambiguation page.
My own opinion is that the creationism stuff should be merged into the Creationism vs Evolution article, and we add a note "This page is about the Evolutionism as used in the social sciences; you may have been looking for the term used in the Creationism vs Evolution debate."
Joe D (t) 14:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--- <<Begin copy from the VfD page of votes against this proposal>>
--- <<End copy from the VfD page of votes against this proposal>>
I just created an Evolutionism (disambiguation) page for your review. :) --- Rednblu | Talk 18:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
<copied from VFD>
Why is that page discussing usage of a word? Isnt that the purpose of entries in Wiktionary (and disambiguation pages) instead?
I don't see why sections on "Sampling of use of Evolutionism" and the like should constitute a valid encyclopedia article.
What remains afterward is
Who agrees? CheeseDreams 01:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
I have waited two days now for someone to step forward in support of the above proposal. :) Clearly I disagree on all points, as you can see from the edit history of Evolutionism. :(( I suggest the following:
Is that a deal? --- Rednblu | Talk 17:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[Is "evolutionism" used by creationists to characterize their opponents?] I believe so. (Pun not intended.) I have never seen the term evolutionism or evolutionist in any other context. It seems to be used to somehow level the playing field, since the discussion between creationists and evolutionists—creationism vs. evolutionism—sounds much better than Creation vs. the theory of evolution, which would sound strictly like religion vs. science. Also using the term theory of creation would never be used by anyone who says that evolution is “ only a theory”—and rightly so, since not being a theory in the sense of scientific method would inevitably imply that it must be a theory in the informal sense, meaning speculation. The unfortunate creation science is used [18] but rarely, probably because it sounds like an oxymoron, and feels somehow ironic in its proper context. Personally, I find the usage and genesis of evolutionism (again, pun not intended) quite interesting and I think it would be very important to thoroughly explain if there is going to be an article on evolutionism. In any case, I don’t really mind if people call me an evolutionist, as long as they also remember to call me a gravitationist, electromagnetist, quantum mechanic and special relativity theoretician. Rafał Pocztarski 19:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[Should we define evolutionism as just "a theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin"?] I have to disagree. If there is going to be a separate article on evolutionism, it should contain much more than merely a reference to evolution and Darwin. No one would use the terms evolutionism and evolutionist if they meant exactly the same as the theory of evolution and someone who accepts it, respectively. In my opinion the article on evolutionism—if there is going to be one, or a section in some other article otherwise—should explain who tends to use those terms, and in what contexts (see my other comment). E.g. I have never heard anyone calling herself an evolutionist, just like I have never heard anyone describing herself as a gravitationist because she happens to accept the theory of gravitation. Furthermore, there are people who call others “Darwinists” but interestingly no one seems to call anyone “Newtonists” or “Einsteinists.” It seems that “evolutionists” are those who strongly oppose the rejection of evolution by creationists, but it is not the rejection of evolution per se that seems to provoke such strong emotional reactions of those so called “evolutionists” but rather the rejection of the scientific method. Therefore, I would call them “scientists” instead of “evolutionists.” Rafał Pocztarski 20:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whatever the final decision will be on whether to have separate articles or just short sections in already existing articles, I believe that it is important to note who, when, and why uses the terms “evolutionism” and “evolutionists,” for as we can see the fact is that some people do, and usually those who reject the theory of evolution, as a quick Google search for evolutionists and evolutionism seems to show very well. The opinion whether it is a good idea to use those words should probably be left to the reader who would have enough informations to base that opinion on some facts. Rafał Pocztarski 02:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
I have read what you wrote and I agree with the substance of what you wrote. Well said! --- Rednblu | Talk 02:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--- Begin references container for quotations and citations to published scholars of evolutionism
Marxism is concerned with speculative future changes to societies, rather than a description of past changes to the genes and structure of organisms; and as such has nothing directly to do with Evolutionist theories.
--- End references container
The vfd debate related to this article may be found at Talk:Evolutionism/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For example; This page: Evilgelical Christians has no more a POV title than Evolutionism. Either both titles are removed or both remain. CheeseDreams 11:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why not? Unless he's breaking some rule then he can try whatever he wants.
Annoying username ( talk) 12:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to nominate this page for deletion and got sent here. There is no such word as "Evolutionism" in Merriam-Webster on-line nor in my 1986 American Heritage Dictionary. All the references on the bottom of the page are to creationist literature, which should be a clue (even to the clueless, such as Creationists) that there is no issue to be discussed here, except if the clueless want to talk to the clueless, for which purpose they ought not to use Wikipedia. The general concept being promoted, I gather, is that people who believe in evolution are following a creed, and the creationists want to tar this creed with other labels like materialism and atheism. This does not demonstrate that people who accept Darwin's theory and its descendents are athiests or materialists; it demonstrates that creationists are unable to understand how a person could accept evolution and worship God! It illustrates the narrowness, the stubbornness of these "crusaders," who have to force everyone into their restrictive channel of thought and belief. Give it up! Let ordinary people live and believe in evolution and religion, or not, withuout trying to squeeze anyone who does not blindly follow you into the procrustean bed of atheism, materialism, and crassness. Pdn 02:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Evolutionism" and "evolutionist" are shibboleths used by religious cranks who have a problem with certain biological theories, nothing more. REMOVE.
It has been five months since CheeseDreams added the POV header, insisting that the term was only used by Creationsits. Clearly this has historically not be the case, as the page well documents. I don't see anybody else clamoring about a POV dispute. Unless anyone objects, I'll remove it. -- Fastfission 22:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It probably would be a good idea... -- goncalopp 30 June 2005 00:56 (UTC)
Church position must have a prominent section IMO, creationism being the main opponent.
BTW I stumbled upon the following claim:
Any idea what exactly was this about? Mikkalai 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I think this article violates No personal essays (imho so does " Intelligent design"). In my opinion most of the stuff can and should be moved to Creation science, History of evolutionary thought, Evolution, Erasmus Darwin, and other places. The current "definition" of evolutionism on this page is the same as Evolution. I think a more correct definition and introduction would be something along the lines of
What do the regular editors think?-- Ben 18:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Or how about this definition:
--Darwin caused the paradigm shift? Or was there already a focus on evolution? Or did Darwin just make it work... or...?
*as in the first paragraph. Need to rework this to read better (and also have some citations as it's mainly definition based.) --mention social structure. --mention social darwinism.
Collected wikilinks that might be helpful:
"The nature of emergence
According to Jeffrey Goldstein’s helpful overview (1999), the term 'emergence' was first used by the English philosopher G. H. Lewes well over 100 years ago. The term was taken up in the 1920s by "a loosely joined movement in the sciences, philosophy and theology known as emergent evolutionism…" (Goldstein 1999:53)." [24]
Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Evolutionism Very interesting stuff. I think the article should be based around this sort of thing. Evolutionism as a "family of ideas."
"Evolutionism is a family of ideas which affirm that the universe and some or all of its parts have undergone irreversible, cumulative changes such that the number, variety, and complexity of the parts have increased. Evolutionism is thus opposed to the belief that the universe and its parts are eternally the same; or that they have been the same since they were created; or that they are now the same as they have been periodi- cally in the past; or that they are emanations from a higher and perfect source. If only living things are included, theories of organic evolution result...."
More philosophy-related Evolutionist Theories and Whitehead’s Philosophy
Also search for "emergent evolutionism"
See also emergentism
Leave comments here, but also feel free to play around a bit in my suggestion. -- Ben 23:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Dave Souza's change to the intro is much better imho, but I still think a lot of work needs to be done. I still don't have a very full grasp on it though, so I'm going to hold off editing until I do.-- Ben 03:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Please take this poll and indicate whether you think a rewrite/major overhaul is a good idea (as in Support/Object/Neutral). Note that a vote of "support" doesn't necessarily mean you support my ( Ben's) suggestion specifically, just that you agree the topic needs a lot of work.
(sign with ~~~~)
I think the current second paragraph would confuse the reader when it comes to Anthropological evolutionism and Biological evolutionism. I find it sort of confuses the two. I'm going to think about it a bit and change it, but if anyone disagrees (or wants to change it themselves) let me know. Or if you disagree after I change it, write why here.-- Ben 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Until this is cited, it has no place in the article. In fact, this entire article is as POV as anything I've ever seen, and I will tag that as well.
•Jim62sch• 22:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose that as Jim62 has proposed, we roll back most of the article to its 2004 version: [25]. I look at the long voluminous discussion and it just makes my eyes cross. Why do we need so much discussion of a basically nonsense term that is only used by a few eccentric creationists?-- Filll 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The author is heavily biased toward evolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.134.9 ( talk) 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Certain words acquire negative connotations depending on their usage and who uses them.
Imagine the following scenario. Suppose someone decided that "Christians" should be called "Christianists", and then proceeded to say that Christianists are:
Suppose that this was repeated over and over and over. Christianists were painted as evil devil worshippers in numerous publications and in the media and public discourse. People gave frequent speeches saying that Christianists were the most horrible people on the planet and suggested that they should be jailed or worse. Suppose that the public was whipped into a frenzy of hatred towards Christianists based on this. Suppose that these people vilifying Christianists refused to call them by the preferred name, Christians, for years and years and years. After a while, the word Christianist might be viewed negatively, do you not think?-- Filll 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
When did this repeating happen over and over? And it seems that many statements in this article do not have sources so it seems like original research. Someone suggested evolutionists should be jailed? People are in a frenzy. Sorry I missed all of this. Do you have cites? Imbrella 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the use of the term D_rwinism is OK. Why do so many of the editors here get upset about it. D_rwin was a great thinker. And a very good writer and philospher. Imbrella 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be like calling those who accept molecules as a fact "Moleculists", it's outright stupid.
The article includes a section:
Ibn Miskawayh's al-Fawz al-Asghar and the Brethren of Purity's Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity (The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa) expressed evolutionary ideas on how species evolved from matter, into plants, and then animals, then apes, and then humans. English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812, while Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar were also available in European universities by the 19th century. These works likely had an influence on Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and his inception of Darwinism.
It is unclear to me how the sources indicate that Darwin was likely influenced by The Brethren of Purity work. Also, no sources are given which describe Darwin as a scholar of Arabic. This bit is also included in the Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Purity article almost verbatim. Thus it is a bit suspect in my view, unless better sources emerge. Perhaps this section should be removed. 69.15.214.217 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following line:
These works likely had an influence on Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and his inception of Darwinism. [1] [2]
Since I haven't been able to find anything that supports this statement. If anyone else can find a reliable source that supports its claims then please show it. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for religious propaganda and fantasies.
Joe_hill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe hill ( talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing. But you still have to be able to show some evidence or sources that support your claims. I have found nothing that supports the claim that "Darwin studied Arabic because he was interested in Islam" or that Darwins theory of evolution is based on or inspired by older arabic sources. That's my point. -- Joe hill 14:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following part of the article since it's speculations that doesn't really add any useful information:
" English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812, [3] while Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar were also available in European universities by the 19th century. English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812. [4] Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar and The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa were also available at the University of Cambridge.It has been suggested that these manuscripts may have influenced those interested in the transmutation of species at that time, possibly including Charles Darwin. [2] [5]" -- Joe hill 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"The polymath Ibn al-Haytham wrote a book in which he argued for evolutionism (although not natural selection), and numerous other Islamic scholars and scientists, such as Ibn Miskawayh, the Brethren of Purity, and the polymaths Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, Nasir al-Din Tusi, and Ibn Khaldun, discussed and developed these ideas. Translated into Latin, these works began to appear in the West after the Renaissance and appear to have had an impact on Western science."
Can anyone give any examples? Exactly in what way does it appear like muslim ideas had an impact on western science when it comes to the theory of evolution? If no one can give any examples of this - then I suggest we remove or rewrite that part. -- Joe hill ( talk) 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Having Judaism, Socialism, etc. in the "other isms" bit is totally silly, they are directly comparing it to creationism and other isms, no irrelevant examples need to be given. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Consensus. Reverting to examples given.
Goo2you (
talk)
04:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"This label is used by creationists to suggest that evolution is an ideology like Creationism and other " -isms"." Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 05:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I honestly tried to provide what I thought was an objective rewrite of this article since the way the term may be used by some creationists is a matter of someone's opinion and the term evolutionist can also be used by scientists or laypersons to describe themselves at times. Wether the term was orginally coined by people that were creationists really seems to be a matter of opinion since noone knows for sure. I provided real, valid sources rather than a bunch of garbage from talk forums like talk.origins. This article seems to imply that there is a creationist conspiracy afoot to label people as "evolutionists" which is not really any more valid than me rewriting the article to redirect to a page about the vast left-wing evolution conspiracy.
I'm hopeful that some sort of compromise could be reached so that this article deals with the subject at hand. The theory of evolution need not be explained to people on this page since that is what the evolution page is for. The information I provided in the edit that was reverted by an administrator as you can see in the [ History] was more relevant to the subject and was verifiable, whereas the sources cited from talk forums and even free web hosting services like geocities cheapen this encylopedia and make it a forum for petty bickering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The science article does not at all state that the term "evolutionist" is used by creationists for any purpose. That is factually incorrect. I removed the reference because it does not support the statement. Its an interesting article, though, and relevant to the history section. I added a reference there. My edit was reverted because the reference was "sufficient for an intro" and "supported later in the article." Neither is true. -- Thesoxlost ( talk) 06:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
A major complaint of the Creationists, those who are committed to a Genesis-based story of origins, is that evolution--and Darwinism in particular--is more than just a scientific theory. They object that too often evolution operates as a kind of secular religion, pushing norms and proposals for proper (or, in their opinion, improper) action.
-- Thesoxlost ( talk) 16:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop removing the talk.origins archive. This is considered a reliable source in articles on the creation-evolution controversy, per this discussion. So far these sources were removed three times, and reverted all three times by different editors. Someone was bold, but then reverted. The onus is now on that editor to discuss in the hopes that a new consensus will emerge, not to continue to edit war. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Silly Rabbit. It looks like TalkOrigins is being treated like other self-published works, and considered on a case-by-case basis. If the author is considered an expert in the field, it should be allowed. I edited the page again keeping in mind the substantive complaints of those who objected. On Wikipedia, you can't make blanket statements like "Creationists use term X to mean Y" without hard evidence. The TalkOrigin site lists evidence in the form of plaques at the Institute of Creation Research. I've modified the page to make clear that we are talking about the ICR. This was an attempt to come to a synthesis and improve the article, and not to create or further an edit war.
I would strongly encourage those of you who want to say that "Creationists" use the term in this way to provide more references for other creationists using the term in this way. The ICR should not be considered to talk for all Creationists. As I said, I'm not a creationist, and I find the claims of the ICR laughable. But the integrity of wikipedia depends on sticking to very strict standards, even if that means watering down your own strongly held position to the key, supported points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesoxlost ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hamidullah
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hart
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This claim is not supported by Darwin's biographers."[Darwin] studied Christianity in the Faculty of Religion at the University of Cambridge. Comparative Religion was one of the subjects taught in the University. Darwin also learned Arabic in order to understand Islam. In the collection of his letters that have been published, a number of them are addressed to his Arabic teacher. They are couched in extremely reverent and respectful language. [...] Among the text books prescribed for Arabic studies at that time were selections either from The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa [Brethren of Purity] or al-Fawz al-Asghar of Ibn Maskawayh. Both the books mention the theory of evolution."
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
like many -isms does this indicate a faith-based system? Should it read:
--MichaelTinkler (who'd like to write a page about 'scientism', but isn't up to the /talk section.)
No, it shouldn't, because they don't. -- AV
Dear Mike. I beg to disagree. The foundation of science is endless inquiry and questioning. This takes a bad "scientist" to leave a proposition without inquiry. Check my note on Piotr Wozniak to see that I myself also dug very deep into the inquiry (talking to my Catholic priests, talking to Jehova witnesses, talking to you and Tim Chambers, etc.). You can call me an evolutionist, but you cannot fairly accuse me of doing no inquiry. I spent hundreds of hours studying religious anti-evolutionary materials. With years I indeed become severely biased and rather impatient (usually "not again!" is the first thing that comes to my mind after a few paragraphs), but you cannot tell me I have not tried! I also belive the world with God would be a nicer place, but I cannot hope this to be true unless this is backed with evidence that I consider acceptable -- Piotr Wozniak
no, I'm not accusing you of being anything -- you're interested in the understanding of evolution in terms of the biological sciences. I am intending not to participate in evolution/creationism. There are, however, people who use science in exactly the way others use religion, as an excuse not to think very much. In contemporary English '-ism' is not a neutral termination, while '-ist' almost is. In fact, '-ist' tends to be a meliorative in exactly the intensity that '-ism' is a pejorative. That is how 'evolutionism' will be understood by most Anglo-American readers of English. --MichaelTinkler.
The belief that materialism is a necessary prerequisite to scientific inquiry is sometimes expressed by highly educated scientists with respectable educational credentials. For example, Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, wrote the following for the New York Review of Books in a critique of a book on Intelligent Design.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just–so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute..."(emphasis added)
I personally don't believe any such thing is necessary for the practice of good science. In fact, I frankly can't conceive of "scientific" evidence for an absolute naturalism. What would it look like? Perhaps science can make it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist," but it can't disprove the possibility of some non-mechanical force acting at some point in or prior to the history of the cosmos. I'm inclined to believe that, in spite of this, there are many who operate from explicit and unproven naturalistic assumptions. For others, like Lewontin, there are philosophical and metaphysical reasons behind their total commitment to materialism. But since these are the same kind of arguments theists have been using to support their systems since the time of Plato, I think it would actually be fair to call this kind of absolute and prior commitment to total naturalism "a faith-based system."
I also agree with Michael that "ism's" are commonly pejorative in common English use. This means that I doubt that Lewontin would enjoy being included in an article on "evolutionism."
These issues are important questions in the history of the philosophy of science. And they are equally important to anyone interested in the intersection between science and religion. But, though I'm sure they belong in the Wikipedia somewhere I just don’t think this is that place.
Nor, can I think of anything worth saying which really fits on this page... Perhaps it should be deleted? Evolutionism is a loaded word. -- Mark Christensen
Well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the mere existence of evolutionism as a word in my American Heritage (I'm at home without a scholarly dictionary) doesn't mean that we have to use it as an entry. The process of "starting entries and letting others elaborate them" seems to me often to lead to dictionary entries. --MichaelTinkler
Wikipedia got lots of shortcomings, but richness might be one of its greatest strenghts! If it is to live up to my dream, I want to find there EVERYTHING that I ever need to know. A word definition too. In that context, I will take the liberty to add ism entry. As a native Pole, I look at the language via dictionary, which is my language Bible and ultimate judge. I have never had pejorative associations with -ism. The association carries the load of a given personality. Hence Hitlerism would be negative. Marxism or Darwinism would carry the load dependent on your views, and Pavlovianism would be associated with the highest genius of behavioral physiology. Prompted by your claim I checked several dictionaries and ... no sign of (official) negativity there! -- Piotr Wozniak
The negativity attaches to new words, not to existing ones like Marxism or realism or idealism. So if there was a new theory stressing the importance of drumbicality in studying woosefuls, "drumbicalism" would carry a slightly pejorative meaning; it would tend to imply that people who advocate drumbicalism are fanatical in their devotion to drumbicalism, that they do not understand the various valid objections put forth by anti-drumbicalists, that they're backwater, that they're dogmatic, etc. People who defend the importance of drumbicality would probably prefer to call their theory "The theory of drumbicality" or "The drumbicality theory" or something similar, and would shun the label "drumbicalism".
However, if the term does catch on, after a generation or so it becomes neutral.
I'm in favour of abolishing this entry entirely, myself. -- AV
Drumbicalism is a first rate example. However, the 2 generation clause may not be true. Lord knows Marxism has been around for a while, and it is still subject to eye-rolling. Of course the Anglo-American problem is the belief that "common-sense" (i.e., everything opposed to all -ism designated belief systems) is not a belief system itself... --MichaelTinkler
Who uses the term "evolutionism"? I have never heard it used before. Is it used by creationists to characterize their opponents? If so I think the article should say so. -- Eob
I don't believe that this is a useful topic of a separate article. Instead, it should be merged elsewhere, and redirected to Evolution (disambiguation) - Mike Rosoft 15:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Quoting your opening salvo: <<Evolutionism is the advocacy of biological evolution as an explanation for the origins of life.>>
---
Right, you are the creationist, and it is principally creationists that use the word. Let's not get carried away here. :)
I agree that Abiogenesis needs mentioning too. I am using the term "origins" as a loose word to include abiogenesis in the first place and the evolution that followed it, like Darwin used the term origins in The Origin of Species. That ambiguation needs tidying up.
If however, we go onto usenet and Search for "evolutionism" we get many hits; and in talk.origins 27,200 of them. If we go to the dictionary defition, you neglect to point out the second meaning. Since it very clearly points to evolution, in which the scientific theory is explained, I do not think that that is a problem. (after all we have pages on creation and creationism). I'll post to t.o. and see if someone can help with the details. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 11:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Then there is Darwinism of course...
---
"But mortal man Was then far hardier in the old champaign, As well he should be, since a hardier earth Had him begotten; builded too was he Of bigger and more solid bones within, And knit with stalwart sinews through the flesh, Nor easily seized by either heat or cold, Or alien food or any ail or irk. And whilst so many lustrums of the sun Rolled on across the sky, men led a life After the roving habit of wild beasts. Not then were sturdy guiders of curved ploughs, And none knew then to work the fields with iron, Or plant young shoots in holes of delved loam, Or lop with hooked knives from off high trees The boughs of yester-year. What sun and rains To them had given, what earth of own accord Created then, was boon enough to glad Their simple hearts. Mid acorn-laden oaks Would they refresh their bodies for the nonce; And the wild berries of the arbute-tree, Which now thou seest to ripen purple-red In winter time, the old telluric soil Would bear then more abundant and more big." [3]
"[C]ivilization no longer appears to be a regular unfolding after a specific plan; but seems rather a development of man's latent capabilities under the action of favourable circumstances; which favourable circumstances, mark, were certain some time or other to occur. Those complex influences underlying the higher orders of natural phenomena, but more especially those underlying the organic world, work in subordination to the law of probabilities. A plant, for instance, produces thousands of seeds. The greater part of these are destroyed by creatures that live upon them, or fall into places where they cannot germinate. Of the young plants produced by those which do germinate, many are smothered by their neighbours; others are blighted by insects, or eaten up by animals; and in the average of cases, only one of them produces a perfect specimen of its species, which, escaping all dangers, brings to maturity seeds enough to continue the race. Thus is it also with every kind of creature. Thus is it also, as M. Quetelet has shown, with the phenomena of human life. And thus was it even with the germination and growth of society. The seeds of civilization existing in the aboriginal man, and distributed over the earth by his multiplication, were certain in the lapse of time to fall here and there into circumstances fit for their development; and, in spite of all blightings and uprootings, were certain, by sufficient repetition of these occurences, ultimately to originate a civilization which should outlive all disasters and arrive at perfection." [5]
"The advance from the simple to the complex, through a process of successive differentiations, is seen alike in the earliest changes of the Universe to which we can reason our way back, and in the earliest changes which we can inductively establish; it is seen in the geologic and climatic evolution of the Earth, and of every single organism on its surface; it is seen in the evolution of Humanity, whether contemplated in the civilized individual, or in the aggregation of races; it is seen in the evolution of Society in respect both of its political and economical organization; and it is seen in the evolution of all those endless concrete and abstract products of human activity which constitute the environment of our daily life." [6]
---
That's a nice bit of research; certainly its historical usage could be encyclopedic. Despite differences of opinion I think that this can be developed. VFD is a bit strong, yet, and the page should be kept though I have mentioned in at requests for comment. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 21:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have got some help off usenet. see [9]. Cheers, Dunc_Harris| ☺ 11:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't know of anyone within anthropology who uses the word "evolutionism" to describe an advocate of "cultural evolution." It might occur; all I can say is it is not common. Slrubenstein
---
You write: <<The word evolution was popularised during the 19th century by Herbert Spencer to mean cultural evolution; i.e. the improvement of cultures (see History of the theory of cultural evolution) — it was only later that it acquired its biological meaning.>>
---
Alright mate, I'm actually struggling a little with this history of anthropology stuff and would appreciate some help. Darwin's important contribution was to synthesise thought on origins and provide a mechanism for evolution [11]. Remember this is a wiki, and since you won't be able to get rid of this page through WP:VFD, you might as well help write it. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 09:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
Let me clarify again my personal interests. As an evolutionist, I think it is very important to get evolutionists to be realistic about how rabidly evolutionists continue to censor creationist speech; by law, by mob rule, and by monopoly. The current case-in-point is Wikipedia, specifically as evidenced by the knee-jerk vitriol of the evolutionists on the History pages of "creationism" [12] and "evolution" [13]. So I am not interested in playing the evolutionist reversion game of who gets the last reversion. What I am interested in is getting the creationists and the evolutionists to deal with the facts. Being an evolutionist, I have more hope for getting the evolutionists to deal with the facts. But the evolutionists repeatedly refuse to deal with the facts that the creationists pose to them. Let me suggest again a religion-neutral outline for the evolutionism page. If there is no God to make the politics of evolutionism a special cause different from any other political competition, then the evolutionism page should follow the outline of any Wikipedia religion-neutral summary of a political movement--such as communism. Accordingly, a religion-neutral outline for evolutionism might be derived from, for example, constructing the outline as a functional analogy to communism:
And I suggest any good evolutionist anthropologist's summary of the history of evolutionism as a sourcebook for filling out the above outline. I suggest to you the writings of the evolutionist anthropologists because they appear to me to be far more religion-neutral than the writings of the evolutionist biologists, as exemplified by the heavily religion-biased talk.origins propaganda that you cite. Here is a link [14] to give you an example of what I mean by "religion-neutral" writing. Specifically, I recommend that you purchase or borrow a copy of Robert Carneiro's excellent book, "Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology," and for your immediate perusal, I offer the on-line images of the first few pages of Carneiro's [15] First Chapter so that you can get an idea of the "religion-neutral" approach to "evolutionism" in this book. --- Rednblu 15:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
Okay, that makes sense. I did look at Carneiro's book; there is good material there that could find its way into evolution (disambiguation) and social evolution. Though please don't preach to me on the POV, your own user page speaks volumes; though that seems an odd philosophy to me; and I'm quite knowledeable on scientific philosophy. I promise I won't revert any edits you make, and we can discuss any of those here, and if neccessary go through appropriate process. Alternatively, let's try to make some notes at talk:evolution/sketch or somewhere.
As for censorship, there are two issues here. The first is that as a rationalist, I do not have a problem mentioning anti-evolutionist literature because it is patent nonsense; linking to it. However, it must be NPOV; the best way to do that is to represent the current scientific paradigm, then alternative scientific theories which meet the criteria of scientific philosophy, then the anti-evolutionist POV.
I agree that the first section needs expanding, but I'm an evolutionist (one who studies evolution); not a sociologist, and I'm slightly baffled. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 16:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
So how is the page Evolutionism different from Evolution and different from Creationism and different from Darwinism and different from Cultural evolution? What content or analysis would be on Evolutionism that would be on none of those other pages? --- Rednblu 17:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
<<That it is identified by creationists as a religion . . . >>
---
Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. Science is not a religion because science is by definition naturalistic; previous to The Origin the explanation that one would arrive at employing scientific principles would probably be Lamarckian in character. However, the problem with that is the philosophy of science develops somewhat after its publication, see Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn's philosophies. Rationalism comes from Bertrand Russell.
Popper said we cannot prove a positive, hence that evolution can't be proven, only implied hence it is a paradigm. By Occam's razor, the most probable explanation is the paradigm. Human's assessment of this probability changes with time, leading to paradigm shifts, atleast regarding those who study biology, though it needs to be pointed out that there was an "Eclipse of Darwinism" in which Lamarckism was often preferred, which wasn't really until over until the modern synthesis of the 1930s.
Humans hadn't really know this until about the 1960s however. And prior to evolution by natural selection becoming the accepted paradigm, advocacy of it was probably an ism.
However, some creationist are not religion-neutral and may consider evolutionism to be a religion. Because of Wikipedia's policy of self-identification and NPOV, it is only possible to say what the creationist POV is. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 22:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
---
"Philosopher of science Michael Ruse has more recently come to the conclusion that evolution is ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions."
The article says no such thing - I inserted a link. The Michael Ruse sentence above is not true (at least if it refers to this article) and should be removed. Is this just another typically dishonest creationist strategy?
This page should be merged with Creationism and Theory of Evolution. The essence of this page seems to condense down to the single sentence "Creationists refer to supporters of the Theory of Evolution as Evolutionism, seeking to treat it as a belief, rather than scientific theory". In addition, the existence of this page seems non NPOV. Therefore, for these two reasons, I have made this page a candidate for speedy deletion. CheeseDreams 20:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's obviously that anyone using the word ist or ism to describe something is obviously in in the great creationist conspiracy to label someone as an ist, for instance, there are some people that endorse science and believe that science is the way to benefit humanity and there are some people that practice science, thus, if people like myself that are creationists wanted to belittle them we could label them as SCIENTISTS and ruin them in light of the public, so fortunately, scientists aren't labeled as... oh wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ---
I'm sorry. I don't understand. Do you disagree with the disambiguation that starts the page?
I cut the following questionable paragraph here because the following paragraph is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. The Evolutionism page is not about the Creation vs. evolution debate.
I think you have in mind a speech that Michael Ruse gave to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1993. In my opinion, what he was talking about is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. If you get the whole speech and analyze it, I believe your analysis would be relevant to the Creation vs. evolution debate page. Would you agree? --- Rednblu | Talk 08:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The first section of this article is about the term's use in cultural anthropology / social sciences, though you'd be forgiven for not realising that as it really doesn't make it clear, and that the section spends so much time talking about Darwin may confuse things more.
The second section is about creation vs evolution, and whatever we decide here/VFD the two sections do not belong on the same page - if we vote to keep all content this must at least be a disambiguation page.
My own opinion is that the creationism stuff should be merged into the Creationism vs Evolution article, and we add a note "This page is about the Evolutionism as used in the social sciences; you may have been looking for the term used in the Creationism vs Evolution debate."
Joe D (t) 14:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--- <<Begin copy from the VfD page of votes against this proposal>>
--- <<End copy from the VfD page of votes against this proposal>>
I just created an Evolutionism (disambiguation) page for your review. :) --- Rednblu | Talk 18:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
<copied from VFD>
Why is that page discussing usage of a word? Isnt that the purpose of entries in Wiktionary (and disambiguation pages) instead?
I don't see why sections on "Sampling of use of Evolutionism" and the like should constitute a valid encyclopedia article.
What remains afterward is
Who agrees? CheeseDreams 01:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
I have waited two days now for someone to step forward in support of the above proposal. :) Clearly I disagree on all points, as you can see from the edit history of Evolutionism. :(( I suggest the following:
Is that a deal? --- Rednblu | Talk 17:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[Is "evolutionism" used by creationists to characterize their opponents?] I believe so. (Pun not intended.) I have never seen the term evolutionism or evolutionist in any other context. It seems to be used to somehow level the playing field, since the discussion between creationists and evolutionists—creationism vs. evolutionism—sounds much better than Creation vs. the theory of evolution, which would sound strictly like religion vs. science. Also using the term theory of creation would never be used by anyone who says that evolution is “ only a theory”—and rightly so, since not being a theory in the sense of scientific method would inevitably imply that it must be a theory in the informal sense, meaning speculation. The unfortunate creation science is used [18] but rarely, probably because it sounds like an oxymoron, and feels somehow ironic in its proper context. Personally, I find the usage and genesis of evolutionism (again, pun not intended) quite interesting and I think it would be very important to thoroughly explain if there is going to be an article on evolutionism. In any case, I don’t really mind if people call me an evolutionist, as long as they also remember to call me a gravitationist, electromagnetist, quantum mechanic and special relativity theoretician. Rafał Pocztarski 19:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[Should we define evolutionism as just "a theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin"?] I have to disagree. If there is going to be a separate article on evolutionism, it should contain much more than merely a reference to evolution and Darwin. No one would use the terms evolutionism and evolutionist if they meant exactly the same as the theory of evolution and someone who accepts it, respectively. In my opinion the article on evolutionism—if there is going to be one, or a section in some other article otherwise—should explain who tends to use those terms, and in what contexts (see my other comment). E.g. I have never heard anyone calling herself an evolutionist, just like I have never heard anyone describing herself as a gravitationist because she happens to accept the theory of gravitation. Furthermore, there are people who call others “Darwinists” but interestingly no one seems to call anyone “Newtonists” or “Einsteinists.” It seems that “evolutionists” are those who strongly oppose the rejection of evolution by creationists, but it is not the rejection of evolution per se that seems to provoke such strong emotional reactions of those so called “evolutionists” but rather the rejection of the scientific method. Therefore, I would call them “scientists” instead of “evolutionists.” Rafał Pocztarski 20:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whatever the final decision will be on whether to have separate articles or just short sections in already existing articles, I believe that it is important to note who, when, and why uses the terms “evolutionism” and “evolutionists,” for as we can see the fact is that some people do, and usually those who reject the theory of evolution, as a quick Google search for evolutionists and evolutionism seems to show very well. The opinion whether it is a good idea to use those words should probably be left to the reader who would have enough informations to base that opinion on some facts. Rafał Pocztarski 02:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
I have read what you wrote and I agree with the substance of what you wrote. Well said! --- Rednblu | Talk 02:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--- Begin references container for quotations and citations to published scholars of evolutionism
Marxism is concerned with speculative future changes to societies, rather than a description of past changes to the genes and structure of organisms; and as such has nothing directly to do with Evolutionist theories.
--- End references container
The vfd debate related to this article may be found at Talk:Evolutionism/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For example; This page: Evilgelical Christians has no more a POV title than Evolutionism. Either both titles are removed or both remain. CheeseDreams 11:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why not? Unless he's breaking some rule then he can try whatever he wants.
Annoying username ( talk) 12:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to nominate this page for deletion and got sent here. There is no such word as "Evolutionism" in Merriam-Webster on-line nor in my 1986 American Heritage Dictionary. All the references on the bottom of the page are to creationist literature, which should be a clue (even to the clueless, such as Creationists) that there is no issue to be discussed here, except if the clueless want to talk to the clueless, for which purpose they ought not to use Wikipedia. The general concept being promoted, I gather, is that people who believe in evolution are following a creed, and the creationists want to tar this creed with other labels like materialism and atheism. This does not demonstrate that people who accept Darwin's theory and its descendents are athiests or materialists; it demonstrates that creationists are unable to understand how a person could accept evolution and worship God! It illustrates the narrowness, the stubbornness of these "crusaders," who have to force everyone into their restrictive channel of thought and belief. Give it up! Let ordinary people live and believe in evolution and religion, or not, withuout trying to squeeze anyone who does not blindly follow you into the procrustean bed of atheism, materialism, and crassness. Pdn 02:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Evolutionism" and "evolutionist" are shibboleths used by religious cranks who have a problem with certain biological theories, nothing more. REMOVE.
It has been five months since CheeseDreams added the POV header, insisting that the term was only used by Creationsits. Clearly this has historically not be the case, as the page well documents. I don't see anybody else clamoring about a POV dispute. Unless anyone objects, I'll remove it. -- Fastfission 22:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It probably would be a good idea... -- goncalopp 30 June 2005 00:56 (UTC)
Church position must have a prominent section IMO, creationism being the main opponent.
BTW I stumbled upon the following claim:
Any idea what exactly was this about? Mikkalai 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I think this article violates No personal essays (imho so does " Intelligent design"). In my opinion most of the stuff can and should be moved to Creation science, History of evolutionary thought, Evolution, Erasmus Darwin, and other places. The current "definition" of evolutionism on this page is the same as Evolution. I think a more correct definition and introduction would be something along the lines of
What do the regular editors think?-- Ben 18:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Or how about this definition:
--Darwin caused the paradigm shift? Or was there already a focus on evolution? Or did Darwin just make it work... or...?
*as in the first paragraph. Need to rework this to read better (and also have some citations as it's mainly definition based.) --mention social structure. --mention social darwinism.
Collected wikilinks that might be helpful:
"The nature of emergence
According to Jeffrey Goldstein’s helpful overview (1999), the term 'emergence' was first used by the English philosopher G. H. Lewes well over 100 years ago. The term was taken up in the 1920s by "a loosely joined movement in the sciences, philosophy and theology known as emergent evolutionism…" (Goldstein 1999:53)." [24]
Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Evolutionism Very interesting stuff. I think the article should be based around this sort of thing. Evolutionism as a "family of ideas."
"Evolutionism is a family of ideas which affirm that the universe and some or all of its parts have undergone irreversible, cumulative changes such that the number, variety, and complexity of the parts have increased. Evolutionism is thus opposed to the belief that the universe and its parts are eternally the same; or that they have been the same since they were created; or that they are now the same as they have been periodi- cally in the past; or that they are emanations from a higher and perfect source. If only living things are included, theories of organic evolution result...."
More philosophy-related Evolutionist Theories and Whitehead’s Philosophy
Also search for "emergent evolutionism"
See also emergentism
Leave comments here, but also feel free to play around a bit in my suggestion. -- Ben 23:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Dave Souza's change to the intro is much better imho, but I still think a lot of work needs to be done. I still don't have a very full grasp on it though, so I'm going to hold off editing until I do.-- Ben 03:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Please take this poll and indicate whether you think a rewrite/major overhaul is a good idea (as in Support/Object/Neutral). Note that a vote of "support" doesn't necessarily mean you support my ( Ben's) suggestion specifically, just that you agree the topic needs a lot of work.
(sign with ~~~~)
I think the current second paragraph would confuse the reader when it comes to Anthropological evolutionism and Biological evolutionism. I find it sort of confuses the two. I'm going to think about it a bit and change it, but if anyone disagrees (or wants to change it themselves) let me know. Or if you disagree after I change it, write why here.-- Ben 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Until this is cited, it has no place in the article. In fact, this entire article is as POV as anything I've ever seen, and I will tag that as well.
•Jim62sch• 22:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose that as Jim62 has proposed, we roll back most of the article to its 2004 version: [25]. I look at the long voluminous discussion and it just makes my eyes cross. Why do we need so much discussion of a basically nonsense term that is only used by a few eccentric creationists?-- Filll 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The author is heavily biased toward evolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.134.9 ( talk) 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Certain words acquire negative connotations depending on their usage and who uses them.
Imagine the following scenario. Suppose someone decided that "Christians" should be called "Christianists", and then proceeded to say that Christianists are:
Suppose that this was repeated over and over and over. Christianists were painted as evil devil worshippers in numerous publications and in the media and public discourse. People gave frequent speeches saying that Christianists were the most horrible people on the planet and suggested that they should be jailed or worse. Suppose that the public was whipped into a frenzy of hatred towards Christianists based on this. Suppose that these people vilifying Christianists refused to call them by the preferred name, Christians, for years and years and years. After a while, the word Christianist might be viewed negatively, do you not think?-- Filll 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
When did this repeating happen over and over? And it seems that many statements in this article do not have sources so it seems like original research. Someone suggested evolutionists should be jailed? People are in a frenzy. Sorry I missed all of this. Do you have cites? Imbrella 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the use of the term D_rwinism is OK. Why do so many of the editors here get upset about it. D_rwin was a great thinker. And a very good writer and philospher. Imbrella 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be like calling those who accept molecules as a fact "Moleculists", it's outright stupid.
The article includes a section:
Ibn Miskawayh's al-Fawz al-Asghar and the Brethren of Purity's Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity (The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa) expressed evolutionary ideas on how species evolved from matter, into plants, and then animals, then apes, and then humans. English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812, while Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar were also available in European universities by the 19th century. These works likely had an influence on Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and his inception of Darwinism.
It is unclear to me how the sources indicate that Darwin was likely influenced by The Brethren of Purity work. Also, no sources are given which describe Darwin as a scholar of Arabic. This bit is also included in the Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Purity article almost verbatim. Thus it is a bit suspect in my view, unless better sources emerge. Perhaps this section should be removed. 69.15.214.217 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following line:
These works likely had an influence on Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and his inception of Darwinism. [1] [2]
Since I haven't been able to find anything that supports this statement. If anyone else can find a reliable source that supports its claims then please show it. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for religious propaganda and fantasies.
Joe_hill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe hill ( talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing. But you still have to be able to show some evidence or sources that support your claims. I have found nothing that supports the claim that "Darwin studied Arabic because he was interested in Islam" or that Darwins theory of evolution is based on or inspired by older arabic sources. That's my point. -- Joe hill 14:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following part of the article since it's speculations that doesn't really add any useful information:
" English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812, [3] while Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar were also available in European universities by the 19th century. English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812. [4] Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar and The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa were also available at the University of Cambridge.It has been suggested that these manuscripts may have influenced those interested in the transmutation of species at that time, possibly including Charles Darwin. [2] [5]" -- Joe hill 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"The polymath Ibn al-Haytham wrote a book in which he argued for evolutionism (although not natural selection), and numerous other Islamic scholars and scientists, such as Ibn Miskawayh, the Brethren of Purity, and the polymaths Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, Nasir al-Din Tusi, and Ibn Khaldun, discussed and developed these ideas. Translated into Latin, these works began to appear in the West after the Renaissance and appear to have had an impact on Western science."
Can anyone give any examples? Exactly in what way does it appear like muslim ideas had an impact on western science when it comes to the theory of evolution? If no one can give any examples of this - then I suggest we remove or rewrite that part. -- Joe hill ( talk) 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Having Judaism, Socialism, etc. in the "other isms" bit is totally silly, they are directly comparing it to creationism and other isms, no irrelevant examples need to be given. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Consensus. Reverting to examples given.
Goo2you (
talk)
04:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"This label is used by creationists to suggest that evolution is an ideology like Creationism and other " -isms"." Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 05:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I honestly tried to provide what I thought was an objective rewrite of this article since the way the term may be used by some creationists is a matter of someone's opinion and the term evolutionist can also be used by scientists or laypersons to describe themselves at times. Wether the term was orginally coined by people that were creationists really seems to be a matter of opinion since noone knows for sure. I provided real, valid sources rather than a bunch of garbage from talk forums like talk.origins. This article seems to imply that there is a creationist conspiracy afoot to label people as "evolutionists" which is not really any more valid than me rewriting the article to redirect to a page about the vast left-wing evolution conspiracy.
I'm hopeful that some sort of compromise could be reached so that this article deals with the subject at hand. The theory of evolution need not be explained to people on this page since that is what the evolution page is for. The information I provided in the edit that was reverted by an administrator as you can see in the [ History] was more relevant to the subject and was verifiable, whereas the sources cited from talk forums and even free web hosting services like geocities cheapen this encylopedia and make it a forum for petty bickering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The science article does not at all state that the term "evolutionist" is used by creationists for any purpose. That is factually incorrect. I removed the reference because it does not support the statement. Its an interesting article, though, and relevant to the history section. I added a reference there. My edit was reverted because the reference was "sufficient for an intro" and "supported later in the article." Neither is true. -- Thesoxlost ( talk) 06:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
A major complaint of the Creationists, those who are committed to a Genesis-based story of origins, is that evolution--and Darwinism in particular--is more than just a scientific theory. They object that too often evolution operates as a kind of secular religion, pushing norms and proposals for proper (or, in their opinion, improper) action.
-- Thesoxlost ( talk) 16:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop removing the talk.origins archive. This is considered a reliable source in articles on the creation-evolution controversy, per this discussion. So far these sources were removed three times, and reverted all three times by different editors. Someone was bold, but then reverted. The onus is now on that editor to discuss in the hopes that a new consensus will emerge, not to continue to edit war. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Silly Rabbit. It looks like TalkOrigins is being treated like other self-published works, and considered on a case-by-case basis. If the author is considered an expert in the field, it should be allowed. I edited the page again keeping in mind the substantive complaints of those who objected. On Wikipedia, you can't make blanket statements like "Creationists use term X to mean Y" without hard evidence. The TalkOrigin site lists evidence in the form of plaques at the Institute of Creation Research. I've modified the page to make clear that we are talking about the ICR. This was an attempt to come to a synthesis and improve the article, and not to create or further an edit war.
I would strongly encourage those of you who want to say that "Creationists" use the term in this way to provide more references for other creationists using the term in this way. The ICR should not be considered to talk for all Creationists. As I said, I'm not a creationist, and I find the claims of the ICR laughable. But the integrity of wikipedia depends on sticking to very strict standards, even if that means watering down your own strongly held position to the key, supported points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesoxlost ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hamidullah
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hart
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This claim is not supported by Darwin's biographers."[Darwin] studied Christianity in the Faculty of Religion at the University of Cambridge. Comparative Religion was one of the subjects taught in the University. Darwin also learned Arabic in order to understand Islam. In the collection of his letters that have been published, a number of them are addressed to his Arabic teacher. They are couched in extremely reverent and respectful language. [...] Among the text books prescribed for Arabic studies at that time were selections either from The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa [Brethren of Purity] or al-Fawz al-Asghar of Ibn Maskawayh. Both the books mention the theory of evolution."