6 ms·

No, “evolutionism” is actually the most correct characterization. The quip about scientology was meant to caricaturise the belief more than anything. Your claim

No, “evolutionism” is actually the most correct characterization. The quip about scientology was meant to caricaturise the belief more than anything. Your claims 1 and 2 are both incorrect. Creationists and Evolutionists can both agree that scientific process creates good results and is a generally well-reasoned approach to learning about the current state of the universe and making predictions for the future. Where they disagree is the extent to which this is true, especially as it relates to the ability of those predictions to track reality going forward and backward in time, but that’s more covered in a sibling comment.

gjm11 2y ago
What creationists and evolutionists (as such) disagree about is not some broad question about the philosophy of knowledge, though doubtless most creationists and most evolutionists disagree about those too. What they disagree about is the specific question of how human life on earth came to be the way it is. "Evolutionism" doesn't mean "believing that science is always right" or "believing that science is capable of answering questions about things other than repeatable experiments" or anything of the sort. Nor does it mean, as you put it elsewhere in this thread, "an axiomatic belief in the time invariance of physical laws". (Believing in those things might make someone more likely to be an evolutionist[1], but if that's enough reason for you to call them "evolutionism" then you'd better also be prepared to call being white "wealth" and being tall "playing basketball" and so forth.) [1] But one doesn't have to believe those things in order to be an evolutionist, and I fear you're engaging in the widespread but unjustifiable practice of seeing that someone disagrees with you, thinking "what cognitive flaw might lead them to be wrong in that way?", picking an answer, and assuming it's right. "Evolutionism" means "believing in evolution" or sometimes "believing that evolution is responsible for such-and-such particular things". (And sometimes some other related things, like "believing that evolution isn't just a consequence of physical laws but that Progress is somehow built into the fabric of the universe" or "applying the ideas of evolution to particular fields", but those aren't the meaning we're discussing here.) (This isn't some idiosyncratic usage of the word "evolutionism"; every dictionary I've looked in agrees that this is how it's used.)
- explaininjs 2y ago
  I don’t consider a belief in evolutionism a flaw any more than I consider belief in creationism a flaw. All I have said is that evolutionists match the GP’s description of being unwilling to consider what assumptions they are making, “hitting the wall”, so to speak. (as this thread has demonstrated, as I knew it would)
  - explaininjs 2y ago
    Upon reflection, it’s interesting that you leapt to describing my “flaw” as a burning desire to identify a “flaw”, when of course I did no such thing. But you did. That’s a common trope amongst evolutionists: “when I make unfounded assumptions based on my belief about X, it’s correct; when you do, it’s a flaw”. Of course you think it’s correct – it was your assumption in the first place! Enlightenment comes when you can count your assumptions.
    - gjm11 2y ago
      Yeah, sure, you don't regard "evolutionism" as a flaw, dear me no, that's why you said it ought to be called scientology "to caricaturise the belief", because that's what people always do with things they don't regard as flaws. And, sure, claiming that a group of people assume axiomatically that something's true that you think is false, that definitely isn't imputing any sort of flaw to them. Riiiight. In any case, I specifically didn't say that you regard evolutionism as a flaw. What I actually said differs from that in two ways. 1. I said I was making a conjecture about what you might be doing rather than a claim about what you are doing. "I fear you're engaging in ..." were my actual words. 2. The "flaws" I'm suggesting you may think you've identified are not evolutionism itself (at least, not as pretty much everyone uses the word) but other ideas: believing that science is always right, "axiomatic belief in the time invariance of physical laws", etc.
      - explaininjs 2y ago
        People caricaturize to being attention to noteworthy attributes, that does not imply a value judgment. But I could see how you might come to that conclusion if you were of the opinion that everything different from you is worse. I however am not of that opinion. And I believe people are free to pick any axioms that suit them, it is incorrect to say that “I believe they are false”, rather I accept they are axiomatic assumptions equivalent but distinct from those I have made. And I preach so that the folks making them might accept the same. You’re reaching for a lot that quite simply isn’t there. Also, I don’t have an issue with “believing science is always right”, I happen to think the scientific process science produces correct results myself. What I contest is the idea that evolutionism itself is somehow “scientific”, as the folks who believe it like to claim. There is quite simply no evidence of it that doesn’t require first axiomatically assuming the conclusion. But that axiom is so fundamental to many evolutionist’s world views that they do not fully consider its ramifications.

gjm11 2y ago

What creationists and evolutionists (as such) disagree about is not some broad question about the philosophy of knowledge, though doubtless most creationists and most evolutionists disagree about those too. What they disagree about is the specific question of how human life on earth came to be the way it is. "Evolutionism" doesn't mean "believing that science is always right" or "believing that science is capable of answering questions about things other than repeatable experiments" or anything of the sort. Nor does it mean, as you put it elsewhere in this thread, "an axiomatic belief in the time invariance of physical laws". (Believing in those things might make someone more likely to be an evolutionist[1], but if that's enough reason for you to call them "evolutionism" then you'd better also be prepared to call being white "wealth" and being tall "playing basketball" and so forth.) [1] But one doesn't have to believe those things in order to be an evolutionist, and I fear you're engaging in the widespread but unjustifiable practice of seeing that someone disagrees with you, thinking "what cognitive flaw might lead them to be wrong in that way?", picking an answer, and assuming it's right. "Evolutionism" means "believing in evolution" or sometimes "believing that evolution is responsible for such-and-such particular things". (And sometimes some other related things, like "believing that evolution isn't just a consequence of physical laws but that Progress is somehow built into the fabric of the universe" or "applying the ideas of evolution to particular fields", but those aren't the meaning we're discussing here.) (This isn't some idiosyncratic usage of the word "evolutionism"; every dictionary I've looked in agrees that this is how it's used.)

explaininjs 2y ago
I don’t consider a belief in evolutionism a flaw any more than I consider belief in creationism a flaw. All I have said is that evolutionists match the GP’s description of being unwilling to consider what assumptions they are making, “hitting the wall”, so to speak. (as this thread has demonstrated, as I knew it would)
- explaininjs 2y ago
  Upon reflection, it’s interesting that you leapt to describing my “flaw” as a burning desire to identify a “flaw”, when of course I did no such thing. But you did. That’s a common trope amongst evolutionists: “when I make unfounded assumptions based on my belief about X, it’s correct; when you do, it’s a flaw”. Of course you think it’s correct – it was your assumption in the first place! Enlightenment comes when you can count your assumptions.
  - gjm11 2y ago
    Yeah, sure, you don't regard "evolutionism" as a flaw, dear me no, that's why you said it ought to be called scientology "to caricaturise the belief", because that's what people always do with things they don't regard as flaws. And, sure, claiming that a group of people assume axiomatically that something's true that you think is false, that definitely isn't imputing any sort of flaw to them. Riiiight. In any case, I specifically didn't say that you regard evolutionism as a flaw. What I actually said differs from that in two ways. 1. I said I was making a conjecture about what you might be doing rather than a claim about what you are doing. "I fear you're engaging in ..." were my actual words. 2. The "flaws" I'm suggesting you may think you've identified are not evolutionism itself (at least, not as pretty much everyone uses the word) but other ideas: believing that science is always right, "axiomatic belief in the time invariance of physical laws", etc.
    - explaininjs 2y ago
      People caricaturize to being attention to noteworthy attributes, that does not imply a value judgment. But I could see how you might come to that conclusion if you were of the opinion that everything different from you is worse. I however am not of that opinion. And I believe people are free to pick any axioms that suit them, it is incorrect to say that “I believe they are false”, rather I accept they are axiomatic assumptions equivalent but distinct from those I have made. And I preach so that the folks making them might accept the same. You’re reaching for a lot that quite simply isn’t there. Also, I don’t have an issue with “believing science is always right”, I happen to think the scientific process science produces correct results myself. What I contest is the idea that evolutionism itself is somehow “scientific”, as the folks who believe it like to claim. There is quite simply no evidence of it that doesn’t require first axiomatically assuming the conclusion. But that axiom is so fundamental to many evolutionist’s world views that they do not fully consider its ramifications.