Talk:Evolutionism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Like many -isms, Evolutionism needs a name

like many -isms does this indicate a faith-based system? Should it read:

Proponents of evolutionism subscribe to the theory of evolution as a faith and consider creationist ideas false without inquiry.

--MichaelTinkler (who'd like to write a page about 'scientism', but isn't up to the /talk section.)

(just a random note, I think you mean rationalism, which already has an entry. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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.

Is materialism a necessary prerequisite for scientific inquiry?

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

This Evolutionism page is a dictionary entry -- NOT an entry worthy of an encyclopedia

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.

Evolutionism should NOT be a separate page

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 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 [1] 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)

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)

We have fallen back into the Dark Ages -- A separate Evolutionism page again?

Quoting your opening salvo: <<Evolutionism is the advocacy of biological evolution as an explanation for the origins of life.>>

Surely you jest! Maybe you are trying to build an Abiogenesism page. And maybe you are pulling our leg. And maybe you don't know whereof you write. But in any case your writing in Evolutionism is so, so fragile. It cannot stand long. We will take it down. Why on earth do you think evolutionism as a separate page has any content at all!! Any standard English dictionary, pardon my pun, such as the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, page 636, will define evolutionism as "A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin." What more detail than that could there be in Evolutionism? Certainly Charles Darwin did NOT state an explanation for the origin of life! Or do you have in mind some Darwinian book that I have not read yet! Maybe I am wrong; tell me. ---Rednblu 02:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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)

---

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...

---

Among the people I know who use the word "evolutionism," most are anthropologists. And I assure you they do not believe in a Creator. They use the term "evolutionism" in writing--rarely in speaking--unless they are referring to a specific paper or a line of analysis in a series of papers. Here is a search on "evolutionism" at amazon.com. [2] That amazon.com link should give you a good set of data to sample the early uses and general uses of "evolutionism." I know you have an idiosyncratic penchant for calling anyone who forces you to deal with the facts a "creationist." But that is all right, blind man. Do your thing.
You might turn Evolutionism into a worthwhile page by tracing the history of Evolutionism. The idea that the atoms did it by themselves to create life and the diversity of species with no help from a Creator is at least as old as Democritus who lived around 400 BC. Here is an interesting translation of a quote of Lactantius, who you might agree hereby professed himself to be a creationist: "Democritus was wrong to think that human beings were generated from the earth like worms, without any design or any creator." (Taylor, The Atomists, p. 133).
Lucretius attributed to Epicurus the idea that we humans descended from the ancient ancestors of the wild beasts; and Epicurus was the student of a student of Democritus. Even before the birth of Christ, Lucretius described the changes in the physiology of early humans in growing to become different from their bestial ancestors:

"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]

Darwin's contemporaries used the term "evolution" to attack the idea of a Creator before Darwin ever used the term himself in his own publications. For example, the 1859 First Edition of Origin of Species did not use the term "evolution" and did not argue against the idea of a Creator. [4] In contrast, Herbert Spencer at the same time was writing of mechanisms by which natural forces because of probabilities could produce more complex and more adaptable structures generally, in civilizations, in politics, and in commerce--without the intervention of a Creator or assistance of a Divine plan. For example, in Social Statics in 1851, Spencer wrote:

"[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]

Spencer went further in his 1857, Progress: Its Law and Cause, saying that natural forces working within natural probabilities would form temporarily stable structures that replicated themselves against forces of competition in the primordial changes of the Universe, geology of the Earth, climate patterns, biological adaptations to environmental changes, evolution of Humanity from earlier beasts, diversity and longevity of social structures, political parties, and commercial firms--all done in the absence of a Creator:

"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]

It wasn't until 1872, in his Sixth Edition of Origin of Species that Darwin finally adopted into his own writing the term "evolution" that his contemporaries had been using for over twenty years to explain how the universe, earth, life, and intelligent people with working civilizations could arise without even one intervention or plan of a Creator. [7]
From these facts, you might outline the Evolutionism page as a chronological account of development of the ideas that natural forces could produce the ancient and modern worlds, including geology, physical law, and life forms without the intervention or plan of a Creator. A good reference for you to use might be Robert Carneiro's excellent book, "Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology." For example, the first chapter titled "The Early History of Evolutionism" summarizes the synthesis from earlier philosophers and brilliant innovation of Darwin's contemporaries in developing the concepts and terms of "evolution" and "evolutionism" in attempting to explain the origins of worlds, life, and civilizations without the intervention of a Creator or a Divine plan. [8]
In view of all the above possibilities for an excellent page on Evolutionism, I suggest that we all wait before nominating Evolutionism for Votes for Deletion and re-banishment to a #REDIRECT page to Evolution that would be the sure fate of the current Evolutionism page. ---Rednblu 20:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

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.>>

'If' that is true, what you write, then why would Charles Darwin so carefully insert such an UNbiological term as "evolution" into his Sixth Edition of Origin of Species after the word "evolution" had developed by 1872 a clear understanding for twenty years among English speaking peoples that "evolution" was the following: An explanation of how civilization, cities, citizens, cows, coleoptera, and coelenterates could arise from the Cenozoic ooze, carbon dioxide, and cosmic rays--all without the intervention of the Creator and without a Creator's plan? Herbert Spencer as he wrote about "evolution" a whopping six years before Darwin wrote his Origin of Species would surely disagree with your idea that "evolution" as he wrote about it was merely a theory of cultural evolution without a biological meaning. For Spencer explicitly listed the following as derived from "evolution": Universe, geology, climate, "every single organism," living humans, society and its "political and economical organization." [10] ---Rednblu 22:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

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:

  • Evolutionism
    • Early evolutionism
    • The ideas of Darwin and Spencer
    • Evolutionism versus Creationism
    • The future of evolutionism
    • Language and the word evolutionist
    • Related topics
    • External links
      • Online resources for original Darwinist literature
      • Evolutionist Political Arms

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 attalk: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)

---

How is this page significant?

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 (although they sometimes use the word Darwinism, though that page refers to Darwinian process) and the Peluga court case is justification enough. It is unlikely to be linked to by someone meaning biological evolution; that would be inherently POV and be pointing at the wrong page. There have been requests at talk:evolution for an "evolution as a religion" page. And following the principle of self-identification, it would be wrong to put information on atheism etc here; it is right that it points to such pages, someone researching the subject may type evolutinoism into the search bar; in that way it acts as a dismabig page, but it is not quite a disambiguation page because it contains useful information. I suppose you might want to reinstate the {{sectstub}} notice in the anthropology section. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

<<That it is identified by creationists as a religion . . . >>

How about the following as a scaffolding against which a worthwhile Evolutionism page could be constructed? From a religion-neutral viewpoint, religion contains one important element of science--explanation. [16] However, science goes one step further and requires that the explanations of science be verifiable--and must survive the verification. Would you agree with me that during the lifetime of Darwin, "evolution" replaced "religion" as the dominant explanation? But even if "evolution" replaced "religion" as the dominant explanation, that does not make "evolution" a "religion." Nonetheless, I think it would be a good idea for evolutionists to deal honestly with the way that Charles Darwin imported into his Sixth Edition of Origin of Species the term "evolution" for the first time with the clear understanding that from then on "evolution" and "natural selection" were to replace the Creator. This does not make Evolutionism a Religion; rather Evolutionism is a better explanation than Religion for people who require the explanation to be verifiable, verified, and repeatably demonstrable. --Rednblu 20:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

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)

---

Though I would not expect any creationist to be religion-neutral, I would like to think that an evolutionist could be--where by evolutionist I mean simply someone putting their bets on "evolution" rather than "religion" as the explanation. After all, "religion" seems to be a common human hunger, and if "evolution" is the explanation, then "evolution" is the source of even the human hunger for "religion." Accordingly, for the Evolutionism page, "religion" might be just an inherited intuitive explanation. [17]] ---Rednblu 23:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---