Evolutionists - please help!

by Georgiegirl 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  PrimateDave

  DD said,

  I would suggest that Georgiegirl take her time, because there are frauds on both sides, not to mention honest mistakes. I don't think it's really possible to do an "honest examination" on a furom like this.

  I agree she should take her time. What I mean by "honest examination" is that I did in fact make a great effort to understand the very best of arguments from both sides of the issue. IMO, Behe still makes some convincing points, though I have also read and understand the rebuttals to his arguments. I recognize that scientists have a long way to go. They don't have all the answers. I also know that it can be difficult for lay persons to set aside preconceived ideas when confronted with emotionally charged material. For me, personally, the answers are no longer found with fundamentalist Christianity. Therefore, "science" based on its tenents no longer has merit to me. Nevertheless, if you find comfort with your beliefs, may you have peace.
• 

  inkling

  And my sincere apologies for using the word "evolutionist" if it offended anyone. I had no idea that could be considered insulting - I thought it was the correct way to describe those who believe in evolution (as opposed to those who do not).

  Well, I see it not so much as "offensive" as possibly inaccurate, depending on its context.

  It also tends to be used most often by creationists, so tends to identify the user as one
  unless the context makes to clear the are not. Not that this is a bad thing, as it is a useful
  way to guess about someones history with the subject.

  If anyone cares, there are two interesting discussions on the use of the word, and whether
  or not it can/should be reclaimed from creationists (who hijacked it in the first place)

  http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&t=13862

  http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=92127#p2261985

  From one of those threads:

  --

  "Evolutionist" seems to also tie in with another creationist buzzword, "evolutionism". They use it as a synonym for evolution, but to me it denotes something different, more a philosophy that purports to be based on evolution. Thus evolution would be the science, whereas "evolutionism" would be philosophical ideas or beliefs supposedly derived from the science.They are very different ideas, but by having invented their use of "evolutionism" and then conflating it with evolution, creationists bolster their claim that evolution is a religion; eg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism):

  ----
• 

  PSacramento

  Psychotic Parrot,

  I mean no offense but your posts as of late seem to be very person, ad hominem attacks and very rude also.

  Not sure what you are going through but if you can tone it down a bit it would be greatly appreciated.

  Thanks.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Dave

  You brought up some good points. Another problem I see for the lay person, (even if you disagree with the author on science against evolutions site, about the sun) is that today, the lines between religion, philosophy and science are so blurred. Most of the discussions I see anymore are comparing apples and oranges. It gets very tiring, and not much fun. Usually the discussions degenerate to name calling.

  I posted that link to science against evolutions site because the guy has done some of the grunt work. Is he right about everything? I'll bet even he would admit maybe not. Does he need to be? Nobody is right about everything. I know I'm not and you would probably say the same. Even Albert Einstein was wrong on a lot of things.
• 

  TD

  I would suggest that Georgiegirl take her time, because there are frauds on both sides, not to mention honest mistakes.

  Yes, by all means, read everything. I especially enjoyed Denton even though ultimately, I didn't agree with him.