AndiGravity
New member
...ones from the religious? Okay, I think most atheists and/or those with a scientific mindset who have been in this section for very long will be familiar with irritating little phrases like "they call it the THEORY of evolution, so that means it's not proven," and I know such statements bother more than a few who are inclined to accept the Theory of Evolution.
However, I have also noticed atheists and those with a scientific mindset are sometimes also inclined to make such semantic arguments, generally incorrectly.
The two examples which come to mind are the snipes "there's no such word as evolutionist" and "science deals in evidence, not proof".
Of course, both assertions are easy enough to fact-check.
Evolutionist:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolutionist
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1245329#m_en_us1245329
The lexicographers and editors at dictionary.com, Merriam Webster's, and the OED all seem to think "evolutionist" is a word. I'd say that's a pretty good indication it is.
The argument concerning the use of "evidence" rather than "proof" also seems to be much ado about nothing.
Evidence:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence
Proof:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1281123#m_en_us1281123
Both dictionary.com and Merriam Webster's define "evidence" as proof of something, and "proof" as evidence of a thing, and while the OED doesn't define evidence as proof, it is in agreement proof is evidence in favor of something, so there is no reason why the words may not be used interchangeably except to make doing so into a petty argument that distracts from the issue at hand.
So, I'm curious. I know quite a few people are annoyed by the various little semantic word-games some religious people try to play to distract from the fact they really have no good way to address the question being put to them.
Do people feel the same way when it is the "other side" engaging in the such tactics?
And if you are an atheist or someone who accepts evolution because you have thought the matter through rationally, does it bother you when others who theoretically share your beliefs resort to making those statements?
I hate to have to point out the flaw in your logic, Jimmer, but the American Bar Association is not the official arbiter of what words mean in the English language, especially given the majority of the English speaking world does not reside in America and is not subject to its system of jurisprudence.
However, I have also noticed atheists and those with a scientific mindset are sometimes also inclined to make such semantic arguments, generally incorrectly.
The two examples which come to mind are the snipes "there's no such word as evolutionist" and "science deals in evidence, not proof".
Of course, both assertions are easy enough to fact-check.
Evolutionist:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolutionist
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1245329#m_en_us1245329
The lexicographers and editors at dictionary.com, Merriam Webster's, and the OED all seem to think "evolutionist" is a word. I'd say that's a pretty good indication it is.
The argument concerning the use of "evidence" rather than "proof" also seems to be much ado about nothing.
Evidence:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence
Proof:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1281123#m_en_us1281123
Both dictionary.com and Merriam Webster's define "evidence" as proof of something, and "proof" as evidence of a thing, and while the OED doesn't define evidence as proof, it is in agreement proof is evidence in favor of something, so there is no reason why the words may not be used interchangeably except to make doing so into a petty argument that distracts from the issue at hand.
So, I'm curious. I know quite a few people are annoyed by the various little semantic word-games some religious people try to play to distract from the fact they really have no good way to address the question being put to them.
Do people feel the same way when it is the "other side" engaging in the such tactics?
And if you are an atheist or someone who accepts evolution because you have thought the matter through rationally, does it bother you when others who theoretically share your beliefs resort to making those statements?
I hate to have to point out the flaw in your logic, Jimmer, but the American Bar Association is not the official arbiter of what words mean in the English language, especially given the majority of the English speaking world does not reside in America and is not subject to its system of jurisprudence.