Posted on 07/27/2006 3:00:03 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
"What's a "Darwinist?" Outside of the Creationist/ID community it is not used."
Not true. I've seen the term used by pro-evolution writers. Also, here's what Wikipedia says:
" However, in other countries — such as the United Kingdom — "Darwinism" carries no such derogatory connotations and is freely used by evolutionary scientists. A notable example of a scientist who uses the term in a positive sense is Richard Dawkins."
Evo's are scared of the competition of ideas which is why they fear anyone taking away their monopoly on ideas taught to children and anyone expose their lack of evidence. But they can't fool people forever. Eventually evos and global warming zealots will be overrun through the healthy competition of ideas.
You're fine.
Standard Cr/IDer tactic: Request proof and when provided decry it as being either too skimpy or too overwhelming.
You'll get used to theit 100% logical fallacy tactics soon enough. Keep your "Guide to Logical Fallacies (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm) handy. Sometimes they will get 3 or 4 in one sentence.
Pretty amazing and certainly amusing.
Please provide a scientific alternate theory to TToE that explains the evidence.
God stated flatly that he is a jealous God
Obviously, a jealous God is a flawed God.
Other than pop culture, I don't recognize Wikipedia.
"But Gods nonetheless..."
The Bible never uses capitalization for other gods. And of course the Bible acknowledges that there are other gods, such as those worshipped by all the pagans around ancient Israel.
I posted this aon another thread awhile ago. It is an article written by Gould who is not a strict Darwinist in the sense of slow gradual change. I found it at rom an article he wrote found www.stephenjgould.org:
He writes:
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record.
[The entire article is very good. I am being very selective to be brief, but found the following interesting, again he writes]:
I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target.
It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood.
It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. ......
But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them.
...... Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.
But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.
Apologies. I have been beaten up so may times for not using (H)e, (H)im, and (G)od, that I now do it by rote.
Sorry, I don't have time to dig up the proper "primary sources" prissy academics like so much. The fact remains: The term Darwinism is used by some scientists who are strong believers in evolution.
Better get ready for all the Creation Myths to get discussed then -- from Scientolofy's Xenu to the Brahma of the American Indians.
There is a place for that: In theology or philosophy class. But not in any science classes.
There is no competing scientific idea for TToE.
Well, all that happened on the first "day", was that light separated from darkness. Somehow I doubt that process took 24 earth hours/sarc.
In fact aren't cosmologists now postulating that a microdot that contained all the known matter of our universe was expanded into something the size of a basketball in something like (10 to the neg 35th power) seconds and then continued to accelerate from there to form all galaxies, stars, planets? That was "day 2-3"
It is used as an epithet here and in Creationist-based source material posted here.
She had me fooled. I thought the search and replace (Creationism-->ID) reflected a sincere attempt at considering "both sides."
It's also a waste of time for rational people to put too much effort into a 'conversation' with irrational people. It's only for the spectators and I think they've seen all they need to see in this case.
I was pretty sure that Stephen Jay Gould, noted evolutionist, uses the term Darwinism. Judging by post 150, he does indeed.
So admit it. You are wrong. Darwinism is not just a creationist epithet. Makes me wonder how accurate your other statements are.
Oh, I see, IDist Behe said that his definition of science includes astrology. "Nuff said.
ID can't even answer the simplest of questions: How did "the designer" intervene in the laws of nature to perform these miracles? When did He do it?
ID has no dates, no measurements, no positive evidence to offer.
You're right. Dialoguing with evo's is a waste of time. They don't listen much less learn. But eventually they will die off like the dinosaurs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.