Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]

springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

[Coyoteman]

We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.

snip...

In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[gondramB to Fichori] I’ve got to wonder if I am alone in not understanding what the heck point you are making.

Check out the "Sunset" thread, one of the most interesting threads ever. The fun starts with post 458, and then hundreds more, wherein interested parties labour in futility to convince an atheist that the sun does not orbit the earth at 11,000 km/s.

[LomanBill]

>>Where does that leave me?

Worshiping yourself, apparently, Buddha.

What an enormous disapointment it must be for someone to attain total enlightenment moments before death, only to realize that there IS an omnipotent ruler of the universe - and that they are not Him.

[metmom]

OK. I didn’t know that. Thanks for the correction.

[metmom]

Would all that fall under the category of *evidence*?

As in *mountains of*.......

[gondramB]

>>Check out the “Sunset” thread, one of the most interesting threads ever. The fun starts with post 458, and then hundreds more, wherein interested parties labour in futility to convince an atheist that the sun does not orbit the earth at 11,000 km/s. <<

I’ll check your link.

But your phrasing begs the question: Are you suggesting the sun orbits the earth?

[Fichori]

“I’ve got to wonder if I am alone in not understanding what the heck point you are making.”

The subject is astrophysics and astronomy.

I was demonstrating the falsehood of the assertion of another FReeper who claims that the displacement of the Sun's apparent position from its actual position due to the rotation of the earth on its axis was 2.1°

If the Sun orbited the Earth, his claim of 2.1° displacement would be correct.

Needless to say, more than a few of this gentleman's ideas are a bit far out, not to mention completely unsupported by science.

Here is a graphic I made that reduces the physics down to just Diurnal aberration. (he asserted this model would produce a 2.1° displacement)

The angle of impact represents the displacement between the actual and apparent positions of the light source.

Rain that is falling straight down appears to slant when you are moving in a car due to your transverse motion to the path of the rain drops, causing the rain to appear to be coming from somewhere its not. (The same thing happens with photons and becomes more noticeable the faster you go)




Do you now understand what point I was making?

[Fichori]

“But your phrasing begs the question: Are you suggesting the sun orbits the earth?” [excerpt]

I'm not and Ethan isn't either.

As far as I know, nobody has actually said the Sun orbits the earth.

But we do have this:
The Sunset of Darwinism: post 593

[LeGrande] There is no difference between the Earth spinning in place or the sun orbiting the earth, the suns apparent position vs actual position is the same.

Like I've said before, not supported by science.

There are more of these quotes here and here. (In case you missed them)

[gondramB]

Thank you and thank you for your previous post.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Do you now understand what point I was making?

I don't want to answer for gondramB, but for myself: heck no. I didn't understand it the first time I read this argument, and I don't understand it now. I think I get what LeGrande is arguing--the earth's rotation combined with the time it takes the sun's light to reach us means the sun isn't exactly where it appears to be. But I'm not sure whether you and mrjesse are arguing that the sun is where it appears to be; that it isn't but by a different amount than LeGrande claims; that it isn't but for a different reason than LeGrande claims; or even if you and mrjesse are making the exact same argument. I'm not even sure if your animation is supposed to demonstrate something you think is right or something you think is wrong.

All of this is my fault, I'm sure. Seriously.

[Fichori]

“I think I get what LeGrande is arguing--the earth's rotation combined with the time it takes the sun's light to reach us means the sun isn't exactly where it appears to be.” [excerpt]

I believe that is his position.

“But I'm not sure whether you and mrjesse are arguing that the sun is where it appears to be;” [excerpt]

We are asserting that it is within ~21 arc seconds of where it appears to be.

“that it isn't but by a different amount than LeGrande claims;” [excerpt]

He is asserting 2.1°

“that it isn't but for a different reason than LeGrande claims;” [excerpt]

The reason for the 2.1° (Legrande claims) is due to the Sun/Earth transit time of the light and the rotation of the Earth on its axis.
If the Sun orbited the Earth, he would be correct.

(He also has asserted that there is no difference between the Sun orbiting the Earth and the Earth rotating on its axis, which is scientifically incorrect)

“or even if you and mrjesse are making the exact same argument.” [excerpt]

Yes.

“I'm not even sure if your animation is supposed to demonstrate something you think is right or something you think is wrong.” [excerpt]

The animation just demonstrates Diurnal aberration.

You can read about it on WP if you like: Aberration of light

[Fichori]

Welcome ;-)

[tacticalogic]

If you could take that animation, center the Earth in the middle of the monitor, and rotate the monitor clockwise at the same speed the Earth is turning, wouldn’t the result be the Earth would be stationary, the sun would be revolving around the Earth, and the resultant displacement would be exactly the same?

[Fichori]

“If you could take that animation, center the Earth in the middle of the monitor, and rotate the monitor clockwise at the same speed the Earth is turning, wouldn’t the result be the Earth would be stationary, the sun would be revolving around the Earth,” [excerpt]

Yes, it would turn into a two body geocentric model.

“and the resultant displacement would be exactly the same?” [excerpt]

No, the resultant displacement would not be the same because the speeds of the observer and observed changed.

The type of displacement depends on who is moving.

If the observer (Earth) is moving, then the Aberration of light causes a displacement.

If the observed (Sun) is moving, then Light-time Correction causes a displacement.

If the Sun were orbiting the Earth (geocentric), you would take the speed of light, distance to the Sun, and the speed that the Sun is moving, and then calculate the displacement as described in the above link on Light-time correction. (Or use LeGrande's formula)

If the Earth were orbiting the Sun (heliocentric) the displacement would be calculated as follows:
atan(Observer_speed_in_Meters_per_second / 299792485 ) * (180 / pi)
Returns the angular displacement in degrees.

While the difference between orbiting and being orbited may not be obvious to the naked eye, an accurate LRG will always tell you the difference.

Photons use an absolute frame of reference and thus, the differences between the Aberration of light and Light-time correction. (And why LRG's work)

[tacticalogic]

No, the resultant displacement would not be the same because the speeds of the observer and observed changed.

I'm not sure which is the "observer" and which is the "observed", but it seems like the displacement is relative to whichever one is standing on the Earth, and that would be the same to them regardless of which scenario is causing the displacement.

[tacticalogic]

What is the calculated difference in observed displacement between the two scenarios?

[tacticalogic]

If the observed (Sun) is moving, then Light-time Correction causes a displacement.

How do you calculate light-time correction in the case of a two-body geocentric (orbiting) model. The distance between the two bodies is constant.

[Fichori]

“I'm not sure which is the "observer"” [excerpt]

The one you're standing on while looking at the other.

“and which is the "observed", ” [excerpt]

The one that you're not on, but you are looking at.

“but it seems like the displacement is relative to whichever one is standing on the Earth, and that would be the same to them regardless of which scenario is causing the displacement.” [excerpt]

I'm not sure I follow.

If there is any motion, there will be displacement.

If what you're looking at is moving, its Light-time correction.

If you're moving, then its the Aberration of light.

(The way I understand it, if you and what you are looking at are both moving the same direction and speed, the Aberration of light and Light-time correction cancel each other out, and what you see is what you get)

“What is the calculated difference in observed displacement between the two scenarios?” [#1135]

~2.1° (Light-time correction) versus ~0.00583° (Aberration of light).

“How do you calculate light-time correction in the case of a two-body geocentric (orbiting) model. The distance between the two bodies is constant.” [#1136]

I don't have a formula handy, but its pretty simple.

You take the time it takes for the light to reach the Earth from the orbiting Sun, and then calculate how many degrees across the sky the sun travels in that time.

Off the top of my head:

transit time in seconds = distance in meters ÷ speed of light in meters per second
displacement in degrees = earth rotation speed in degrees per second × transit time in seconds

I think thats how it works. (Not sure, I haven't double checked it)

[grey_whiskers]

What exactly is your criteria for determing who is and isn't a troll?

Their posting behaviour and the reaction it gets.

You'll notice that earlier in this thread I posted a link to an article from Norm's Revenge talking about Arctic turtle fossils.

For some reason, it didn't generate a flamewar even though such an item would be pretty much in favor of evolutionary models.

Hence the topic alone is not what is causing the problem...

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

You're right, it isn't.

But I suspect one of two things happen:

1) Someone comes over after posting on DC and is so used to the tone there that his post here looks and feels like culture shock

2) The poster is so unused to dissenting voices on this topic they they lose their patience after awhile : particularly with the more strident, broad brush accusations (happens on both sides, with people calling the other side ignorant Fundies or Satanists, depeding on which direction the lemon meringue is being hurled).

Might as well be the Hatfields and the McCoys.

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

For some reason, it didn't generate a flamewar even though such an item would be pretty much in favor of evolutionary models.

Do you think it might have anything to do with an absence of posters intentionally trying to make people mad, or throwing around accusations of satanism?