Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]
springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by 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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at springerlink.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Science
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; oldearthspeculation; piltdownman; propellerbeanie; spammer; toe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 1,321-1,329 next last
To: Jim Robinson

Jim -

Unless you want Free Republic to become a fringe site, please do something about the posters that are claiming the theory of evolution is “Satanism” (#21) and “devil worship” (#91).

Posts such as those aren’t helping Free Republic or the Republican Party.


121 posted on 01/28/2009 5:30:52 PM PST by CE2949BB (Fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Is he a “Creationist,” Gumlegs?


122 posted on 01/28/2009 5:31:33 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"It wasn't a scientific proposition."

Nonresponsive (again). Custard Pie - wall - nail

123 posted on 01/28/2009 5:31:39 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Daddy Darwin may be turning into a stuffy embarrassment to evolutionists but one look at the child tells us who the father is. And like it or not the dogma learned at Father Darwin’s knee is the Veritas of evolution today.


124 posted on 01/28/2009 5:33:03 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

I understand the tactic. You’re not getting what you want.


125 posted on 01/28/2009 5:33:46 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Anatheme; metmom
If we wish to distinguish arguments based upon faith and idolatory from those based upon evidence and rational thought then invoking the name of a single gifted scientist who died a long time ago and is therefore no longer around to defend or refine his position is self defeating. Darwin proposed a theory that explained a great deal about the origins and diversity of life but did so before there was much understanding of the mechanism by which this could occur - genetics. That he was so correct is a credit to his thinking and especially the parsimony of that thought.

Single gifted scientist? If he were around today, given his theory, which has "evolved" into a cult, he'd be shouted down, ironically, as a religious kook injecting religion into science if he submitted anything that remotely challenged evolution instead of supported it. In other words, if he were to write a paper about his own theory's flaws, how do you think it would be accepted? (By that I mean rejected.) I wonder how he would feel about that.

Although Darwin might have anticipated the whole ID premise, a lot of significant evidence has come to light since 1859 and a great deal of thought expended on what it means.

If he did indeed anticipate this, it's not very apparent that he anticipated his work being hijacked by an anti-God cult that responds to each and every challenge the way it obviously does today.

In the field of physics, would anyone, of reasonable credibility, own up to being a “Newtonian”, in the light of everything that has been discovered since the eighteenth century? Newtonian physics works fine and dandy for most purposes but we now know it to be an incomplete view of the world as it actually is.

I can't think of anything that is so insecure surrounding gravity (etc.) today, that when a concerned group of parents places a sticker on a textbook reminding students as in the example in evolution is mere theory, and not fact, they get sued, can you?

126 posted on 01/28/2009 5:34:28 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"I understand the tactic. You’re not getting what you want."

That's where you're wrong. Since I can't get honesty from you, I've gotten exactly what I want.

127 posted on 01/28/2009 5:36:54 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

I’ve made few statements regarding my opinion of the theory of evolution. In the end, it is either true or it is false and NO AMOUNT of debate can change that.

My problem with Darwinists has ALWAYS been their anti-God agenda and eugenics. Darwinists systematically ignore the fact that Darwinism has been responsible for over ONE BILLION UNNECESSARY DEATHS in the past century.

The Pope spoke talk about the necessity of accepting LEGITIMATE science. He DID NOT talk about blindly accepting science to push an agenda and he certainly didn’t condone the murder of over 125,000 innocent human beings A DAY.

I don’t dispute that in the beginning Charles Darwin was simply writing about his own observations, but his family quickly transformed Darwinism to a force of evil. Neither Karl Marx nor Charles Darwin wrote about killing people, but their philosophies quickly became to the pillars of evil in the Western world.


128 posted on 01/28/2009 5:37:46 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
That depends on one's definition of "creationist," doesn't it?

Judging from this piece, John Paul II may well have been banned from FR as a "Satanist" or "Liberal Troll," but he would have been welcomed at a site that several here have spent several posts sneering at.

I find that more than a little ironic.

129 posted on 01/28/2009 5:38:04 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

There’s blood in the water, and you want your share. Not happening here.


130 posted on 01/28/2009 5:38:24 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
That depends on one's definition of "creationist," doesn't it?

Slippery Clintonian parsing aside, please refine your reply to highlight just how Pope John Paul II is not a "Creationist," Gumlegs.

131 posted on 01/28/2009 5:42:30 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: CE2949BB; Jim Robinson
Posts such as those aren’t helping Free Republic

And I suppose you think your anti-FReeper site is?

132 posted on 01/28/2009 5:45:28 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; metmom
"No need; it's understood there."

Oh, of course!!

Just like how it's understood here, yet it didn't stop many evo's from accusing anyone who disagreed with them of thinking that dinosaurs rode on the ark.

133 posted on 01/28/2009 5:46:13 PM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Primordial soup Nazis? cool! Made with goose steps and spills on brown shirts! But a person can get heil! on it!


134 posted on 01/28/2009 5:47:30 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
There’s blood in the water, and you want your share. Not happening here.

If there is blood in the water, it happened when coyotemen opened his own veins. Otherwise our little exchange has also revealed that unless it’s in ‘science,’ honesty is a virtue you don’t value. But, keep talking. Maybe more will come out.

135 posted on 01/28/2009 5:48:54 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; YHAOS; metmom
I understand the tactic. You’re not getting what you want.

Evidence be damned.

Followed no doubt by the obligatory lecture about evidence!

Sheesh, in the dictionary next to "dead end" you find a picture of tacticalogic!

136 posted on 01/28/2009 5:49:11 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
And I suppose you think your anti-FReeper site is?

Which "anti-FReeper site" would that be?

137 posted on 01/28/2009 5:50:50 PM PST by CE2949BB (Fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I’ve made few statements regarding my opinion of the theory of evolution. In the end, it is either true or it is false and NO AMOUNT of debate can change that.

My problem with Darwinists has ALWAYS been their anti-God agenda and eugenics. Darwinists systematically ignore the fact that Darwinism has been responsible for over ONE BILLION UNNECESSARY DEATHS in the past century.

“… their anti-God agenda” is unsupported. There are some who accept the Theory of Evolution who are atheist, and some who are not. Eugenics has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You blithely assign all those unnecessary deaths to “Darwinism,” but the logic appears to be of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety.

The Pope spoke talk about the necessity of accepting LEGITIMATE science. He DID NOT talk about blindly accepting science to push an agenda and he certainly didn’t condone the murder of over 125,000 innocent human beings A DAY.

Read what he wrote. He accepts the Theory of Evolution as legitimate science. Your attributing every mass murder since 1859 is duly noted and dismissed. Shall we share the credit for the Holocost with Martin Luther?

I don’t dispute that in the beginning Charles Darwin was simply writing about his own observations, but his family quickly transformed Darwinism to a force of evil. Neither Karl Marx nor Charles Darwin wrote about killing people, but their philosophies quickly became to the pillars of evil in the Western world.

Fallacy of adverse consequences. The Theory of Evolution is an observation of how nature works. If some jackass misuses it and twists it, that in no way affects the validity of the observation or the theory.

138 posted on 01/28/2009 5:50:52 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

You had your chance to have my account.


139 posted on 01/28/2009 5:50:57 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Coyoteman
"Go to hell troll."

This is a very sad day for what was once a premier conservative website.

Unfortunately, it is not the first of such. You are banning Coyoteman because he was trying to gently remind someone that discussion forums have consistent and non-arbitrary rules for civil discourse.

At least, successful ones do.

.

I feel compelled to defend the posting of science information here. It is essential for people who will need to make decisions regarding their future, and their children's prospects.

140 posted on 01/28/2009 5:51:38 PM PST by NicknamedBob (It's getting harder and harder to distinguish those ululations of joy from primal screams of anguish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 1,321-1,329 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson