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.”

[wagglebee]

I was referring to the Darwinist site that Coyoteman, et al started. Are there others?

[Gumlegs]

I didn't say the Pope wasn't a Creationist. I merely said that there are Creationists and there are Creationists.

And I said that I suspected that the Pope's variety of Creationist -- the kind that accepts modern science -- wouldn't be terribly welcomed here.

Is the case otherwise?

[RegulatorCountry]

Are there others?

Banned, former FReepers share a lasting obsession with this place. There are quite a few.

[YHAOS]

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

That’s alright. Let him keep talking. It’s in little crises like this that some people demonstrate they have character. Other people just wet their pants.

[SisterK]

The only scientists that have ever posted here are all creationists.

Give science enough time and it will prove creation.

[tacticalogic]

Pre-emptive damage control? Why are you so worried about what people will say about what happened here? The thread will still be here for everyone to see and they can make up their own minds.

[metmom]

Welcome to FR.

[wagglebee]

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.

No, if you read my post carefully, you will see that I am speaking of Darwinists and not just evolutionists. Saying that eugenicists aren't Darwinists is like saying that the Nazis weren't socialists.

Your attributing every mass murder since 1859 is duly noted and dismissed. Shall we share the credit for the Holocost with Martin Luther?

Really, they were all faithful Darwinists.

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.

Go back and read what I wrote, I wasn't speaking about evolutionary theory. Darwinists use the theory of evolution as a diversion the same way 20th century communists used Marxism as a diversion.

[RegulatorCountry]

didn't say the Pope wasn't a Creationist. I merely said that there are Creationists and there are Creationists.

So, you're quoting a "Creationist," in defense of "science," Gumlegs?

Also, are you implying that there are no points of contention or areas of disagreement, between adherents of the modern ToE and the Catholic Church?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

In the end, [the theory of evolution] is either true or it is false and NO AMOUNT of debate can change that....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.

So what's the conclusion? Let's just suppose the theory is true, but also that people have used the theory to justify evil. What do we do with those facts?

[CE2949BB]

I was referring to the Darwinist site that Coyoteman, et al started.

lol. DC isn't anti-FR. DC is a forum for pro-science conservatives.

Pro-Science Conservatives may want to check it out, so here's a link:

http://forum.darwincentral.org/

Please: explain how the Republican party is supposed to win a nation-wide election in the 21st century when it rejects science. I'd love to know.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Gould didn't think neo-Darwinism was the be all but he made it clear that evolution its self was not to be questioned whatever the actual means.

The Church of Darwinism forced him to recant.

[metmom]

You are banning Coyoteman because he was trying to gently remind someone that discussion forums have consistent and non-arbitrary rules for civil discourse.

In your dreams. I know that's just what you and your cohorts over at DC would really like to be the case but saying so don't make it so.

[tacticalogic]

That’s alright. Let him keep talking. It’s in little crises like this that some people demonstrate they have character. Other people just wet their pants.

Ain't nobody going to wet their pants over some anonymous poster on an internet chat forum telling them what they better say or not say about what happened on a thread.

[wagglebee]

There was NEVER a need to use this theory to condone evil, Einstein’s and Newton’s work never was. But Darwin’s work was.

[wagglebee]

Please: explain how the Republican party is supposed to win a nation-wide election in the 21st century when it rejects science. I'd love to know.

I don't recall a single election where belief in science has played a role. You and your ilk seem to think the conservative movement can succeed by rejecting God and THAT is impossible.

[Gumlegs]

Eugenicists were also Christians. So what?

I don't suppose you'd like to back up that "faithful Darwinists" description? Hitler and Stalin used any excuse that was handy, including God.

Martin Luther was a Darwinist? Do tell! I know he was a notorious anti-Semite, and his teachings were very influential in the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany that enabled the Nazis to construct the Holocaust, but I've never heard until now that he was a Darwinist.

In any case, it appears you use "Darwinists" as some sort of catch-all term for "really awful people." Go right ahead. But at least slap some sort of warning label on your posts that you're not referring to the Theory of Evolution, just some really awful people no one likes.

[tpanther]

I don’t know why you think I want your account. You do as much for my cause as I do, perhaps more so!

[Sam's Army]

"Please: explain how the Republican party is supposed to win a nation-wide election in the 21st century when it rejects science."

Maybe they should stop rejecting conservative ideals first.

[Elsie]

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

Well; the latest National Geographic is all about Charles and his lucky guesses.

Even goes as far as to call DNA 'scripture'! (page 59 sidebar)

---

Page 44 has the line:

Darwin hadn't signed on to the Beagle as it's official naturalist; he was a 22-year-old Cambridge graduate pointed rather indifferently toward a career as a country clergyman, invited on the voyage as a dining companion for the captain, a mercurial young aristocrat named Robert Fitzroy.

Indifferent indeed; it seems...

---

 

 

 

His own words...

 

 

 

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )

---

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )

 

 

 

 

NIV 1 Timothy 1:20-21

 20.  Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,
 21.  which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.   Grace be with you.

---

 

NIV Proverbs 4:13
   Hold on to instruction, do not let it go; guard it well, for it is your life.

 

NIV Hebrews 3:6
   But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

 

NIV Hebrews 3:14
   We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

 

NIV Hebrews 6:11
   We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure.

 

 

NIV Hebrews 12:3
   Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

 

 

NIV 2 Timothy 2:11-13
 11.  Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;
 12.  if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;
 13.  if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

 

NIV 2 Peter 2:20-21
 20.  If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
 21.  It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

 

 

 

NIV 2 John 1:8
  Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.

 

NIV Jude 1:21
   Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

 

NIV Revelation 2:25
   Only hold on to what you have until I come.

 

NIV Revelation 3:11
   I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.