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 ...
“I knew him well.”
You should sample the MORMON vs Christian threads! ;^)
You mean the one mentioned along with certain inalienable rights?
What great faith. I gather that you believe that that elusive transitional fossil will be found some day.
If you're right, no worse than us.
If you're wrong....you might as well enjoy yourself now.
Getting educational credentials from evos is like getting water from a rock.
I was SHOCKED when my doctor said:
“Open up and show me your uvula.”!
Kind of hard to distinguish sometimes, isn't it?
I've voted for President Bush twice and I voted for Gov. Palin, but I must be a liberal troll from DU because I want to keep America from becoming a Christian Afghanistan.
Is paranoia a prerequisite for being an evo?
Is cm's ghost back already?
So now what? Everything that's no science is religion by default?
ROTFLMBO!
Oh interesting. Eugenie C. Scott was (and maybe still is) a member of the American Eugenics Society.
We shouldn't. The terms have a long and well established history. There is no reason why marxist-monist-materialists should dictate our vocabulary. They like to proscribe and redefine commonly used terms (like 'ape' for example.) There is no reason to concede to such tactics.
That's as far as it goes here.
And you are a Darwinian because you are a Randian atheist.
We shouldn't. The terms have a long and well established history.
Perhaps you can fill WW in on that. He seems confused about the origin of the term. I saw someone explain that just recently but don't recall who it was.
There is no reason why marxist-monist-materialists should dictate our vocabulary. They like to proscribe and redefine commonly used terms (like 'ape' for example.) There is no reason to concede to such tactics.
They like to redefine EVERYTHING, as is was evidenced by cm's homepage. You're absolute right.
If we can't define scientific terms, they can't define non-scientific ones.
The philosophy of communism is dialectical materialism. All the major commies (Deitzgen, Lenin, Stalin, etc) have said that it is merely a developed form of materialistic monism. Materialistic monism is the pseudo-scientific philosophical crap we hear from the vocal faction of evolutionists on this forum. Both marxism and eugenics have similar goals: the destruction of Christianity being the main one, because neither system can succeed where there is Christianity. Darwinians have tried to sell eugenics as a replacement religion. That was one of Galton's strategies, as well as Julian Huxley's. Eugenists were (and are) all totalitarians, just like the marxists. Julian Huxley believed in labour camps for biological outlaws. You are correct when you speak of elites. Huxley's elites are "scientists". They will tell you what you can and can't believe:
in the Socialized State the relation between religion and science will gradually cease to be one of conflict and will become one of co-operation. Science will be called on to advise what expressions of the religious impulse are intellectually permissible and socially desirable, if that impulse is to be properly integrated With other human activities and harnessed to take its share in pulling the chariot of man's destiny along the path of progress.--Julian Huxley, Religion as an Objective Problem.
Must remain neutral?! Have you been awake for any of the last 20 or so years?
This is the danger of growing up with MTV as your primary news source.
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.