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 ...
How will teaching creationism as science help against the ACLU and the NEA?
No. It means if I pay the bill you be nice (especially to me) or you leave my house. You pay the bill and you can invite anyone to say anything you like at your home.
Claiming exclusive rights to the truth? You can have all the truth you want, just belly up to the bar here but go easy on it at first, you might not be used to strong drinks yet. It’s on the house!
Well aint htta just grande and noble of you- Beleif in freedom- Gee- we’re all in awe of your scruples. Oh that’s right- you don’t have any except for when it coems to freedom.
someday oyu’ll understand that with freedom comes the responsibility to conduct civil discussions- somethign you have proven you are unwilling to do (except apparently when someone agrees with you)- Take your ‘nobility’ and ...
Who’s paying the bill that I haven’t been nice to?
You missed the point completely.
“I’m just checking to see if all that concern about telling the truth about what happened to CM applies equally to both sides.”
We aren’t talking about you or me.
I don't think so. It's basically an all or nothing "with us or against us" proposition. Polarization.
We all know gummy; the only thing that impresses you is godless, accidental life from nothing.
You’re going to have a tough time finding that nail to hang your hat on at that last moment.
No, we're not. Have I been arguing with JR, posting under another name?
It's a persecution complex when any contradiction is perceived as persecution when it's not. Just like cm's constant hysteria about theocracies, the dark ages, and being burned at the stake. That's a persecution complex.
I respond to attacks against freedom and become antagonistic towards belief structures that are intolerant of other beliefs.
So you're intolerant of things that you perceive as being intolerant. We can't have any intolerance, now can we?
No one has a monopoly on the truth.
There's different schools of thought on that. When Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life. No man comes to the Father but through me." that is pretty much claiming a monopoly on the truth. Would you oppose Him as well then?
Consequently when I see attacks against someones irrelevant beliefs (not having to do with their belief regarding freedom) I enjoy tossing rocks at their glass house.
Irrelevant to what? What irrelevant beliefs? Christianity? The ones which gave us this Constitution in the first place?
So you enjoy trolling against people who you think are wrong?
My question to you Metmom, and anyone else who might be interested, is what is your priority on Free Republic, freedom or your other beliefs?
Translate that please. Define *freedom* as you're using it and *other beliefs* as you're using it. Freedom to do what? Freedom from what? What "other beliefs"?
Just for the record, why did you feel it necessary to ping JR to your post to me?
(Courtesy ping to JR in response)
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.I know of no reputable scientist who now say "...the universe collapsed back to a point of singularity." That is not what science puts forth. Science does say from that singularity the universe ushered forth. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning of collapse. The universe did not once expand then collapse. Science does not support this. Now it is true that Hoyl, prior to Einstein and Hubble, propounded the steady state universe, and it is true that some have put forth the multiverse theory, and some have put forth the oscillation-contration theory....but none are accepted. Whether you want your faith to fall in line with one of these theories, now on the asheap of history, is your buisness. I will not comment of your numbers of 7000 or 17 billion years....they mean nothing to me regarding this discussion.
The creation stories we see in the Bible and other antique literature almost certainly refer to the creation of our own living world and local environment and not to the entire universe. The universe, like God, is probably eternal. Now we have something new. You say the universe is eternal. Well, Einstein says you are wrong. Huybble says you are wrong. Wilson and Penzias say you are wrong. Entropy says you are wrong. The findings of COBE and WMAP say you are wrong. I think I will confine my understanding in the scientific realm with these fellows. Your science, and I suppose those you assert you agree with at Los Alamos, assume to state you know the mind of God yet do not even believe he exists or is omnipotent. That is an interesting juxtapostion of reason. But reason itself, not derivitive of Darwinian evolution, seems off limits to those who are materialist naturalists. How much does reason weigh? What is the molecular makeup of reason, logic, or truth. You asset a Darwinian universe through use of your logic and reason but cannot justify reason or logic by Darwinian evolution. I ask how do you justify believing anything at all. Reason, logic, and truth did not spring forth from the primordial, abiotic soup, did it? If it did, please tell me how inorganic chemicals gave rise to reason. Chemicals don't reason, they react.
...the infinite expanse of time prior to that....You might want to read Hawking and Einstein to understand that 'time' did not exist until the universe was created.
...nonsensical... the Bible and other antique literature almost certainly.... The universe, like God, is probably eternal...almost certitude.
The big bang idea is bad religion and bad physics rolled into a package; it's based on nothing more that the inability to visualize causes for redshift data other than an expanding universe.Wow! You just trashed, in one small sentence, most physists, astrophysists, Einstein, Hubble, Hawking, Eddington, Hoyl, Penzias, Smoot, and thousands of others. These are,...what did you say,.... men who have not the ability to visualize causes for a redshift data other than expanding universe.....Your scientific colors are shining through. Perhaps you might consider that they are following scientifc method and observation where physics takes them and not where their personal agendas take them. Eddingoton, Hoyl, and Einstein all found reproach in the notion of creation, but they could not, though Einstein tried through a fictitous cosmological constant, deny what they could see and measure. These men with lack of vision, as you say, are written into the history books as giants in their fields. On what page will your notions be memorialized? I wonder.
As Ken Ham has stated in his lectures and books,
while we conservatives are “shooting” at the “issues” such as abortion, promiscuity, children’s character issues, the homosexual agenda, out of wedlock births, and other morally rooted social problems,
the left has been working hard to undermine our very foundation. That is the Word of God, and that begins in Genesis.
"It's not what you don't know that frightens me, it's what you know that ain't so." (Variously attributed).
You’re going to have a tough time finding that nail to hang your hat on at that last moment.
There you go speaking on behalf of God again. Before you do something like that, you really ought to present some credentials.
I’m one of those interested ones. Freedom on Free Republic is not mine to grant or set as a priority seeing that I don’t make or enforce rules, nor do I have any control over the site.
As to my other beliefs, I defend them when I feel the occasion warrants and at my choosing but FR isn’t my personal web site so I don’t try to use it as such.
I’m a guest in someone else’s house so I try not to insult the other guests (at least not too much) or irritate the host. But never at the cost of tossing honesty out the back door, I hope.
Not too complicated but then I’m not too complicated.
Have you a pointed accusation to make, Boy-o, or are you merely spouting generalized talking points?
Bada Be . . . Bada Ba
Speketh the village idiot!
“No, we’re not. Have I been arguing with JR, posting under another name?”
WaaHahahahahah!!! I’ll never tell! You can’t make me! NEVER!
O.k., I give up. No. The reason I would not post under two names is that I might start to debate myself and we know where that leads. Any more than two and I might have split personalities and only one keyboard.
As to whether JR posts under other names, you’ll have to ask him. But I doubt it.
But what makes you ask in the first place?
Are you speaking for yourself, Juan Valdez, or Sl'gur't?
I've learned even more things about evolution that cause me pause. My thought has been that Darwin was and his modern day “disciples” are racists. If only the black community could grasp that, we'd see a flood of them leaving the democratic party. Perhaps a repackaging, (unfortunately “dumbing down”) of Darwinism and evolution from the conservative perspective to inform the masses would help that. Their ears always perk up at the race card.
Thanks to all of you for an interesting read!
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.