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 ...
Did you consider copying the post I repled to along with the reply, or would arguing it in context be just too much trouble?
The difference is that the computer geeks often can't *help* but be pricks. Many of the banned posters who went to DC can be civil and charming once you get them off of theological subjects.
Cheers!
I agree. But the crowds that will have me, aren't the crowds I want to be in : (
??? What does that have to do with anything in this discussion?
Nothing. I just didn't want to get into a tit for tat on who understands the Tanakh better. Most of the Born Againers around here get confused when I mention the second set of Ten Commandments.
Cheers!
A "fact" can refer to observed data (Apples fall and hit Newton on the head).
A theory can be (depending on how loosely one uses terms) either a mathematical relation encapsulating the data (F proportional to ( m1 * m2 )/ r12**2 ) or a model framework which *yields* those mathematical relations.
It's a good idea if the mathematical relations actually end up approximating experimentally observed results.
So "evolution is a fact" might mean "We have observed data (fossils) which indicate that traits are propagated over time within populations" and the "theory" is whatever variant of Darwinism is popular today. But nonscientists take such a statement to mean "the current fad within Darwinism *must be true* beyond question" -- and they get indignant.
Kind of like Anthropogenic Global Warming...
Cheers!
You don't need as many humans to type a script of Hamlet.
Unless they are union members.
Cheers!
Cheers!
See also Lister and asepsis; anthropogenic global warming; polywater; etc. etc. etc.
Cheers!
So much for thinking I could have a rational discourse with you.
Politeness has disappeared from this site. Insults are the regular course for anyone who even apparently strays from the pack mentality.
I don't post much here anymore, and it's people like you that are the reason why.
Enjoy your pack.
It is not an either/or question that you are trying to imply.
My argument is that it's a false one.
How is 'prioritizing' false?
There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H. G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called "Doubts of the Instrument." In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all -- the authority of a man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it. For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved. And in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it.
The above quote was from Chapter 3, for those playing along at home.
Cheers!
It will waste their money and make their heads explode.
Cheers!
They don't care. It isn't their money.
Cheers!
And an unentertaining one at that.
Cheers!
That would be a Turing PROGRAM.
I guess whoever wrote the program behind "LeGrande's" posts will have to re-Google how to do their homework assignment.
Fail.
Besides, it's already been posted (with a screenshot of DC) how people from that site plan to come over here to troll on evo threads, and laugh at the responses.
Childish, and unworthy of the intellectual prowress they claim to represent and to possess.
Cheers!
Go read John Donne...
"...reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
but is captive, and proves weak or untrue"
Cheers!
Which is what the Christians have been saying about the Cross anyway.
Cheers!
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.