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.”

[grey_whiskers]

You do know that Stalin banned the teaching of Darwinian evolution, and sent evolutionary scientists to the gulag, don't you?

All the more reason to help the Christians fight Obama -- the leftists actually put you in concentration camps, which is worse than getting banned from FR for mouthing off to Jim Robinson because he won't play along with your self-proclaimed intellectually superior circle jerk on *his* site.

But you apparently are too "bright" to have noticed...

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

Childish, and unworthy of the intellectual prowress they claim to represent and to possess.

And no rimshots.

[grey_whiskers]

Because I can cite many examples of him [Hitler] quoting the New Testament.

Are you admitting that you fell for it?

Because Satan quoted the Old Testament to Jesus, who quoted other Scriptures back, showing Satan to be in error, and ended up by telling Satan to go pound sand.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

No argument here. I don't even think that Christians believe in the same God.

Tacticallogic asked someone for their bona fides that they were saying God's word.

I find it a mark of hypocrisy that an equally declarative, but negative, statement, is allowed by tactical to pass unchallenged.

Cheers, you lovable, boring, predictable trolls.

[grey_whiskers]

Their favorite attack against me, after they lose the argument, seems to be to accuse me of being a Mormon in disguise.

Now you are reduced to projecting other people's ad hominem strawmen!

*snicker*

[tacticalogic]

Tacticallogic asked someone for their bona fides that they were saying God's word.

I'm going to ask for cite for that.

[grey_whiskers]

I very rarely accuse people of this, but Soliton *was* dishonest. He had some real moments on Shroud of Turin threads.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I was on FR until 1:30 in the morning last night and had to work late tonight.

So yes, it was too much trouble to take on behalf of a boring troll such as yourself.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

It will waste the money of their *sources*. Which means, since money is fungible, there will be less left to fund other Gramscian attacks.

And we still get to watch their heads explode, as they did when Sarah Palin was named the GOP VP pick.

[tacticalogic]

Too bad. You’re kind of interesting when you think before you post.

[grey_whiskers]

Look it up yourself. You wrote it.

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

Let’s leave scientists to the science books, and overturn Wickard v Filburn and watch lots of heads explode.

[tacticalogic]

I thought better of you.

[Gumlegs]

?

[Gumlegs]

You’re very kind.

[grey_whiskers]

Sadly, there some DC members so filled with pain and so intent on lashing out at Freep and/or Christians in general that the place is too fixated for me. Throw in some stalking behavior and DC has just become unhealthy.

I predicted that during the purges in Oct. 2006 or thereabouts, and consequently stayed away.

And that, by the way, is why many evo's get flamed to a crisp and called trolls when they participate in crevo threads on FR. People can tell they are just here to stir up resentment.

NO cheers, unfortunately.

[grey_whiskers]

Turns out it was Gumlegs, not you who said it.

" There you go speaking on behalf of God again. Before you do something like that, you really ought to present some credentials."

And what do you know, I forgot to pull the post # along with it.

Peer review works, I guess - you asked for a lit review and I gave you one, and partially corrected the citation.

What is the DC style guide for referencing FR links, anyway?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I'm so tired I read it as "Willard vs. Fillmore" and then had a mental image of Mitt Romney facing off against Millard.

Willard vs. Millard, in fact.

I'd better go to sleep before I start seeing pink elephants.

Cheers!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[grey_whiskers]

All together now: "Help, Help, I'm being repressed!"

Compose more of your own posts with a higher decree of decorum, you won't get it back.

See, it wasn't anti-evo hysteria after all, it was rudeness on your part.

Cheers!