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]

Read your post 505. I'm too tired to cut, paste, and italicize components of prior posts regularly tonight.

Cheers!

[Constitution Day]

Someone who was posting here seven years is a troll? I disagree.

[Fichori]

“It's sad, really. Free Republic could have been a major player in the political world, but JR decided to hand it over to the cretards and IDiots.” [excerpt]

That is Waaaaaay out of line!

Jim on Evolution, Creation, and the Constitution.
(In case you've read that and still haven't noticed, Jim is a Creationist)

If you don't like the way Jim runs FR, leave.

Anyone who misses you can visit you on DC.

[Cacique]

BTT

[Mr. Silverback]

This looks like the same broad-brush you didn't like when I included you in my post about the Pope's piece.

Au contraire. If I had been talking about evolutionists in general I would have said so, rather than using the word "someone."

Nope, I'm not under the delusion that believing in evolution makes one a creep.

[Mr. Silverback]

If the fossils of a rhesus were older than the fossils of the chimp, and there were no human or chimp fossils as old as the rhesus fossils, why would that be an invalid conclusion?

I hope you won't think I'm dodging your question when I say that's exactly my point.

We know that we didn't evolve from chimps...but what if we didn't?

For all we know, Australopitheucs currently occupies the same role in real evolutionary theory that the chimp occupied in my fanciful scenario. Maybe they just say she's an ancestor because there must be one at about that spot.

[Mr. Silverback]

Kind of hard to distinguish sometimes, isn't it?

Yep. Of course, he got the zot, too.

[Anatheme]

My Dear Chap, I'd be happy to let you know the origin of your tagline. But you won't like it I suspect. This from a very long essay on the quote in question....

"Anyway, the complete answer to the origins of the triumph-of-evil quote is not to be found on the Web, but in a very neat dictionary of misquotations I have discovered by Paul F Boller and John George called They never said it (Oxford University Press, 1989).

The much-quoted triumph-of-evil statement appeared in the 14th edition of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations (1968), with a letter Burke wrote William Smith on January 9, 1795, given as the source. But the letter to Smith was dated January 29, 1795, and it said nothing about the triumph of evil. When New York Times columnist William Safire asked Emily Morrison Beck, editor of the 15th edition of Bartlett’s, about the source, she acknowledged she hadn’t located the statement in Burke’s writings ‘so far’, but suggested it might be a paraphrase of something Burke said in a speech he gave in Parliament, ‘Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents’, on April 23, 1770: ‘When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.’ Safire thought her suggestion was a ‘pretty long stretch,’ but she included it in her introduction to the new edition of Bartlett’s.

Boller and George give a number of references, among which are Safire’s New York Times articles ‘Triumph of Evil’, of 9 March 1980, and ‘Standing Corrected’, of 5 April 1981. So Bartlett’s is the culprit, and the invention as recent as the 60s of the last century. It would seem in fact that the yoking together of the triumph-of-evil quote with the bad-men-combine quote goes back to Ms Beck. The two quotes often occur side-by-side on internet quote lists, which is probably why people assume one must be a paraphrase of the other.

Boller and George’s little book is a fascinating read. Their preface traces the history of quotes in the USA as instruments of political rhetoric. First their use, then their misuse, and finally their invention. The purely mendacious activity of conscious quote-faking they associate with the political right,

Radicals have plenty of quotations from Karl Marx, anyway, and probably see no need to add to the Marxist treasure-house. Extreme rightists in America have a real problem, in any case; they would like to cite the Founding Fathers, but rarely find what they want in Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson. Hence the quote-faking.

And certainly tracing the triumph-of-evil quote over the Web does keep taking you far more often than you would like to extreme rightist pages from the USA - John Birchers, libertarians, gun nuts, pro-life extremists of the abortion debate, and so on. The heart of darkness of the world wide web."
http://tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html

So, dearest tpanther, there we have it, in a nutshell, or at least compared with the length of the original essay, a nutshell. I do encourage you to read it in its entirety. You will be edified, trust me. Anyway, to misquote or misattribute such a commonly misattributed saying is a small matter, after all, to err is human, but to do so in such a predictable way is a bit more disappointing wouldn't you say?

And let's not forget, Burke was a Whig, a liberal in his time. For words he never wrote to be so often used as a rallying call of the far right just oozes irony. Were he alive today, apart from being very, very wrinkly, I think Burke would be a tad miffed.

And finally, on the subject of wrinkles, since we're getting along so well. W.H. Auden had a famously wrinkled and craggy face in his old age. He made Sitting Bull look like a poster boy for Nivea. Go here to see for yourself. According to Stephen Fry, when a young David Hockney was first introduced to him for the purpose of producing a portrait of the great poet, Hockney exclaimed (and if you can do this in a Yorkshire accent, so much the better)

"Blimey, if that's his face then what can his scrotum look like?"

(Fry, Stephen "QI" Series 2 Episode 8, UKTV, first broadcast 19 Nov 2004)

Pip pip,

A

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I hope you won't think I'm dodging your question when I say that's exactly my point.

We know that we didn't evolve from chimps...but what if we didn't?

But we know that we didn't evolve from chimps because chimps are around today and we don't have chimp fossils from as far back as we have fossils from the non-chimp, human branch. You're creating a scenario with no chimps around today, and then judging its validity based on what we know from chimps being around today. It's self-contradictory.

Besides, from what I've read, australopithecus isn't considered an "ancestor" in the sense that there's a direct line of descent from them to us. (I called them "transitional.") Rather, they're a dead twig on the same branch we're on. If there are no bipedal apes at 6 MYA, and on-their-way-to-bipedal apes (and humanlike hands et al.) at 3 MYA, and fully bipedal apes with big brains at 1 MYA, and now us, I don't see any problem calling those other ones "transitional," even if they're not direct ancestors.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I think Huxley was one of the first to use the term. And Darwinism it is so no more whining about it."

You THINK??? And that's supposed to be convincing??

[tacticalogic]

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

That's another endearing trait of crevo threads. Nobody is ever wrong.

[count-your-change]

Why yes, I think all the time, thank you. I think Darwinism is quite the correct term for the evolutionary thinking based upon his ideas, natural selection, speciazation, etc.

Is Scott, et al, ready to discard Darwin's basic premises? Or is it the case that it's time to redefine the term “evolution” so it can mean something else?

I can understand how Darwin might be a drag on redefining the language but neither you nor Scott has made the case why “Darwinism” is not descriptive, other than her feud with creationists, which is not my problem or concern.
Certainly it's not going to restrict my use of Darwinism.

So, I'll go on using the term, Darwinism, and quite properly so.

[count-your-change]

I think CE2949BB has left the building, ahh FR.

[metmom]

Looks like he was invited out.

Probably the comment about cretards and IDiots had something to do with it.

[metmom]

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.

And then they take such great offense when they're called on it.

Can you say *hypocrite*?

[metmom]

People change. And he did.

[trisham]

Do Muslims believe they believe in the same God as Jews and Christians? Yes.

Do I believe that they believe in the same God? No.

********************

I don't believe it, either.

[trisham]

This thread is perhaps the gravestone on the crevo threads here at FR.

Perhaps not, but evolutionists at this site are not only an endangered species, but one actively hunted with the express intent of elimination of the species.

And the crowd all cheered.

The irony will not be recognized when the target is consvervative talk radio, I’m quite sure.

******************

Please alert us all when FReepers begin attacking talk radio.

[trisham]

Probably the comment about cretards and IDiots had something to do with it.

*********************

LOL! Could be. Could be. :)

[metmom]

Talk radio will only be the target when it is no longer conservative.

If evos don’t want to feel picked on, they shouldn’t constantly be lining themselves up with groups like the NEA and ACLU.

If scientists would demand that science not be used as a weapon with which to destroy Christianity, they’d have more credibility.

Siding with the leftists is foolish. I’ve yet to see an anti-God form of government that has been favorable for science to flourish. I don’t think much research went on in the gulags.