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 ...
js: This is the only power granted to Congress for which the means to accomplish its stated purpose are specifically provided.
So what? Religion and science do not stand equal before the Constitution. Of the two, one, and only one, is enumerated.
Article 1 Section 8 deals specifically with taxes, duties, levies, etc. Allowing for patents is not the same as the establishment clause in the Bill of Rights.
Exactly right. The statement in question was a hysterical swipe at this site.
If scientists would demand that science not be used as a weapon with which to destroy Christianity, they’d have more credibility.
It may be that it is the atheists and libertarians (is that redundant?) among them who are to blame.
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.
Governments that abandon religion are doomed by their own self destructive tendencies.
Pardon me. I thought you were using the term "enumerated" the way people in this universe use it.
He must quote a Christian. Atheists have zero credibility. So quoting great evolutionary geniuses like Dawkins, Huxley etc., would be useless. And he knows it.
One gets the impression that evos think that by quoting Christians who they think support evolution, that means that the rest of us are obligated to support it as well.
*Oh gee. The Pope supports it. Now I have no choice.*
He's not my Pope and I can think for myself.
It's the same as non-believers quoting Scripture at Christians. They think that Christians don't see through the transparent attempt to control the Christians behavior.
Newsflash: Christians do not melt down over some non-believers throwing verses around. They do not think, "Oh No! He quoted Scripture at me. I have to do what he says!"
For some people the only time Scripture has any validity is when it's used as a weapon to bludgeon Christians with.
That's a good question and I have often wondered about it as well. What's it to them if we do or don't believe what they say about dead monkeys in the ground and amoeba-to-human transformations? I mean, it's really up to them to argue convincingly for whatever it is that we are supposed to accept from them as true. Why to they rage when aren't successful at making a convert? They seem to have an attitude that we owe them unquestioning intellectual assent for anything they say. Even the slightest skepticism of their often specious and purile arguments invokes flaming wrath and brings to the surface some remarkable anti-God, anti-soul and anti-Christian sentiments. There's clearly something not normal about that.
When you really look at the way Darwinism is approached by its adherents, you will see a radicalism that is far more similar to Marxist or Keynesian economics than to Newtonian physics.
Speaking of John Maynard Keynes, he belonged to the Eugenics Society and also the Cambridge Eugenics Society. His nephew W.M. Keynes married Charles Darwin's grand-daughter. W.M Keynes was also a member of the Eugenics Society. John Maynard Keynes's mother belonged to a eugenical society. J.M. Keynes was gay too.
Which is why they constantly get accused of having an agenda. Because they're acting like they do.
I wish that those who are true scientists would speak out against the hijacking of science by the left like they do at the thought of it being influenced by conservative or Christian values.
Their silence on the issue of how science is being misused shows that they agree with it themselves.
Personally, I don't care whether someone agrees with special creation as stated in Scripture. I DO care when they go as far as demanding that what they believe is the only thing allowed to be taught in the public schools that my tax money is supporting.
>> 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. <<
I should confess to making several disparaging remarks about Air America...
Heh. :)
***************
Pathetic, but true.
>>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.
Looking back, I suspect it was somebody who has been here a month calling people who have been here for years Satanists without getting a whole lot of disagreement that sent us down that path.
What I'm saying is that dead twig or not, it's quite possible certain forms are being called transitional forms merely because they seem to fit a certain type, not because there's evidence that they evolved from the previous form and into the next form.
Yep. Some may disagree with me on this, but though I'm no fan of the evo lie, the problem with these bozos isn't evolution, it's personal arrogance. "How dare you criticize things thought by the mighty [fill n name of evocreep here]"
Perfectly stated!
If, for instance, I knew an atheist who didn't believe in gravity, I might try to demonstrate for them why gravity is real, but I wouldn't claim that it was due to atheism.
As I posted last night, I am not aware of a SINGLE scientific or technological breakthrough in the last 150 that relied upon evolutionary theory. We have seen the invention of the airplane, the automobile, men on the Moon, radio, television, computers, the internet nuclear power and incredible medical advance and NONE of them relied upon Darwinian theory.
However, I am acutely aware of the death and destruction brought about by adherents to Darwinian eugenics, this destruction is ongoing and the death toll is at least ONE MILLION PEOPLE PER WEEK.
Most science writing is sloppy. If you read journals or discuss the issue with biologists, you find that no one claims specific fossils represent direct ancestors or descendants of any specific creature. That would be like finding a human bone in a random grave and declaring it to be your ancestor.
The problem with science writing is the same problem faced with every kind of writing. If you try to anticipate every possible misinterpretation, or if you try to be one hundred percent precise, you wind up being dry and tedious.
What writers on evolution face is an entire industry devoted to quote mining and picking apart every loose construction.
Dreadfully off topic but I recently discovered that anybody with an iPhone or iPod touch can download pretty much everything by H.G. Wells free with an application called Stanza - its very worthy.
Thank you and thank you for your subsequent additions on meanings of “theory”
hmmmm......
LOL...I see, all us evil, extreme pro-life far right wingers, from the New York Times no less!
I guess if there’s anything oozing with irony it’s that’s this is all on FR!
pip pip and a hip hip hooray! ;)
There is a statement of absolute polarization. Anyone who isn't observed to actively support your cause must be assumed to actively oppose it needs to be confronted contentiously.
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.