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 ...
*********************
It seems that the difficulty arises when one has an agenda beyond the mere subject of evolution.
And I didn’t even get a chance to say good bye, (sob)!
Oh well, Black arm bands off, there’s work to be done.
>>Looking back, I suspect it was somebody who has been here a a little over a year calling people who have been here for years Satanists cretards and IDiots without getting a whole lot of disagreement that sent us down that path.
hmmmm...... <<
I think we (meaning you and I, not all Freepers) that its a problem from both sides.
But in this thread, the insults went to Satan by post #3 from a new poster without what I would have thought was appropriate strong disagreement.
I also get the impression that many of the evolution-talkers really don't give a damn about the veracity of what they are saying from day to day, or what the effect of it is on the perception and understanding of science. They practice divisive propaganda entirely modelled on the socialist sort. They are afflicted, to varying degrees, with an aversion to the word "truth". Mentioning "truth" provokes some of them into incredibly disparaging statements of the very notion. And they are surprised by our reaction. Which is itself surprising. Why would someone believe that a conservative would go along with a theory of science based on the idea that there is no truth? If there is no truth, all that's left is a struggle of propaganda. Even though truth is a dirty word for some of these evolution-talkers, they nevertheless want us to "accept" what they say as if it were true. And we must "accept" their ever-changing, ever-evolving positions as well. It used to be true that recapitulation was definitive evidence for the truth of evolution. That truth has changed. But all this is of course just marxist-style philosophy on dialectically evolving truth. The truth is whatever the party says today.
Here's something from the preface (by MacDonald) to Enrico Ferri's Socialism and Positive Science. If I recall correctly, Ferri was a student of Caesare Lombroso, who was, alongside Ernst Haeckel, an honorary associate of Rationalist Press:
"The chief value of this study, however, is the claim that it so successfully makes, that the Socialist conception of human progress and of the social conditions which are to be the characteristics of the next, the Socialist, stage in that evolution, is not only in accordance with the processes which Darwin proved to be the method of the development of life from the Moneron to man, but is those very processes themselves applied to human society with such modifications as are necessitated by the fact that they now relate to life, which can consciously adapt itself to those circumstances, and aid natural evolution by economising in experimental waste. Thus, Socialism is naught but Darwinism economised, made definite, become an intellectual policy, applied to the conditions of human society,""It maybe true logically, as Ferri asserts, that once the evolutionary process is granted, it is as easy to swallow the gnat of eternal and self-existent force and matter as it is to swallow the camel of an eternal and selfexistent God."
Sorry for the typo ..should have said
I think we (meaning you and I, not all Freepers) agree that its a problem from both sides.
It would be pretty foolhardy even for a seasoned FReeper.
But then again, maybe that’s why you don’t find many seasoned FReepers who say things like that. They don’t last long enough to become seasoned.
That's a keeper...
Other than your contention, there is no evidence that the very different fascist, Nazi, communist and Maoist movements were in any way created based on evolutionary ideas. (Communism, for example, was based on economic, not biological, theories about the nature of man and human society)
Making that claim shows that you not only don't have an understanding of evolution, but that you don't really understand the different underpinings of the various totalitarian movements of the 20th Century.
I knew what you meant. Spell check doesn’t get it if it’s not spelled wrong and I always catch my grammar errors as my finger is hitting the *Post* button.
************************
Actually, I believe it was post #21:
To: gwilhelm56
Let’s call it what it is, Satanism. That’s where it comes from - Satan- and he’s who they will spend eternity with for blaspheming against God. It’s good to know that God is just. I’d love to see the smirks fall from their faces when they find out what their eternal future is going to be. :)
21 posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:08:40 PM by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
As I've said several times on this thread, I don't think evolution has anything to do with the agenda.
IF evolution is true, then it would be something that has happened, is ongoing and no amount of debate could change it. In this respect, it wouldn't be any different than photosynthesis. However, with Darwinism there is an evil agenda which extends way beyond a flimsy and unprovable hypothesis.
Very different?
you don't really understand the different underpinings of the various totalitarian movements of the 20th Century.
Well someone who says that communism is "based on economic theories" doesn't know what he's talking about at all, and, in addition, is a menace to society if he is in fact spreading such misinformation.
Read the Word? You mean that interpretation/rewrite among the many that was dictated by an English king?
Believe in God and the lessons of the bible, not in the book itself. The bible has been changed by the hand of man for centuries and before that by interpretation of the oral tradition.
God can do anything, even create an evolutionary universe and then let it go and develop for billions of years.
IF evolution is true, then it would be something that has happened, is ongoing and no amount of debate could change it. In this respect, it wouldn't be any different than photosynthesis. However, with Darwinism there is an evil agenda which extends way beyond a flimsy and unprovable hypothesis.
****************
Agreed. Imho, one can believe that it is possible that God created evolution. What I object to is the agenda that appears to go hand in hand with Darwinism and the attempt to squash any dissenting or questioning voices.
I'm not sure that means anything. Theories exist to explain a certain portion of the physical world. Whether or not such explanations can be used for practical applications isn't really relevant to the question of whether or not the theory is correct.
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.
Whatever are you talking about?
Very different in what they were based on and on their overall goals, yes. Of course, those ideologies used many of the same methods to get where they were going, but each one had a different destination (even closely related ones, like fascism and Nazism differed in their final goals as well as to the extent of who they allowed into their respective movements).
Well someone who says that communism is "based on economic theories" doesn't know what he's talking about at all, and, in addition, is a menace to society if he is in fact spreading such misinformation.
At base, communist ideology calls for the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat through control of the means of production and the suppression of the "parasite" capitalist and bourgeosie classes. Its underpinings are purely economic, rather than biological.
Is Deism part of the evolutionary package deal? Is this something we must believe as well?
Then why is the teaching of it sacrosanct?
Whatever are you talking about?
Are you unaware of Darwinian eugenics?
Because it's perhaps the most important scientific theory in biological science. Kids in high school aren't taught much in the way of practical science- they're just given a broad spectrum of important scientific concepts and theories. They learn how to apply such theories if they pursue a science degree in college. We learned about a whole bunch of scientific concepts in high school with few, if any, real word applications in our lives.
Are you unaware of Darwinian eugenics?
Feel free to expound. This should be interesting. I'm guessing you're going to blame America's high abortion rate on the TOE.
No, it hasn't. The Dead Sea Scrolls attest to that.
The Bible has been faithfully copied for centuries and the different translators only have so many texts to work from.
But if you throw out veracity of the Bible, you might as well throw out any belief in God because the concept that most share of the Judeo-Christian God originates from the Bible. Our concept of God comes from that Bible you are discounting.
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.