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 ...
[[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.]]
I would just add to that that I DO care when what is being taught, and what I’m being forced to pay for, is CONTRARY to scientific laws and includes such a degree of faith that it can NOT be concidered TRUE objective science! We’re not talking about some minor issues that have other possibilites when it comes to macroeovlution being possible or not- We’re talking about SERIOUS violations of established laws ,and were talking about serious impossibilities- not probabilites, but impossibilites- Even the probabilites are so remote as to be concidered impossibilites themselves.
Macroevolution has so much science against the hypothesis- so many serious problems that it amounts to faith- pure and simple- Faith in nature’s ability to supercede these impossibilites- making it a supernatural hypothesis, and htese problems are being hidden from our kids.
[[Our opponents seek to inundate us with facts (‘science’), then lead us to conclusions (ideas)]]
I think that’s backwards- they want to present us with hteir conclusions, then lead us to the facts that they’ve tailored to fit their conclusions, and every single instance of this tailored fabrications invloves a priori assumptions to ‘fill in the gaps’. The facts are expanded WAY beyond their true evidences and meanings. So far so that it’s become the weaving of a just so myth that takes a tremendous amount of facts ignroing faith to beleive. It’s religion dressed up in a lab coat- plain and simple.
I’m sorry, tyhat shoudl have read- “They present us with their SUBJECTIVE conclusions- a priori ‘conclusions’, then lead us to the facts that they’ve fabricated to fit hte a priori hypothesis.
Everythign is ASSUMED to have a naturalistic explanation, and htey simpyl can not get past the fact that not everything might be able to be explained scientifically- i ntheir minds, EVERYTHING MUST have a scientific ecplanation, otherwise it isn’t valid and is to be ridiculed as unsophisticated ideology that has no right to be concidered.
While Creation might- might be beyond natural explanations, we can learn a great deal about HOW it was done, and get enough evidnece to where it is no logner reasonable to deny it did happen- EVEN IF we can’t show how God superceded nature in order to bring hte compelxities we know to exist into existence. When enough evidnece presents itself both showing IC and ID, and that nature is ismply incapable of creating what we have examined, it simply is unreasonable to keep insisting that everythign must be explained scientifically 100% (They mean this to include hte demand that we explain HOW God superceded nature, and if we can’t explain that part, then we’re not to be taken seriously in the scientific comunity DESPITE the fact that we have shown there is NO other explanation especially natural explanations, and we’ve shown so many fingerprints and tell-tale markers that htere simpyl could be no other rational explanation than special unique creation)
******************
Exactly right. We have Darwinists currently attempting to influence our society, too. An example is Peter Singer. From Wiki:
A Darwinian Left From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation is a book by Peter Singer (Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-08323-8), which argues that the view of human nature provided by evolution (e.g., evolutionary psychology) is compatible with and should be incorporated into the ideological framework of the Left. Evolutionary views of human nature had previously been regarded as supportive of the political Right. Singer's argument is that the Left will be better able to achieve its social and economic goals if it incorporates the more accurate view of human nature provided by evolution: "To be blind to the facts about human nature is to risk disaster".
The value system implicit in Darwinism was made clear by one of it leading advocates, Julian Huxley,
“The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore... they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation.”
Huxley J.S. 1947. Man in the modern world. Chatto & Windus, London. Originally published in The uniqueness of Man, 1941”
To say that that what one has as a belief system is unimportant because we have free will is nonsense. Our free will is simply our our ability to make decisions.
To say that a paticular view point is not harmful in and of its self for what sort of conduct it encourages defies experience and logic.
How much can Darwinism devalue human life when it is already considered just a lot random mutations and purposeless triumph of chance?
Yep, Singer would kill us all just to save some apes.
It's clear to me that we are taking very different paths to arrive at the same destination.
Thanks, and that precisely sums up what became of the early corrupted Catholic church in general (Note, there were, and remain so, many fien bible believing catholic churches that preach salvatio nthrough Christ alone, and not through some pope, bishop or father’s approval’, and hwo have reamined true to hte word) had become currupted, and this is who the author fro myour quote is speaking and does not represent TRUE CHristians who appeal to God’s authority, not man’s self imposed authority. TRUE Christians have stayed true to God’s authority- those churches (and I’m not just picking on catholics- many offshoots and other religions have doen the exact same in the past) have sold hteir souls for the temporary gain of power of prestige and state approval in times past, and will do so once again when the antichrist comes on the scene and a one world religion is temporarily established- but htis churhc will be betrayed by those they sold their soul to, and will be sold out and sent down the river- getting hteir just reward.
The church of england was as corrupt as they came, but let it not be said that those who sold hteir souls for political favor and power are representative of any TRUE beleivers who remained faithful and subserviant to God despite incredible pressures against them to break their alliance with God supreme, and to sell their souls too- they did not break, they remained true to the only power that is worth staying true to- God- NOT man!
Fascinating discussion bookmark.
What experiments have been done to test evolution?
>>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.
************************
Actually, I believe it was post #21:<<
You are right. I got the post number wrong - I’m guessing because #21 was a response to #3. Sorry about that.
>>Did you disagree?<<
Do I disagree that the study of evolutionary biology or developmental biology or whatever you want to call it is Satanism? Yes, i disagree profoundly.
Given that God has continuously communicated with man and yet His revelations never include science beyond current science, I believe he intends us to to explore and learn about the world.
Jesus, for example, did not reject any of the technology discovered since Abraham’s time nor did he reveal technology that we had not discovered on our own.
When did I ever-- in 10 years on FR--"mouth off to Jim Robinson"?
>>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.<<
Thank you. I’m just so much worse at proof reading my own writing .
They want to grab the kids in kindergarten for indoctrination, which is what worship of their dear leader’s “Day” is all about
You are aware, are you not, that cm is now incapable of responding.......
Oooohhh, good one
Hey!
How are you doing? - you weren’t feeling that well last time we talked.
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.