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 ...
Trussel is a Christian.
How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?
Thursday, January 08, 2009 12:20:05 PM · 1,168 of 1,598
CottShop to trussell
I’ll take prayer to quite smoking- and 6to be more Christlike if you don’t mind? Being serious here.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies
I've been praying, I guess it's not working out for you though...have you been believing you would receive?
Coyoteman had a habit of accusing people on this site who disagreed with him on scientific issues of supporting the destruction of the Constitution. He also appeared to agree with the idea that scientists should work toward eliminating religion, but refused to answer any questions about his position on that issue. See here for details.
More recently, he had taken to accusing tens of millions of Christians of involvement in a Dominionist conspiracy to destroy the Constitution and replace it with an Evangelical Protestant theocracy. See here. Note the sources he uses to back this idea up, and note how one of them even claims that tens of millions of Christians are part of the conspiracy without even realizing it. He is given a chance to withdraw these ludicrous charges and refuses to do so.
So, to review, this guy was wearing multiple layers of tinfoil, considered most FR members to be fascist enemies of the Republic, and then got in JimRob's face and gave him the finger while his buddies over at Darwin Central looked on and had a good laugh about what a stupid rube JimRob is and how the rest of us are (foul word follows if you want to highlight it) twats because JimRob feels like he can post in threads on his own website and enforce standards here.
This guy was NOT banned because he is pro-evolution or because he wanted to keep his thread clean. He was banned because he was a problem child on a number of levels, and if he didn't deserve to be banned there shouldn't ever be a zot on this site.
So you think that if you look at a star, where it appears to be in the sky to you is where it actually is at that moment? Please answer yes or no.
The LeGrandeic System of AstrophysicsFifth edition (update).Excerpts from the thread The Sunset of Darwinism post 551 [ECO] So how is it, in your conception of physics, that stars can end up behind us in the time it takes for their light to get to us? How is it that some stars you presently see are actually on the other side of the world? post 563 [Fichori] A star with a distance of 1 light year would have to orbit the observer at 3.14x the speed of light to get 180 degrees away from its apparent position. (Or have gone directly through the observers position at 2x the speed of light.) post 564 [LeGrande] At least you agree that a stars apparent position is not its actual position. post 566 [Fichori] Care to explain how the star is going to break warp 0.9? post 568 [LeGrande] No. Luckily that is not what I am claiming : ) post 570 [Fichori] Is it possible for a stars actual position to be 180 degrees from its apparent position? post 573 [LeGrande] Sure, just position a black hole or two appropriately. |
“I disagree with Legrande’s religion, but what is wrong with the simple concept that when you look at the sun it is not, at that time, where it appears to be? It takes 8.5 minutes for the light to get here, by the time it gets here, it has moved a little.” [excerpt]Exactly how far does the Sun move in 8.3 minutes?
“What is wrong about that?” [excerpt]
OK, you were debating the size of the displacement, not the concept. I understand, and am with you. thanks.
“OK, you were debating the size of the displacement, not the concept.” [excerpt]Its actually a little bit of both.
It works both ways, trussel. cm wasn't willing to treat people fairly and let them be heard. He's on this thread on a site he doesn't own, telling people what to do and where and what they can and cannot post. I didn't see him trying to treat others as he wanted to be treated and by telling others not to post on *his* thread, he was silencing them.
From everything I could see, he wasn't permitted on the religion forum because people couldn't handle him, but because he wasn't following the posting guidelines for that forum. He had been warned. The Religion mods warn people before they kick them off.
Seems to me that the people who are calling themselves Christians here are having an issue with following one of Gods basic rules "Treat others as you would like to be treated".
Nobody is interested in that game. Trying to manipulate a Christian's behavior by accusing them of not being Christlike just because they do something one doesn't like, doesn't wash. *You are a bad Christian because you didn't treat me the way I want to be treated* is only a control thing.
If what someone did is truly morally wrong, then Christians are under an obligation to confront another Christian about it. If it's just a matter of being thin skinned and too easily offended, I find that tactic of accusing someone of not being Christlike because the other what the other person did *offended them*, reprehensible.
no- i will not answer yes or no
why not? answer any way you want then.
No sorry- I’ve received alright- 3 days now passing a kidney stone- seems to be al I receive. Not tryign to be sarcastic- just that I’ve tried putting my trust in receiving, and just get knocked around for oding so. Not sure what’s goign on- I still beleive He’ll deliver, despite those facts.
You’ll need a court order to get me to answer- mums hte word.
You are on this site, that you don't own, telling others that your way is the only way. He told others not to post on his thread because his voice was silenced on the religious threads, why should his thread be overtaken by those he isn't able to debate on their favorite issues?
I'm not saying anyone is a bad Christian because they wont treat me the way I want to be treated...I'm saying it's a bad Christian who doesn't treat non-believers with the same compassion as they do the believers.
Christians are under an obligation to confront another Christian about it
I guess that's part of the issue here...Coyoteman never claimed to be a Christian...so your confronting him about his beliefs doesn't qualify under this excuse!
There's a big difference between the mods telling someone to do something and some FReeper who is supposed to be on equal standing with other FReepers telling them what to do.
To the best of my knowledge, the person posting a thread is not by default given rights to moderate it.
If the Religion Mod felt that he was violating posting guidelines for the Religion Forum, then that mod did his/her job by telling him not to post there but that's the mods decision, it is not for someone to take on themselves. The rules for the religion forum are more restrictive than other forums as you ought to well know.
I pinged the Religion Mod simply because I am not familiar with the exact circumstances of cm being told not to post there any more.
cm was telling others what they could and could not post. Others were telling him that he couldn’t do that.
How is that unchristian?
That isn’t what I considered unchristian...there are several here who are celebrating his banning. There are many who wanted him silenced and they finally got what they wanted, at the cost of having his opinion and knowledge removed from FR.
There are only a few “Science minded” people left...are they on the short list for getting rid of?
Just because a person posts at DC doesn’t mean they are trolling, it just means that is where they have to go to be able to discuss science now.
The mods wouldn’t have told him to stay off the Christian threads if some Christians hadn’t constantly complained that he was hurting their delicate sensibilities.
Come on...people need to
Grow up and realize their belief isn’t the only one.
Others have the right to believe as they want.
This would be a mighty boring world if we all believed the exact same way.
Debate is a good thing, it keeps us sharp!
Now that most of the science debate has been silenced, that’s one less topic that can be discussed.
There’s plenty of science being discussed on FR and it isn’t just all evolution, and there are plenty of science minded people left to discuss it, even if they don’t accept the hard line evo position on the ToE.
Evolution does not equal all of science and rejecting the hardline no-God, speciation/(macroevolution)/whatever-you-want-to-call-it position of the evolutionists does not equate to rejecting all of science. It does not make one anti-science to disagree with that interpretation of the fossil record.
Science is not supposed to be done by consensus but the minute anyone disagrees with the consensus on evolution, they’re branded and called cretards, IDiots, and other sorts of names along with being accused of taking all kinds of other baseless positions.
Most FReepers are opposed to the misuse of science to further political agenda. When we fight that, we are accused of being anti-science instead of being rightly recognized as anti-agenda. Some, however, are to blinded by their hysteria that they are incapable of distinguishing between the two.
People who push evoloserism are in the same religious category as amalekites.
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.