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.”

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

It’s a very accurate description of the behavior I witnessed

No, it's a very tendentious description of his behavior, and one not backed up by the link you provided in the post. For example, I can't find any instance in your linked thread of CM suggesting that "scientists should work toward eliminating religion," as you claim.

He also, of course, didn't ask anybody to throw creationists off the site.

[tacticalogic]

Feh. I'm not a troll -- I said my hands weren't clean, i.e. I joined the dispute. Nice try though.

You never baited anyone for entertainment?

[NicknamedBob]

"Now, go ahead and tell me that a guy like that would only be bannned if we want FR to be an echo chamber."

That would not be accurate. There may be any number of asinine reasons why he might be banned.

[grey_whiskers]

Quite rarely.

I have *provided* a great deal of entertainment on the crevo threads, however, by posting bad puns and Calvin and Hobbes cartoons.

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

Then you seem to have an abrasive sense of humor, particularly when you’re tired.

[grey_whiskers]

He also, of course, didn't ask anybody to throw creationists off the site.

Not the site, maybe, but certainly this thread.

And once warned, suggested to JR that the site would be overrun with fringe posters who equated science with Satanism...(post 54) which is when he got banned.

Of course, atheists who come over here from DC to troll (whether out of malicious intent, or lost bitterness in finding out that the sweet laurel wreaths awarded to "Immortal Brigadiers" do not make up for the lively discussion elsewhere on FR) are trying their best to make CM's post a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But the effort is looking increasingly threadbare.

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

Do you agree that it’s satanism?

[Religion Moderator]

As far as I know, Coyoteman was never told to stay off the Religion Forum. His final thread was in Chat.

[Gumlegs]

Can we handle a lively debate of our beliefs, or do we want nothing more than an echo chamber?

The answer to your question is in this thread. Repeatedly.

[grey_whiskers]

Then you seem to have an abrasive sense of humor, particularly when you’re tired.

You need to check out some of the threads from two or three years ago.

Here.

Or here.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Nice attempt at a strawman, putting words in my mouth, and ad hominem.

Going for the illogical trifecta?

Can you find a post of mine on this thread that directly indicated any such thing on MY part?

And if the only links are indirect, please include the quotes and the chain of "reasoning" that led to your supposition about me.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Also check out this thread.

Cheers!

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:The gist of the argument was that nothing is faster than the speed of light, therefore an omnipotent God doesn't exist because the speed of light is a limit.

LeGrande, While it would take faith to believe that something could move faster then the speed of light in vacuum because nothing's ever been demonstrated to move faster then the speed of light in vacuum, your assertion (that nothing is faster then the speed of light) is purely dogmatic and as such simply does not prove the non-existence of anything, not even God. (Nor does it prove the existence of anything.)

But I guess this dogmatic ill logic of yours is the same reason you'd ask us to believe that a stationary heavenly body 12 light hours away above the equator would appear in the east while it was really to the west to an observer on the earth, at any instant in time...! [grin]

-Jesse

[grey_whiskers]

Check out this post describing posting restrictions on Darwin Central before complaining about an echo chamber here.

IIRC gondramB said on a recent thread that he left DC due to the anti-religious sentiment there.

Cheers!

[gondramB]

>>LeGrande, While it would take faith to believe that something could move faster then the speed of light in vacuum because nothing’s ever been demonstrated to move faster then the speed of light in vacuum, your assertion (that nothing is faster then the speed of light) is purely dogmatic and as such simply does not prove the non-existence of anything, not even God. (Nor does it prove the existence of anything.)<<

Some things can move faster than the speed of light but they can’t include mass.

The reason is that the energy to move a grain of sand the speed of light would be more than all the energy in the universe. In math terms, it approaches infinity.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Not the site, maybe, but certainly this thread.

As long as we're being sticklers for accuracy, he didn't ask anybody to throw anybody off that thread, either. He asked someone directly to stop posting on the thread.

[gondramB]

>>IIRC gondramB said on a recent thread that he left DC due to the anti-religious sentiment there.<<

For the record, it was more complex than that. The behavior that triggered my departure mostly had to do with my failure to disrespect Freep and it was actually my family getting scared by the behavior of one key DC member that tipped the balance. But I’ve also said I was unhappy with a broader anti-Christian sentiment there.

Now, back to your regular programming.

[NicknamedBob]

You don’t think those are reasonable restrictions for a science-based site?

If you only look for what you don’t like, you can find it.

I’m not sure what is the entirety of Dave’s problem, but he didn’t fit there well.

[NicknamedBob]

"The behavior that triggered my departure mostly had to do with my failure to disrespect Freep ..."

That is an outrageous calumny.

It is also more precise to say that the emphasis is non-religious, rather than anti-religious or anti-Christian.

There are many members who feel quite free to express themselves on religious matters, and do. Members, I might add, who are no longer permitted that privilege here.

But it is accurate to say that discussions run to the scientific or evidential side in such matters, rather than emotionalism.

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:Seriously, when I believed, I was in darkness. Now that I have made the break, I can hardly believe the weight that has been lifted and how clear everything is.

Wow, if everything is clear now to you, and you still say such absurd things as you do - I would be scared to know what sort of strange things you might have said back then! [double wide grin]

Things like:

"Did you know that if you lower the frequency of sound down enough it becomes a discrete sound particle/wavepacket?"

Or that Pluto will appear overhead when it's actually below the horizon at any instant for an observer on the earth,

You also said that the 20 arc seconds is not due to stellar aberration, but all the sources say that it is. You also said that if the earth were rotating at 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its actual position.

So what was it like before? Did cows fly? Did the sun orbit the earth? That would explain why you think the sun's apparent position is lagged by 2.1 degrees at any instant for an observer on earth..

-Jesse