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.”

[gondramB]

Calumny ?
Had to look that up.
Thanks for the new word.

[mrjesse]

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

Yes: It would take pure faith to believe that something with mass could move faster then C (Speed of light in vacuum) because such a thing has never been demonstrated. It is true that massive FLT (Faster then Light Travel) has never been proven possible. But it is also true that it's never been proven impossible. (But as I said, believing in massy FLT would require faith.)

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.

I would actually be most grateful to learn what it is you had in mind as "a thing which can move faster then the speed of light" (even if it has no mass.)

I am very interested in the truth and in science and have heard of some experiments demonstrating faster then light something or another, but I've never found any really clearly explained. So I'd be just delighted to learn a little more about that!

Also, some time ago as a result of my discussion with LeGrande, I decided to perform the double slit experiment (in the most primitive manner possible I suppose) and while I was at it, I made sort of a photo-documentary of it - you might enjoy it: http://bookcracker.com/mrjesse/double-slit-experiment/

Also, a while back I noticed that Jupiter was shining pretty bright in the sky - so I got out my toy telescope (1m focal, 9 or 10cm aperture, refracting unit, mead) and stuck my digital camera on it, trying various lens configurations.
The results were lousy but at least recognizable:


Above: Just one lens - camera body in place of eyepiece. Jupiter and 4 of its moons.


Above two: Two lenses - the objective and the projector lens from an old 8mm Bell and Howell home movie projector - more magnification.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[tacticalogic]

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

No. You just keep pointing out that exchange, and the only fault you find is with CM.

[tacticalogic]

Okay. I checked out all three. I see any of your posts at all in the first thread. There were some in the second and third. I didn’t notice a lot of bad puns and Calvin and Hobbs cartoons. There were some posts that seems well thought out and reasonable, and quite unlike what I experienced a few days ago.

[grey_whiskers]

When I said, "Nice attempt at a strawman, putting words in my mouth, and ad hominem" I was referring to your post 1087, where you asked me, "Do you agree that it's Satanism".

I never said or implied any such thing -- and throughout this thread, as YOU yourself pointed out, I keep quoting CM directly where he mouths off back to the site owner after being told, explicitly, and in public, that he does not have the authority to tell other posters where they can post, nor to control the content of their posts.

I cannot comprehend how any of this impinges on my views on Satanism.

So this entire exchange makes you *look* very like a troll.

Last warning before *PLONK*. (Replies directed to /dev/null)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Semantics, semantics. Twice the site owner had to slap him down publicly...both within the first 100 posts or so in the thread.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

You didn't look hard enough, posts #34 and #35 are both sterling examples of puns.

As far as what you experienced a few days ago, I already suggested a number of times on this thread that pro-evos try to not be so snarky, and they'd get treated better.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Yeah, right.

I rememver one thread where the subject came up that Jesus dying on the cross was no big deal -- the consensus was "anyone could do it if they believed eternity in paradise with God was just around the corner" or words to that effect.

I haven't lurked there -- even irregularly -- for quite a long time, so I don't know if that thread is still accessible to public view.

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.

You mean like DaveLoneRanger? /sarc>

And if we are going to play the guilt by association, several of the most prominent and influential DCs are explicitly, self-proclaimed atheists. Many of the camp followers are such as well.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Thanks for the correction--that's why I pinged you, to allow a first-person account.

We return now to your irregularly-scheduled pie fight/flamewar.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Not necessarily -- but your prior posts seemed to imply that FR was run by Fundies, whereas DC was open to all posters and creeds.

In my experience, it seems to be the opposite.

And FR doesn't have threads where the express purpose is to go over and troll on DC, and then come back and titter like children over our own gosh-darned cleverness.

Childish, and unbecoming of the self-proclaimed intellectual attainments of the DC crowd.

Most FReeper scientists don't go around continually reminding you of how educated and erudite they are. They don't have to.

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

So this entire exchange makes you *look* very like a troll.

You seem to be much concerned with trolls and trolling. The "satanism" comment was in reply to a post where someone admits to using the term "Darwinism" intentionally in order to piss people off, and basically encouraging others to do the same but that aspect has remained apparently unworthy of notice. What exactly is your criteria for determing who is and isn't a troll?

[gondramB]

And I appreciate the courtesy ping.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[Mr. Silverback 1043] Coyoteman had a habit of accusing people on this site who disagreed with him on scientific issues of supporting the destruction of the Constitution.

[grey_whiskers] 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.

Someone on this thread mentioned CM's valuable "knowledge", whatever that means. I had to laugh when I read that. CM was on his "you are anti-science" kick for years. A long time ago I compiled some instances. Since then he probably threw around the "science-denier" epithet hundreds of additional times:

To: Coyoteman; metmom; DaveLoneRanger; Jim Robinson

Sorry, I don't visit those places... You are just blowing smoke.

Oh, but you do inhabit dens of anti-Freeping:

"I run five websites... But if you mean Darwin Central, I do not run that site. I am a guest there and, for reasons unknown to me, a moderator there" [Coyoteman]

As everyone knows, Dem Central is a premiere anti-Freeping site. Freeper Michael_Michaelangelo describes it thus: "I decided to have a look at the DarwinCentral site last night. The first thread I found was a rather large one trashing FR and Jim Rob. Nice. You must be proud to be a member."

I may be saying that about some of our posters here,

No, this piece of shoddy apologetics won't do. For as will be presently shown, your involvement in accusations of "anti-science" extends to more than just a few individual Freepers.

As you have said: "The left is fond of saying conservatives are anti-science" and we shall see that you are extremely fond of this leftist tactic.

First let's start with the small stuff. To the following Freepers you have hurled general epithets and imputations tarring them as anti-science: Theo, Sopater, GodGunsGuts, Andrew Byler, Wakeup Sleeper, dsc, RobbyS, editor-surveyor. But that's gathered from just a small sampling of your countless posts. You have also done so with the following Freepers: DaveLoneRanger, NewLand, Creationist, metmom, Ethan Clive Osgoode, rbmillerjr, CottShop, Sola Veritas, and even Ann Coulter. Let us tabulate some of your remarks to and about these latter Freepers:

Creationist. "You have shown yourself to be a true science-denier."

CottShop. "I am one of those scientist types you disparage so much."

Sola Veritas. "You should not try to discredit scientists for adhering to the methods of science."

DaveLoneRanger. "As a religiously-motivated science-denier... your opinions on science are not worth much." "Why can't you admit you hate science as well?" "Your hatred for science is clear for others to see." "You ping your list of science-deniers to nice science threads so they can come and trash them, then you claim you are not anti-science?" ""A nice science thread and you ping your list of science-deniers to it." "You yourself trash science every chance you get, then you claim you are not anti-science?"

NewLand. "I challenge your "we're not anti-science" claim. You are anti-science."

Ethan Clive Osgoode. "are you just anti-science?"

metmom. "Do you hate science, and the results of science, so much that you are willing to spread falsehoods in an attempt to discredit them, when the actual facts can be easily learned? It sure seems so."

rbmillerjr. "Sorry you found Darwin Central boring. Those of us who enjoy science and science literacy appreciate the level of discourse which we find there."

Ann Coulter. "...loaded with anti-science propaganda"

Not only are all these freepers tarred as "anti-science" by you, but also, if you will note, every Freeper on DaveLoneRanger's ping list is called, by you, a "science-denier". And this would include SirLinksalot, gobucks, mikeus_maximus, JudyB1938, isaiah55version11_0, Elsie, LiteKeeper, and a lot of others. Then there are your broad generalizations like this one: "Many on this thread appear to be science-deniers." Now, all this adds up to more than a few Freepers. But there's much more.

With this comment...

"Evangelicals typically deny much of science." [Coyoteman]

you throw a very big chunk of FR members into the "science-denier", "science-hater" bucket, most of whom don't even bother with the crevo threads. But your accusations don't even stop there. According to you, the management of FreeRepublic is anti-science:

"Then, a year or so ago when the admins and management started playing games and banning pro-science posters, many others took the hint and left. That is when Darwin Central was formed -- as a refuge." [Coyoteman]

And, according to you, FreeRepublic itself is an anti-science forum:

"Scientists have been told that they are not wanted here" [Coyoteman]

"FR in the last year or so has taken a decided anti-science stance" [Coyoteman]

"FR has turned anti-science in the last year or so" [Coyoteman]

"The reception scientific research receives at FR is dismal, based more on ignorance and superstition than scientific knowledge." [Coyoteman]

In fact, you see yourself as one of the few Freepers who are not science-hating "science deniers":

"It leaves me still advocating for science and the scientific method. (But its getting pretty lonely in these here parts lately!)" [Coyoteman]

Your FR career has been a massive exercise in the leftist tactic of tarring conservatives as "anti-science", "science-deniers", and "science-haters".

Ignoring facts, logic, and reason is more of a leftie trait than a conservative trait.

Your philosophy of science (Kuhn) is a typically leftist one - you know, the kind that says we shouldn't use the word "truth" and so on. As Jim Robinson said to Ichneumon: "some of you are absolutely worthless to the cause of conservatism."

Sorry, I don't visit those places... You are just blowing smoke.

Oh, but you do inhabit dens of anti-Freeping:

"I run five websites... But if you mean Darwin Central, I do not run that site. I am a guest there and, for reasons unknown to me, a moderator there" [Coyoteman]

As everyone knows, Dem Central is a premiere anti-Freeping site. Freeper Michael_Michaelangelo describes it thus: "I decided to have a look at the DarwinCentral site last night. The first thread I found was a rather large one trashing FR and Jim Rob. Nice. You must be proud to be a member."

I may be saying that about some of our posters here,

No, this piece of shoddy apologetics won't do. For as will be presently shown, your involvement in accusations of "anti-science" extends to more than just a few individual Freepers.

As you have said: "The left is fond of saying conservatives are anti-science" and we shall see that you are extremely fond of this leftist tactic.

First let's start with the small stuff. To the following Freepers you have hurled general epithets and imputations tarring them as anti-science: Theo, Sopater, GodGunsGuts, Andrew Byler, Wakeup Sleeper, dsc, RobbyS, editor-surveyor. But that's gathered from just a small sampling of your countless posts. You have also done so with the following Freepers: DaveLoneRanger, NewLand, Creationist, metmom, Ethan Clive Osgoode, rbmillerjr, CottShop, Sola Veritas, and even Ann Coulter. Let us tabulate some of your remarks to and about these latter Freepers:

Creationist. "You have shown yourself to be a true science-denier."

CottShop. "I am one of those scientist types you disparage so much."

Sola Veritas. "You should not try to discredit scientists for adhering to the methods of science."

DaveLoneRanger. "As a religiously-motivated science-denier... your opinions on science are not worth much." "Why can't you admit you hate science as well?" "Your hatred for science is clear for others to see." "You ping your list of science-deniers to nice science threads so they can come and trash them, then you claim you are not anti-science?" ""A nice science thread and you ping your list of science-deniers to it." "You yourself trash science every chance you get, then you claim you are not anti-science?"

NewLand. "I challenge your "we're not anti-science" claim. You are anti-science."

Ethan Clive Osgoode. "are you just anti-science?"

metmom. "Do you hate science, and the results of science, so much that you are willing to spread falsehoods in an attempt to discredit them, when the actual facts can be easily learned? It sure seems so."

rbmillerjr. "Sorry you found Darwin Central boring. Those of us who enjoy science and science literacy appreciate the level of discourse which we find there."

Ann Coulter. "...loaded with anti-science propaganda"

Not only are all these freepers tarred as "anti-science" by you, but also, if you will note, every Freeper on DaveLoneRanger's ping list is called, by you, a "science-denier". And this would include SirLinksalot, gobucks, mikeus_maximus, JudyB1938, isaiah55version11_0, Elsie, LiteKeeper, and a lot of others. Then there are your broad generalizations like this one: "Many on this thread appear to be science-deniers." Now, all this adds up to more than a few Freepers. But there's much more.

With this comment...

"Evangelicals typically deny much of science." [Coyoteman]

you throw a very big chunk of FR members into the "science-denier", "science-hater" bucket, most of whom don't even bother with the crevo threads. But your accusations don't even stop there. According to you, the management of FreeRepublic is anti-science:

"Then, a year or so ago when the admins and management started playing games and banning pro-science posters, many others took the hint and left. That is when Darwin Central was formed -- as a refuge." [Coyoteman]

And, according to you, FreeRepublic itself is an anti-science forum:

"Scientists have been told that they are not wanted here" [Coyoteman]

"FR in the last year or so has taken a decided anti-science stance" [Coyoteman]

"FR has turned anti-science in the last year or so" [Coyoteman]

"The reception scientific research receives at FR is dismal, based more on ignorance and superstition than scientific knowledge." [Coyoteman]

In fact, you see yourself as one of the few Freepers who are not science-hating "science deniers":

"It leaves me still advocating for science and the scientific method. (But its getting pretty lonely in these here parts lately!)" [Coyoteman]

Your FR career has been a massive exercise in the leftist tactic of tarring conservatives as "anti-science", "science-deniers", and "science-haters".

Ignoring facts, logic, and reason is more of a leftie trait than a conservative trait.

Your philosophy of science (Kuhn) is a typically leftist one - you know, the kind that says we shouldn't use the word "truth" and so on. As Jim Robinson said to Ichneumon: "some of you are absolutely worthless to the cause of conservatism."

[gondramB]

>>I would actually be most grateful to learn what it is you had in mind as "a thing which can move faster then the speed of light" (even if it has no mass.)<<

Glad to...

"Something" traveling faster is best illustrated with a thought experiment. Imagine a round room 186,000 miles around - the distance light can travel in one second. Imagine a laser pointer sitting on a turntable in the center pointing at the wall.

If the turntable rotates once per second, the spot on the wall travels 186,000 miles each second. Now, double the speed of the turntable and the dot on the wall travels 372,000 miles each second or double the speed of light. This is called the phase velocity.

Addendum for nerds:
1. A thought experiment (a calque or English loanword based on both the German/Latin compound Gedankenexperiment and its German equivalent Gedankenversuch[1]) is a proposal for an experiment that would test a hypothesis or theory but cannot actually be performed due to practical limitations; instead its purpose is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question. Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a single radioactive atom, and Maxwell's demon, in which a supernatural being is instructed to attempt to violate the second law of thermodynamics.

2. The phase velocity (or phase speed) of a wave is the rate at which the phase of the wave propagates in space. This is the speed at which the phase of any one frequency component of the wave travels....

The phase velocity of electromagnetic radiation may under certain circumstances (e.g. in the case of anomalous dispersion) exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, but this does not indicate any superluminal information or energy transfer. It was theoretically described by physicists such as Arnold Sommerfeld and Leon Brillouin. See dispersion for a full discussion of wave velocities.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Ah, thanks Ethan, I missed that before.

Remember when LeGrande said that

[LeGrande] Sirius is close to us so its actual position is going to be very close to its apparent position.

and yet the sun, which is much closer, is, according to him, 2.1 degrees away from its apparent position.

And remember when LeGrande said that there is no way to determine if the earth is rotating or not? Remember that? It starts with 488 in the "Sunset" thread and goes on and on:

[Legrande] In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body.

[ECO] Oh dear, what a horrible error on your part. Foucault's Pendulum.

[LeGrande] But if it is only the Earth and the pendulum (remember this is a two body problem not three) how do you determine whether the earth or the pendulum is moving?

[ECO] You see, LeGrandean mechanics makes no distinction between non-inertial reference frames and inertial reference frames. I bet LeGrandean mechanics will also soon teach us that there is no such thing as acceleration either.

[mrjesse to LeGrande] I don't know how you can call a LRG with no moving parts a third body when its buried 10 feet deep. I think what you really wanted to say is "Without any instrument or means by which one can measure the rate of rotation, they are unable to measure the rate of rotation." But just because you deprive us from using any instruments which can measure rotation doesn't mean it isn't there!

[ECO] We will soon discover that clocks, measuring rods, protractors, sextants, telescopes, and even Newton's laws are "third bodies", and thus, not allowed. We will also discover that the bodies are not really "bodies" but some magical substance that atheists like to think about that isn't made of molecules and isn't prone to rotational oblateness. Maybe the same stuff leprechauns are made of.

[gondramB]

But, also for the record, I really miss 95% of the DCers both here and there. Lots of bright educated good people with excellent humor. I left there, only with the greatest reluctance.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I left there, only with the greatest reluctance.

Why did you leave?

[gondramB]

>>Semantics, semantics. Twice the site owner had to slap him down publicly...both within the first 100 posts or so in the thread.

Cheers! <<

It isn’t any fun to feel ganged up upon in thread - even the best people have a tendency to react to being told to calm down with a negative reaction. Heck, I would have felt ganged upon on Coyote’s behalf except I read the thread backwards and missed the early hostility.

A couple of my favorite debating buddies, Willie Green and Travis can attest to that - its a natural reaction when one thinks one is in the right and is told to drop it.

I don’t want to speak for Jim (and can’t speak for Jim) but I would guess he understands that and its one factor in reversing bans when he is asked to do so.

[gondramB]

Harassment and stalking behavior that the mods did not attempt to curtail.

[gondramB]

I’ve got to wonder if I am alone in not understanding what the heck point you are making.