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.”

[tacticalogic]

transit time in seconds = distance in meters ÷ speed of light in meters per second displacement in degrees = earth rotation speed in degrees per second × transit time in seconds

Okay, I'm confused. In a geocentric model I wouldn't think there would be any Earth rotation speed.

[grey_whiskers]

Do you think it might have anything to do with an absence of posters intentionally trying to make people mad, or throwing around accusations of satanism?

Mainly the first.

Not to make to big a deal of it, but I notice that some of P.Z. Myers' and Dawkins more mawkish anti-Christian sentiment is not too soundly castigated from all sides on DC. There is a certain congruence between the attitude of the mainstream on FR towards some loudmouth posters of a certain proclivity, and that on DC towards loudmouths of the corresponding proclivity.

You can always ignore the most egregious posters on both sides.

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

If the Earth were orbiting the Sun (heliocentric) the displacement would be calculated as follows: atan(Observer_speed_in_Meters_per_second / 299792485 ) * (180 / pi) Returns the angular displacement in degrees.

I'm still not getting that to fit the model conceptually. This isn't a matter of orbiting the sun, but rotating in place at more or less a fixed distance from the sun.

[tacticalogic]

There is a certain congruence between the attitude of the mainstream on FR towards some loudmouth posters of a certain proclivity, and that on DC towards loudmouths of the corresponding proclivity.

IOW, there's a certain degree of civility that's expected from one side that the other side doesn't feel obligated to observe.

[grey_whiskers]

LOL!

[tacticalogic]

Go ahead, tell me it isn’t so! :-)

[grey_whiskers]

Often, it depends on who's winning in that particular thread.

Neither side makes a partiularly gracious winner...or loser.

Cheers!

(...back to work to debug a code. G'night.)

[tacticalogic]

Have fun. I gotta go hack at some PS script myself.

[allmendream]

“there's a certain degree of civility that's expected from one side that the other side doesn't feel obligated to observe”

The unintended consequence of which is that pro Science posters on FR are under heavy selective pressure, while many anti Science posters feel free to behave like spittle hurling whackadoo’s.

[tacticalogic]

The unintended consequence of which is that pro Science posters on FR are under heavy selective pressure, while many anti Science posters feel free to behave like spittle hurling whackadoo’s.

I'm working on developing the theory that just because you can doesn't mean you ought to.

[allmendream]

But that would entail use of self restraint, logical deduction, and common courtesy.

[allmendream]

If you suppose that there are not Geocentric FReepers, your supposition is incorrect.

[tacticalogic]

But that would entail use of self restraint, logical deduction, and common courtesy.

Yes, it would.

[Fichori]

“Okay, I'm confused. In a geocentric model I wouldn't think there would be any Earth rotation speed.”

Hmm, my bad.
Should be:

transit time in seconds = distance in meters ÷ speed of light in meters per second
displacement in degrees = Sun angular orbit speed in degrees per second × transit time in seconds

Angular orbit speed would be 360°/24 hours, or 0.00416°/second.

The math is the same, just a different name.

“I'm still not getting that to fit the model conceptually. This isn't a matter of orbiting the sun, but rotating in place at more or less a fixed distance from the sun.” [#1143]

I gave the heliocentric and geocentric models side by side.

If you're only interested in the geocentric model, you can ignore the stuff referencing the heliocentric model.

[Fichori]

“If you suppose that there are not Geocentric FReepers, your supposition is incorrect.”

I have yet to meet a FReeper who has said to me The Sun goes around the Earth.

Now, I've heard lots of Evolutionists say in a pejorative way, that Creationists think the Sun orbits the Earth.

However, the only person I've met who seems to hold a view that is even remotely similar, is an Atheistic Evolutionist.


I suppose its possible that when an Evolutionist accuses a Creationist of thinking that the Sun goes around the Hollow Flat Earth, they are projecting...

Oh well.

Let me know when you find a FReeper who says the Sun orbits the Hollow Flat Earth.

[tacticalogic]

If you're only interested in the geocentric model, you can ignore the stuff referencing the heliocentric model.

Comparing either one to an object rotating in place relative to the other seems an apples-to-oranges arrangement.

[allmendream]

Play nice and have fun.

[Fichori]

“Comparing either one to an object rotating in place relative to the other seems an apples-to-oranges arrangement.”

By reducing an equation to the bare minimum of parameters greatly simplifies it.

Here is where that highly simplified model came from:

post 1362

[Fichori] If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space, except the Earth was rotating 360° every 24 hours, would (at high noon, sans the atmosphere) the optical image of the Sun be lagged 2.1° behind its gravitational pull?

post 1415

[LeGrande] Yes, up to 2.1 degrees.

Its neither the geocentric model nor the heliocentric model.

Its the LeGrandeic model.

It isn't comparing apples and oranges, it is merely about getting to the source of the 2.1° (which is apparently a byproduct of thinking that there is no difference between rotating and being orbited)

[tacticalogic]

It isn't comparing apples and oranges, it is merely about getting to the source of the 2.1° (which is apparently a byproduct of thinking that there is no difference between rotating and being orbited)

It terms of the angular velocity between you and the reference point, there doesn't seem to be.

[Fichori]

“It terms of the angular velocity between you and the reference point, there doesn't seem to be.”

Thats why you use an absolute reference point to measure angular velocity against ;-)