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 ...
You mistake me for someone else, perhaps? You accused me of flame-baiting and veiled threats. Now another allegation you can’t support. But, go ahead. Keep talking.
I know that there are some who adhere to the 6 day, 6,000 year old earth, but the rest of that crap is science (evolutionist especially) mythology designed simply to discredit the aforementioned beliefs.
If not, please provide sources to support your contention that there are *legions of posters here who adhere to a flat-earth and geocentric* models of the universe, and the pi=3 nonsense and all the other lies that evos spread about someone who disagrees with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_mythology
When I see a poster spouting such nonsense as “conservatives” and the “Republican party” and “undermining science” and “whatever will we do as a party if we don’t drink the darwin kool-aid”...it’s a red flag pointing out a liberal from DU.
[[never thought I would say this, but I do agree with the yote here, and you are way over the top.]]
Coyoteman has been WAY over hte top for many years now belittling Christians, Creationists and ID science supporters with nothign but assinine childish accusaitons that had absolutely NOTHING to do with hte thread’s topics- He was asked many many many times to stop his nonsense and attempts to derail threads he apparently found damaging to his precious beleif in Macroeovlution, and many folks here asked him to knock it off- He refused, and quite frankly peopel have had quite enough of his childish DC-like rants and pat petty criticisms-
If you feel he isosme hero to you- then by all means- go lap his boots clean- He’ needs all the support he can get right now because he lost a LOT of respect here on FR with his incessant rantings and irrelevent petty criticisms and uncivil behaviour.
I personally didn’t want to see him get himself banned- but he was on a 1000 mph ride straight for that cliff and he has noone to blame but himself- if you feel that makes him a ‘martyre for hte cause’ then whatever-
I did not say there was. What I asked was, let's say we have a scientific theory which happens to be true, and which also happens to have been used to condone evil. What do we do with the theory?
*Gently reminding* someone of something that didn’t exist.
Cute.
In his paranoia, he clearly had his forums mixed up.
Pretty much every FRevo has an account over at DC.
No. But I also noted that it was by you and your crowd.
Maybe you forgot how badly Sarah Palin was mocked - rightly or wrongly - for her supposed Creationist beliefs?
No. But I also noted that it was by you and your crowd.
[[If the shoe fits, wear it. And until you actually start demanding that these lunatics post some actual proof of their assertions that dinosaurs rode on Noah’s Ark and that the earth is the immovable center of the universe, among other things, I and every other semi-rational person who reads your nonsense will continue to cram you into that little box right along side the rest of the Luddites.]]
geee- such hostility- whatever shall we luddites do? Why now you’ve done it- you’ve gone and hurt out delicate little feelings- Golly- We’ll never recover from such assinine rantings such as you exibit- gee whiz molly- throw me that box of kleenex- the little feller has hurt our feelings.
I see DC has sent it’s lackeys to rant and rave in coyote’s absence- You sound just as rediculous as he did- pretendign to be all sciencey & all- looking down yer nose and spitting contempt- Swell- one minor annoyance gone, only to be replaced with another- lucky FR
No. But I also noted that it was by you and your crowd.
As you love to say, MetMom, please provide sources.
I voted for McCain & Palin. Show me where I mocked her.
Sorry, I'm not going to play your game. If you won't bother to take a look around for yourself at what people are posting on this forum, and if you're going to deny that when they do post you never challenge them, then there's nothing I can say that you won't just dismiss out of hand.
No mistake. You’re the one who came to me.
That'll be a good question to keep in mind should the situation ever arise. But until we have a *THEORY* that is *TRUE*, it'll just have to sit on the back burner.
Don't forget that truth is a word best avoided in science so science can't declare that something is true.
Brought to you by the folks at caltech of all places. And they should know if anyone does.
For the lurkers not following the discussion, I frequently post a definition from a CalTech physics website: Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html
You should stop chewing at your ankles and try some depends.
I posted the correction. Keep reading.
You need me to get mad, and I’m not going to give it to you.
You should try some more original insults.
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.