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 ...
Pretty much, particularly if they don't have emotional attachments to the issues.
But now socks...
The secondary question -- whether someone being a creationist should disqualify them from public office -- is very troubling to a ...Free Republic.
Nice try at sweeping bigotry under the rug.
You need to address the question in context: to what extent would her creationism (if present) inform her policy and appointment choices to such an extent that it would really screw the country? And if they would, why can't we ban liberals from public office?
Learn to think your *own* positions through several layers deeper (and without retorting by strawman or ad hominem, otherwise you may occasionally come across as a liberal mouthing memorized platitudes, even after they have become non sequiturs to the point at hand.
Cheers! Cheers!
If there were teeth, that could be blood, but it isn’t.
Do you yourself really believe, accept at face value, adhere to, accept, or affirm the claim that "God was with the Nazis [as they claimed of themselves]"?
If not, why not?
If so, why?
We’re not all Catholics, Gumlegs. A Pope is just as fallible as the rest of us in this fallen world, as far as I’m concerned. I greatly admired Pope John Paul II, and believed him to be a Godly man, though.
As far as the fey little “oh, please,” you tell me how parents can raise children in their faith, with all of officialdom in opposition to doing so.
Oh! You're a child.
I have hope that you will grow out of your intellectual swashbuckling stage in time.
Cheers!
Except of course when it comes to the cult of darwinism, it works just fine then metmom.
Likewise, accepting the reality of God doesn't make you anti-science like cm used to accuse everyone who disagreed with him of.
You're attempting to frame this in a "cultural war" context, which simply isn't valid.
It is a culture war and science is the weapon of choice with which to bludgeon Christianity with. It's being used to push religion out of schools in the name of science. It's been used to make out Christians as being ignorant and anti-progress.
The culture war is between the ideology that's hijacked science and Christianity.
It would do good for you guys to see that and rescue science from their grip. Evos refusal to do so only reinforces the idea that evos are throwing their chips in with the liberals/atheists/God haters.
You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you are not also liberal/atheist/God haters if you don't speak up against the abuse and misuse of science instead of justifying or excusing what they do.
Well, I guess you needed to correct me on something. Glad you found it.
Jesus Himself speaks of creation and the creation of Adam and Eve.
Or was Jesus a liar, Gumlegs?
OK, if you say so. But, if you’ve never been to DC how do you know there are no winners? (I’ll avoid the obvious rejoinder)
We done?
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Please, cite examples.
Been here over 10 years. Haven’t seen any yet.
You didn't really pay attention, did you? I pointed out that I I posted the Pope's piece because it demonstrates how one can be serious about one's religion -- you will allow that the Pope was serious about his religion, won't you? -- and still accept that the Theory of Evolution is science.
As far as the fey little “oh, please,” you tell me how parents can raise children in their faith, with all of officialdom in opposition to doing so.
They can see to their childrens' religious instruction. Are there police stationed at your church refusing to allow the congregation to enter?
So you *admit* you're a loser? ;-)
Cheers!
God told me so Himself.
I’ll claim to be a survivor. :)
Shame on you for exhibiting the errors of a senile old man.
His departure from God’s word must now be an embarrasment to him in the presence of the Lord, and hopefully he is unaware of what you are doing here.
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.