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 ...
No it doesn't convince the voters. That's why the evo/atheists end up suing creationists and Christians into silence in the public school system, because they couldn't convince the voters and get their own way otherwise.
You should get your head examined because it was you that brought Sara Palin up in the first place and politics and so on...
I was not long out of high school at the time. No one knew what GRID (and that’s what they called it, then) was at the time. He didn’t delay any research. He could not have acknowledged an unknown. He and Nancy were very good friends with a victim of the disease, Rock Hudson.
You’re being too credulous regarding a leftist myth.
Oops!
You figure you’re going to win something?
Yaaawn.
Looks like it.
Creationism, since it is based on the Christian Bible, doesn’t have a place in the public school system. The public school system, which must educate children of parents who belong to many different faiths and none at all, must remain neutral.
There isn’t anyone stopping you from sending your child(ren) to a private, religious school or homeschooling.
Dressing Creationism up in scientific jargon - that is, Intelligent Design - doesn’t convince the scientific community or judges, either.
Show me an atheist that supports Intelligent Design and you may be able to convince me that ID isn’t dressed up Creationism.
You name one of the few respites remaining, and think you've scored a point.
And, do you honestly believe that Pope John Paul, II uncritically accepted the entirety of ToE, without exception? I can assure you he did not.
I’m familiar with the Dover case. Creationists attempted to smuggle Creationism into a public school and had their asses handed to them.
Every day I wake up breathing, I've won. Every time people reveal themselves and don't know it, I've won all I need to. I'm not greedy and I'm not prideful. I'm mostly grateful.
Atheism sort of precludes a designer, unless you're talking space aliens or something. See Scientology.
Christianity has a place in public education, along with other religions as philosophy, where IMHO, it proves to be head and shoulders above the other religions of the world. But it is not science.
That qualifies you among the survivors.
That seems to be a weakness of the evos for everything from that to the flat earth accusations against creationists to the creationists wanting to take us back to the dark ages.
Are we going to go over this, all over again? I thought you and I settled this.
Maybe you can work Creationism into a comparative religion class - Christians believe X, Muslims believe Y, Buddhists believe Z - or as part of the history of science - as an example of primitive beliefs on the origin of earth/life - but you can’t teach it as science because it isn’t science.
Period.
Deal with it.
Then you do have an idea of what I’m talking about after all.
I thought so.
I know why Sarah was mocked as the mocking MSM proudly proclaimed that the overwhelming majority of 40 and under COLLEGE educated crowd were Bama supporters. Animal Farm is reality, the most 'fittest to survive' are the ones more equal than the rest. Enjoy your victory.
Now the scientific methodology became precedence by the Supremes as only acceptable dogma in their houses of worship around 40 + years ago. And the taxpayer taking to fund your houses of worship has produced the perfect election. You all wanted God out of your means and methods and so you now have it, be happy.
The majority of Bama followers are NOW going to get to live under that scientific methodology.
And as Bama proclaimed you all would get back to 'real' science, most likely it will require 'hate crimes' legislation to punish and retrain anybody who knows and stands against a crack pot theory of primordial soup.
Kinda like Daniel getting tossed in the proverbial lions den.
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.