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 ...
FWIW, Christians and creationists just want creation BACK in the schools, where it had been for centuries.
They share much more common ground with the left than with conservatism, for sure.
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.
Very well said and a nice exercise for those that truly are not fully in the grips of this cult should ask themselves if they can find a serious peer review of evolution that is not automatically attacked as non-science, junk science or religious attacks on science.
Then, for kicks they should anonymously challenge evolution in some way, any way, for instance asserting it’s not fact but theory and see what these responses looks like...if it’s about the science or something else, as, on FR anyway, it’s always invariably about something else.
Everytime I’ve seen it challenged, it’s almost always met with a furious “counter-assault” on religion and science has little if anything to do with it. Any challenge whatsoever is literally taken as an insult.
If you post a scientist’s observations, the first thing cultists want to know is their credentials. (Which on it’s face is understandable if it’s official.)
If that’s OK, then it’s on to the next step...are they a member of some religious outfit like a “creationsist group out to undermine science”, and so on...
it literally never ever ends...
all the hallmarks of a cult.
I see which side of the culture war you’re on.
Given the scientific fact I would ask you to answer one question. Prior to that Singularity of the Big Bang...the moment prior to the moment of creation.....Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?
No, I really don't. I asked you to cite examples of "hijacked science and Christianity". You haven't.
You posted a link to a Wikipedia article re: Dover.
"If Coyote had simply NOT told another poster to shut up (he started the thread, but does not have that authority), and then hadn't mouthed off in full Matt Damon mode to Jim Robinson, he'd still be here."
I didn't read it that way at all. However, I have noticed that people seem predisposed to read into another's words whatever threat or menace they harbor in their own hearts.
But I have also noticed that you have a good heart, and I am pleased to regard you as a friend.
So, basically, you want to keep the science you like and ignore the science that contradicts your Bible.
Got it. Thanks for making it clear.
**** bangs head on desk*****
I've got news for you: God makes that call. You don't.
And, frankly, as far as I'm concerned, God created a universe that's billions of years old. If you want to call me for blasphemy that, then back at you, buddy.
No. Putting words in my mouth is intellectually dishonest.
Is misrepresenting what someone says all evos can resort to when confronted with facts.
It didn't do any good, honey. Your brain cell still isn't working.
The 'Big Bang' theory is the best scientific explanation for the observed universe. If new evidence is found or a better theory is proposed....
Prior to that Singularity of the Big Bang...the moment prior to the moment of creation.....Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?
I have no clue what came before the Big Bang. None at all.
Maybe one of the lurkers can address your question. :)
Why are you posting this drivel on Free Republic at all?
And no, I'm not posting this as a "Creationist Idiot."
The argument is much further upstream from that, and in an way any FReeper would be on good diplomatic terms with, and many of the libertarians -- which seem to overlap with atheists much more than with Christians -- would heartily endorse.
Why are you ceding control of education of the children to the State (which nowadays means giving the Gramscians a 20-yard head start in a 40-yard dash)?
Why are you (implicitly) subscribing to "separation of Church and State" when that phrase wasn't in the Constitution, but was in a letter which Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution) wrote to friends? Why are you apparently insisting on the Establishment Clause (so called) while ignoring the Free Exercise Clause?
Because the Bible-thumpers would make the wrong choice if left to themselves, so we the educated have to make it for them? If so, can you articulate *concisely* why this philosophy is different from the liberals' wish to control? (And not just in circumstance or ad hoc, but rather, ab initio?
If not, I will be happy to forward your employment application to the Good Intentions Paving Co., LLC.
Cheers!
Backatcha.
Well, MetMom, I’m sorry but that is the only conclusion one can draw from your statement.
Our understanding of life, the earth, and the universe has progressed from the simple, childish Creation story found in the Bible.
We simply know too much to teach the Creation story as fact.
And if the scientist challenges the theory, he's *not a real scientist*, *not doing real science*, *is speaking outside of his field of expertise*, *needs to go back to school and learn what he's talking about*, *arguing religious apologetics*, etc.
The list is endless.
Or not enough.
The *big bang* confirms the Bible's declaration of *In the beginning....*
Science comes late to the party again.
So why do they say the creation account is a fairy tale or mythology?
Build a wall between Church and State that would make an illegal alien have a heart attack.
Clear enough for ya? ;)
Because the Bible-thumpers would make the wrong choice if left to themselves, so we the educated have to make it for them?
I fully support private and religious schools and homeschooling. The public school, however, must remain neutral.
If so, can you articulate *concisely* why this philosophy is different from the liberals' wish to control?
It isn't about control. It's about government neutrality.
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.