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 ...
Let’s call it what it is, Satanism. That’s where it comes from - Satan- and he’s who they will spend eternity with for blaspheming against God. It’s good to know that God is just. I’d love to see the smirks fall from their faces when they find out what their eternal future is going to be.
:)
Are the green lines supposed to show that those assigned the older dates evolved into the one above? That there is a clear evolutionary link between them?
If everybody follows that, then as long as somebody does it, everybody is going to do it.
Are evolutionists going to repudiate Darwinism? And if not Darwinism, What is a better term?
I could, but how would I address the post?
Or you can pretend you're arguing with Richard Dawkins, and I can pretend I'm arguing with Fred Phelps, and it can turn into just another crevo bitchfest.
Jay Gould said the "dirty little secret of paleontology is Darwin got it wrong". But getting the ToE establishment to agree is like pulling teeth. Won't happen. Because Darwin is a god to them.
This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.
So are you and I. So what?
Perhaps to TGBTG there is no difference.
This was in the article......Glenn Branch
Email: branch@ncseweb.org, he’s co-author I guess.
Here I must say evolution is married to Darwin, he may old and tired but a divorce just isn’t possible. It’s either kill the old gent and bury him or live with him and explain to the grandkids he’s gone dotty.
I’m going to go with Darwinism and actually anyone can call me what they wish (seeing they will anyway no matter).
I suggest that terms such as Darwinism are of limited use at present. Although Darwin might have anticipated the whole ID premise, a lot of significant evidence has come to light since 1859 and a great deal of thought expended on what it means.
If we wish to distinguish arguments based upon faith and idolatory from those based upon evidence and rational thought then invoking the name of a single gifted scientist who died a long time ago and is therefore no longer around to defend or refine his position is self defeating. Darwin proposed a theory that explained a great deal about the origins and diversity of life but did so before there was much understanding of the mechanism by which this could occur - genetics. That he was so correct is a credit to his thinking and especially the parsimony of that thought.
In the field of physics, would anyone, of reasonable credibility, own up to being a “Newtonian”, in the light of everything that has been discovered since the eighteenth century? Newtonian physics works fine and dandy for most purposes but we now know it to be an incomplete view of the world as it actually is.
To attach a label like “Darwinism” to modern evolutionary theory is like telling me I’m typing this on a reticulated difference engine called a Babbage.
“This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.”
You never reply to my posts, but I’ll re-state this again. This is - in fact - a religion thread. It’s called Secular Humanism, and you push it day in and day out.
“Secular Humanism - Main Tool is Evolutionary Thought
Secular Humanism is manifested in Evolutionary Theory. To satisfy the fundamental question of “Where did we come from?” children are taught the doctrine of Evolution.....”
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/secular-humanism.htm
“Secular Humanism - Excluding God from Schools & Society
Secular Humanism is an attempt to function as a civilized society with the exclusion of God and His moral principles. During the last several decades, Humanists have been very successful in propagating their beliefs. Their primary approach is to target the youth through the public school system..”
http://www.secular-humanism.com/
That’s your agenda - you push it, expect to get pounded for it.
Formatting ... formatting ... !
“This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.”
This is a Conservative website. Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies. Please take your NEA-loving cult elsewhere.
This is a Conservative website. Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies. Please take your NEA-loving cult elsewhere.
Are you suggesting that evolution, a science which fully follows the scientific method, is not permitted in conservatism, or on this website?
Don’t you love being lectured on what belongs here from someone who joined 1/03/09?
This is a Conservative website. Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies. Please take your NEA-loving cult elsewhere.
TGBTG has been here twenty days. Coyoteman, on the other hand, has been around a mere eight years. Nice work exposing the ignorance of the newbies, TGBTG!
Let's pretend, shall we, that this really is a science thread.
TGBTG has made an assertion, namely, "Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies."
Breath-taking.
Kindly demonstrate, scientifically speaking,
1) The Theory of Evolution is the same as "Evo-Atheism," taking care to define exactly what "Evo-Atheism" might be,
2) That "Evo-Atheism" has no role in conservatism, listing any other scientific theories that are forbidden by conservatism,
and that the Theory of Evolution is A) a lie, and B) originating with Satan.
Satan having exactly what to do with a thread on science?
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.