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 ...
Darwinism fits quite well as he may rightly be called the father of modern evolution.
It would be difficult to speak of the Franklin stove without reference to Franklin. There have been endless modifications to his basic design but they still contain the basic elements of the original to the point they can accurately be called “Franklin” stoves, not developmental heating devices or some such.
Darwinism for Darwin's “children”.
>>To eugenicists, all these deaths were not just an unfortunate by-product of over-zealous adherents (of course, they try to pin them on something else).
Here, this is by Darwin Medalist Karl Pearson. He was addressing an audience of doctors and surgeons:
....
It seems that Darwinism is anti-medical-progress. <<
You do realize he was born before the civil war and had gone off the reservation on science by 1905 and died by the 30’s... What ever he said doesn’t dictate the direction of developmental biology today.
It depends on the meaning of “theory.” Most people learn about “theory” in geometry class where a theory is anything that is proposed but a theorem has been proved.
by your same defintion Darwinism/evolution can not be considered a theory either: it can not be definitively proven, and always subject to new evidence also.
Because it's a response on a level appropriate to the question. Someone who could ask that question seriously doesn't have a very good understanding of the ToE. If they can get to the point where they can see the flaws in the analogy, they should be able to see why the original question is stupid in the first place.
Next, Darwin did say that natural selection always preserves favorable variations and always destroys unfavorable variations. If that is so, we may not only wonder why there are still apes, we may also wonder how it came to be that there is more than one species on earth.
"Favorable" doesn't mean "best." Favorable vs. unfavorable really just means works vs. doesn't work. Grizzly bears and mice both work fine--they do really different things, but they each do them well. Humans and apes also both work fine.
But Darwin did say that natural selection always preserves favorable variations and exterminates the unfavorable ones. You see, the reality of nature is not the problem, it's what Darwin said about the reality of nature. That's the problem.
>>Your analogy fails. Darwin’s theory of natural selection is the basis of biological evolutionary thinking today. The mechanisms and examples may be debated by evolutionists but natural selection is still the underpinning of Darwin’s theory of evolution and of biological evolutionary theory today.<<
Darwin didn’t even know about electrons or genetics, much less DNA. Do we build on Darwin’s work the same way we build on other great scientists? You bet. But to equate developmental biology with Darwinism is to be 80 years out of date.
>>
It depends on the meaning of “theory.” Most people learn about “theory” in geometry class where a theory is anything that is proposed but a theorem has been proved.
That’s correct, using the math definition
My point, though, was that the scientific definition is different. And since pretty much everybody who graduates high school has had geometry but most have not had high level science it is natural that there is misunderstanding over this.
Science theories are not proved but they must be well substantiated and a useful theory must make verifiable predictions.
Its easy to get the terms confused.
Many of the arguments presented rely on words having multiple and often ambiguous meanings. It is the foundation of sophistry.
I take it that you agree that the particular principle of Darwin's that I mentioned above is false and transparently idiotic. Unfortunately his whole subsequent reasoning was based on it. But even if we expunge Darwin from evolution, it does not solve the problem because, you see, Ernst Mayr (a Darwin Medalist) repeats the very same principle in 2001.
As I told you, you got “what Darwin said” wrong.
Look it up.
*******************
True, but you gave it a great try. He can only blame himself.
He left us his word, so all of us that read and believe it are in good shape. The rest that are like you were addressed by the Lord when he said “cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
>>Darwinism fits quite well as he may rightly be called the father of modern evolution.
It would be difficult to speak of the Franklin stove without reference to Franklin. There have been endless modifications to his basic design but they still contain the basic elements of the original to the point they can accurately be called “Franklin” stoves, not developmental heating devices or some such.<<
I should have clarified I was talking about Franklin’s work on electricity, not the stove. There case where we use someone’s name because he’s that dominant and the Franklin Stove is a good example. But though he was the leader in electricity and popularized it Franklin’s great work was equation the electricity in a battery with the electricity in lighting. Today that’s just a starting point and we don’t call electrical theory Franklinism nor would it make sense to say semi-conductors shouldn’t work because Franklin was ignorant of modern theory.
>>I take it that you agree that the particular principle of Darwin’s that I mentioned above is false and transparently idiotic. Unfortunately his whole subsequent reasoning was based on it.<<
I was deliberately dodging that for a couple of reasons. One is that I’m a physicist by education who was coerced into teaching biology for one year so I don’t want to present myself as knowledgable about biology.
The other reason is that even conceding that a scientist was wrong about something 150 years ago just means he was wrong - it doesn’t effect what the evidence says to day.
>>But even if we expunge Darwin from evolution, it does not solve the problem because, you see, Ernst Mayr (a Darwin Medalist) repeats the very same principle in 2001.<<
I’ll look that up and read it.
A lot probably depends on their perception of you, whether you're a scientist asking who happens to be a Christian, or whether you're a Christian asking, who happens to be a scientist.
The problem is, anyone who legitimately questions the ToE and refers to any religious argument, is going to be perceived as attacking the ToE, regardless of their motivation, at least based on my experience here.
I stumbled on a crevo thread shortly after joining and posted a couple comments on the creationist side (not having any idea of what to expect) and was promptly shredded. It was an eye opening experience, to say the least.
There are of course a-holes in science. And more than our fair share of scientists impaired at talking to non-scientists - its probably comparable to the issues with computer geeks.
A problem not exclusive to scientists, as you know. There's a fair number who fit into that category on the religious side as well.
Darwinism, the principles he set forth, is the basis for whatever the latest PC terms for evolution are. Natural selection, adaptation, formation of new species by population isolation, ring species formation, whatever is what modern day evolutionary theory is based on Darwin's ideas or can we remove these and have anything left?
Developmental biology differs from the above in what way?
I’ve posted twice that he got “what Darwin said” wrong.
Before I retired I taught this stuff. A hyperbolic oversimplification to say the least.
As much as I would like to disagree with your post.... it sadly was pretty much correct.
I certainly participate in less of these thread because of the tone they often descend to. And its not a Freep-specific problem - its all over the net and real time too.
Excuse me... science BEGAN as the observation of the natural world and the wonders of God’s creation, thus to gain understanding so to draw man closer to his Creator, and his eternal destiny.
Thus in keeping the above context in sight, to make the statement that “science is not equated with satanism” [sic] yet simultaneously extol the supposed virtues of a thought system whose cornerstones rest on the philosophical postulates of secular humanism, which in fact denies the existence of God, is by definition a “false” or “diabolical” mission. Here is the reasoning behind my assertion:
Diabolic:
The word “diabolic” derives from the Greek word “diaballo” meaning to “pass beyond” or “over”, from the root dia - “through” and, as a causal accusative, “with the aid of”. Later, diaballo acquired a more sense - for example “to set against” (Aristotle) although it was sometimes used (as diabolos) when a ‘bad’ or ‘false’ sense was meant, as for example, a false accusation.
Devil:
The early forms of the English word devil are regarded as deriving from the Gothic (the Old English divul) ‘diabaulus’ which came from the Latin ‘diabolus’. However, the Old English ‘deofel’ and kindred words like the Old Frisian ‘diovel’ could be derived from the suffix ‘fel’, a variant of ‘fell’ meaning fierce, savage, or wild. Then the original form, ‘deofel’, would mean the ‘fierce/ savage/ wild’ god. There is some justification for the use of the Latin prefix in this manner - e.g. ‘deodand’, which occurs in 12th century English. In this context ‘fell’ (from the Latin ‘fello’) was often used to describe both a wild, fierce person (such as an outlaw) and a brave man or warrior. Much later, the word passed into general usage as ‘felon’ - with a moral sense.
Satan:
This is often regarded as from the Hebrew, meaning accuser. However, the Hebrew is itself derived from the Greek aitia - “an accusation” - qv. Aeschylus: aitiau ekho. The Greek form became corrupted to the Hebrew ‘Satan’ - whence also ‘Shaitan’. In Greek of the classical period aitia and diabole were often used for the same thing, particularly when a ‘bad’ or ‘false’ sense was required. Hebrew is essentially in its origins a corrupt form of Greek, with some other influences thrown in.
Evil:
The word ‘evil’ derives from the Gothic ‘ubils’ which meant a ‘going beyond’ (the due measure)
To be diabolical is to be false. Hence, to connect science with a philosophical set of principles that sets as its objective a denial of the metaphysical realm science sought to explain is to “pass over and beyond” the purpose of science “with the aid of” a counter philosophy, so to cast science in a light alien to its origins. Such an endeavor would rightly be defined as “anti-science” or “counter-science” or more precisely a “false science” that asserts itself to establish a new paradigm… one that “sets against” God, and works to usurp God’s authority while simultaneously envying the power of God. Thus we have a system of thought that is wholly foreign to science but desires to subordinate science under its realm, rather than be subordinated to the original intent of science: the study of God’s creation.
This new paradigm asserts itself better, bigger, and more rational than belief in God… thus it “goes beyond” God, and therefore may accurately be called “evil” (Gothic: ‘ubils’)
The new paradigm asserts that man descended – “evolved” - from wild beasts Thus it is “devilish” in its philosophy, and false in its principles (Greek: ‘aitia’ and ‘diabole’).
(How is it possible to hold that man may simultaneously descend from, i.e.: move downward, and yet “evolve” or move upward?)
So, in fact this new paradigm is false… but for reason of envy of God’s power of creation it is more than false… it is a lie, for all lies derive from pride and envy. This new paradigm asserts that man descended from wild beasts, and so its philosophy may accurately be described as “devilish.” This new paradigm “accuses” all religion as being the bane of humanity, and so it may accurately be described as satanic (Greek ‘aitia’). Since this new paradigm:
1. Is an unfaithful or “false” copy of the original (diabolic)
2. Declares that order comes from disorder without intervention of intelligence (evil)
3. Declares man evolved from beast (devilish)
4. Accuses all religions to be the bane of humanity. God does not exist (satanic)
5. Asserts the above, having envy its motive, and thus is based in false pride, not science (diabolic)
So, your original statement “science is not equated with satanism” … needs a slight modification: ‘true science is not equated with Satanism’ … whereas that which presently poses as “science” does indeed derive from the diabolical, is devilish in philosophy, is evil in its nature, is a lie, and satanic in its objectives.
By a trial of the objective facts the accused is guilty. The prosecution rests its case.
I was aware you were speaking of electricity but most know only of Ben and the kite so the stove I thought a better example.
“Today that’s just a starting point and we don’t call electrical theory Franklinism nor would it make sense to say semi-conductors shouldn’t work because Franklin was ignorant of modern theory.”
Quite so but the rightness or wrongness of Franklin or Darwin was not the point at hand but whether their foundational role and importance of their work to modern theory was worthy of bearing their name.
Can you think of any person that occupies a more important role in any theory than Darwin does in evolutionary theory? He is it’s epitome is he not?, if so Darwinism seems ever so fitting a description does it not?
Like it or not I think Darwinism is here to stay.
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.