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 ...
Last night I made the observation that evolution is either true or it isn’t an no amount of debate will ever change that.
However, the more I thought about this, I was struck with another observation. WHY are the Darwinist so emphatic that EVERYONE agree with them? In other fields of science, someone who is not interested in the subject is not generally forced to learn it, but the Darwinists INSIST that everyone accept their claims. Why is this? And the answer is very simple, Darwinism is scientific theory used to push an agenda, to do this it has ignored scientific norms to focus on theoretical philosophy and it is taught like a philosophy with the demands that ALL contradictory beliefs be abandoned.
When you really look at the way Darwinism is approached by its adherents, you will see a radicalism that is far more similar to Marxist or Keynesian economics than to Newtonian physics. The reason for this is quite simple, the Darwinian agenda is not about science, it is about an agenda.
Still looking for a fight? You must be, because you already know my thoughts, even though I doubt you would have the honesty to state them without mischaracterization. I told you that if there was any blood in the water it happened when ‘yoteman opened his own veins. I described ‘yoteman’s behavior to you as analogous to ‘suicide by cop.’ I don’t expect your agreement, but let’s have no pretense about my opinion (which I notice you, again, misstate). It’s no wonder you’re accused of practicing a religion. You carry your ‘poor little ol’ me’ act around on your back like a crucifix.
Your’s is an old act. I’ve been witnessing it for sixty years. According to my grandfather, it was old when the IWW was using it in the Twenties and the Thirties and throwing phosphorus cakes in Mid West wheat fields. It was old when the Socialists and the Anarchists were rioting at Haymarket in the 1880s. And, I’m sure it was an old act when Frédéric Bastiat wrote against the Socialists in the French Parliament in the 1850s.
You are what’s come to be known, thanks to Rush, as a seminar caller (I guess that makes you seminar FReeper). You are no more concerned about Evolution Theory than the Marxist/Socialist vermin, who infested our university campi in the Sixties, were concerned about civil rights or voting rights. If you were the deeply concerned, earnestly anxious FReeper you claim to be, instead of picking fights with Conservatives and Christians, you would be seeking their alliance in a desperate struggle against the cultural sewage inundating our society. Instead, daily you go out to attack the people who should be your allies and ignore the tsunami sweeping towards you.
You asked. This is your answer. Happy?
[[However, the more I thought about this, I was struck with another observation. WHY are the Darwinist so emphatic that EVERYONE agree with them?]]
Because their hypothesis is in deep trouble. Yuo can’t teach a troubled hypothesis without silencing those who bring the facts that refute it. Extreme liberals scream about seperation of church and state, and demand that nothign about God be taught in public because it is a ‘religion’- however, what they really mean is that they be allowed to force their statem mandated religion on us while suppressing the religion that the majority of Americans adere to and support. Marxism? Yes, quite close. Objective science beign taught our kids? Not by a long shot
I’m just checking to see if all that concern about telling the truth about what happened to CM applies equally to both sides.
Neither your interpretation of your religion, nor your astonishingly egotistical attempt to speak for God impress me in the least.
********************
Interesting. There does appear to be an emotional investment by the Darwinists in the theory of evolution.
I concerned about making good decisions based on sound arguments, and knowing how to separate objective arguments from agenda driven propaganda. Half truths and perjoratives are their own indictment.
[[Yet they claim religion is responsible for more deaths.]]
Hmmm- that’s funny, because it has been the TRUE CHristians that have been murdered by the 100’s of millions- 20 million in the last century alone- Christians are murdered in cold blood every single day in droves all over hte world, simpyl because they beleive what they do- Yes- TRUE Christians are the evil while secularists who murder them are the ‘innocents’ who apparently are oppressed by said TRUE CHristians
As a side note- The crusades, which were run by SECULARISTS falsely portrayign htemselves as God’s people- which they CLEARLY were NOT- only killed 10,000 people during hteir whole State mandated ‘campaign’ (which interestingly was sanctioned by who? Yup secularists who wanted the gold of the natives). But we hear how ‘religon is the worst offender for murder’
I wonder if the many millions of TRUE Christians who were roasted on spits in open arenas while secularists looked on and cheered, who were boiled alive, set on fire- thrown to lions/bears/elephants etc to be trampled and torn apart for sport woudl agree?
*ouch*
When my friend bought three apples for the two of us he took two for himself and left one for me. I said it wasn’t fair and he agreed as he took the one I had that he paid for.
Do you grasp the point here?
If the analogy is applied directly, it means the truth is bought and paid for, and someone else has the receipt, and I shouldn't complain if they claim exclusive rights to it.
[[I don’t of a better term for the supposition of a supreme being without scientific evidence than “religion.”]]
IF that’s what ID was about- then you’d have a pouint- but whereas ID makes no such claism abotu who or what the intelligence behind hte evidence that points to the NEED for intelligence, then your point is irrelevent when describing ID. You are free to call ID exactly what it is- A Scietnific discipl;ine- You are not however free to try to falsely impugne ID claiming it is somethign that it isn’t- without being called on it.
[[another reason it tends to get called religion is that almost 100% of the proponents are religious and seem to approach the issue from a religion P.O.V.]]
This simpyl is not true- there are many that still think nature is the itnellgience, and who are agnostic- and besides- who cares (other than those who try to disparage the science) whether these folks are religious or not? What has that got to do with hte science?- Nothing whatsoever- that’s what.
[[A third reason is groups like the Discovery institute deliberately using I.D. to try to sneak religion into science class.]]
I see you are bringign DC lies over here- This is false- DI has made it clear that are NOT tryign to do this and infact they are actively campaigning NOT to do this
[[What term would be better for I.D. - philosophy? metaphysics?
I don’t of a better term for the supposition of a supreme being without scientific evidence than “religion.”
another reason it tends to get called religion is that almost 100% of the proponents are religious and seem to approach the issue from a religion P.O.V.
A third reason is groups like the Discovery institute deliberately using I.D. to try to sneak religion into science class.]]
you know Gondram- The problem with tryign to have any sort of intelligent discussions here about science is the FACT that people like you keep interjecting assinine pat accusations like your above statements which have absolutely no connection with reality. While this particular thread has devolved into this type of ‘discussion’ and is hopelessly sidetracked., the point is that you folks simply can not apparently discuss anythign without injecting some assinine petty accusaitons that are blatantly false.
It woudl be nice to have discussiosn here on FR without constantly havign the threads derailed and sidetracked with folks having to constantly refute rediculous claims like you made- but apaprently you folks simply can’t get past your loathign of anythign not connected with naturalism
now, I’m sure you have quite a lot of knowledge and can contribute to threads in a meaningful and civil manner if you want, but I’ve not seen the effort on your part either here or in the past. Those on DC complain about FR being anti-science- but the only antiscience i EVER see here on FR are peopel from DC, and folks like htose from DC constantly disrupting htreads with assinine accusations, false examples of ‘macroevolution’ petty bickering etc.
What's alarming about the whole thing is the failure to recognize or acknowledge what is being done in the name of their theory.
Anyone so concerned about *just teaching science* or *keeping science pure* should be just as alarmed at the misuse of the ToE by the left as a weapon with which to destroy the Judeo-Christian heritage and belief system as they are with the perceived attacks against the theory itself by the conservatives/Christians/creationists/ whoever they label their foe as.
Instead the evos line themselves up with and defend aggressively anti-Christian groups like the ACLU and NEA as they use science as a weapon to eat away at Christian belief. They should be as interested in rescuing science from groups like those as they are about "rescuing" science from those *fundies* who allegedly want to put us back in the dark ages and impose a theocracy on the country.
For the claim that evos are making that they are conservatives, they are fighting the wrong foes. If they'd take back science from the leftists who have hijacked it, the conflict with the religious conservative element would fade into the woodwork. Science shouldn't be political and yet that's the very thing that it's become.
We creationists have seen that and that is what we're fighting, not the science itself. It would be good if some of the evos saw that as well.
[[So.. to a scientist, you can’t I.D. a theory because it not substantiated. And I.D. certainly is not a “useful theory” because it doesn’t make predictions that can be tested that are not made by other theories]]
Good golly- you either are ginroant of the FACTS about ID, or you KNOW that ID IS predictable, it IS falsifiable, it DOES make predictions- NOT that any one of these are a requirement for theories- Popper’s assertions are NOT the basis upon which somethign is scientific or not- But even still ID meets all of these self imposed ‘requirements’ that soem fella outside the scientific model proposed
Next you’ll be complainin that ID hasn’t any peer reviewed papers- which again is NOT a requirement for science, however ID DOES meet even those ‘requirements’ imposed by people outside of science.
Got any other petty false accusaitons about ID that you want to get off your chest before we continue our way back to realityland?
It isn't a persecution complex, evo's aren't persecuted. When you attack Mormon beliefs that isn't persecution either. When you attack atheists that isn't persecution. When you attack science that isn't persecution. Generally it is a manifestation of ignorance, and we are all ignorant.
The reason that I respond to these attacks isn't to defend evolution, Mormonism, atheism, or science, they don't need defending, it is because from my view point they are secondary issues. The primary issue to me is freedom. Freedom to believe what I understand to be the truth and the freedom to allow others their beliefs, whatever they may be. Without freedom we have nothing. I am perfectly willing to stand side by side with anyone who shares my belief in freedom. I don't really care what else they believe in, if they believe in freedom.
I respond to attacks against freedom and become antagonistic towards belief structures that are intolerant of other beliefs. No one has a monopoly on the truth. Consequently when I see attacks against someones irrelevant beliefs (not having to do with their belief regarding freedom) I enjoy tossing rocks at their glass house.
My question to you Metmom, and anyone else who might be interested, is what is your priority on Free Republic, freedom or your other beliefs?
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear metmom!
You know metmom- I just wrote several replies to Gondram- once again shooting down his rediculous claims- but it’s become apparent that no matter how many times they have their false accusations shot down- they simply will NOT put aside their pat petty accusations- they simply are unwilling to bring ANY sort of itnellectual honesty to discussions here on FR. Coyoteman was here for a good many years, and every one of his charts were disputed, refuted, and everyone of his false accusaitons about ID were shot odwn time after time, but he left here no doubt screamign about ID beign ‘antiscience’ and nothign but a ‘religious practice of apologetics’.
It has becoem clear that intellectual honesty is not somethign Macroevolutionsits hold very dear- at least not the Macroevolutionist apologists like Coyote and others who constantly show they are unwilling to even cede the bovious FACTS about the issues. They come here complaing that DC isn’t ‘objective’ anymore, and feigning disgust with subjective bias, but then turn right aroudn and wallow in that very same subjective bias they complain about- all while denigrading ID and Creationists in not so subtle rhettoric.
False dichotomy.
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.