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 ...
You COULD make that argument if they were not the cousin and son of Charles Darwin.
But since, like I said, no one on these threads has ever called for the destruction of Christianity or eugenics, I guess there are no Darwinists around here.
Nonsense, perhaps not this specific thread, but there have been plenty of pro-eugenics posters on others.
I'm not even sure if that is true-- he believed in the theories of Lysenko, who rejected Darwinian evolution and believed that people and animals coud acquire new traits that they would pass down to their descendants. Hence his ideas of developing a new homo sovieticus. In any event, eugenics and Darwinian evolution are not the same thing.
But, if it makes you feel better, we can remove Stalin’s name from my list, we still have a minimum of over 960 MILLION deaths in less than a century.
Can you cite an example of Hitler quoting Darwin? Because I can cite many examples of him quoting the New Testament.
Which is why the evos or scientists should not be on the side of eliminating Christianity from our culture.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
I am a Jew, not a Christian, but I certainly am not on the side of eliminating Christianity from our culture. I am in favor only of eliminating Christianity from science classes.
Oh, when you say "Darwinism" you're referring to Leonard Darwin. I misunderstood.
there have been plenty of pro-eugenics posters on others.
Like I said, I've been reading crevo threads for many years, and I've never seen it. Maybe it was on some "exterminate the brutes" thread I didn't read.
I keep hearing we have to teach purple spaghetti monster creation science and when that strawman fails, I hear about which version of Christianity next.
The point isn’t so much “teaching” Christianity as it is respecting their beliefs, and adherence to the principle of “free exercise thereof”.
Nonsense like “God doesn’t belong in science class”, or “your Bible isn’t allowed in school”, or children are not allowed to pray on school grounds is the liberal PC nonsense people are talking about, and the idea that since we can’t “teach” (again a strawman) ALL the religions, then we’ll just allow none at all.
Then the next step is predictably “you don’t want your child indoctrinated by muslim imam’s do you”?
Another strawman...the school needs to focus on math, writing...you know actual education, not the Koran, not the Bible and not Marshall Applewhite’s instruction to snip your testicles off and kill yourself to catch a spaceship in the tail of a comet.
As far as your last statement about TRUE scientific method and “at least” that it’s weeding out inconsistencies, that’s truly laughable with the algoreacle cult programming young mushy minds that humans are making the planet too hot...not to mention they’re little more than more advanced darwinian little apes; and one could make a valid argument about self-fulfilling prophecies:
if you demand they learn they don’t need God, God is bad, God has no place...etc., I suppose society has been dealt exactly what it deserves with them behaving like apes and hardly graduating, or in those rare cases in inner cities wshen they actually do graduate, ultimately aren’t much smarter than an ape.
Christianity did just fine in public schools until godless NEA politically correct liberals demanded to ruin it for everyone by hijacking the legal system. I can even recall in school when I was young in the 60’s after prayer wa banned, the Golden Rule, “judge not lest ye not be judged”, little age appropriate common sense things that were Biblical principles and that’s about as much as was “taught” then.
But all that’s TOO offensive now...just like saying ‘Merry Christmas’...might offend someone so just offend the majority instead.
Makes PERFECT sense to a liberal.
But I admit there’s no going back...eventually I think the only possibility now is to disband public indoctrination centers and privatize schools as wintertime says. Public schools are abject failures and getting worse.
The results are inarguable...private schools that actually educate children as opposed to socializing them without all the multiple God-hang-ups and hyper-sensitivities actually outperform the kool-aid farms.
I've never said they were.
Can you cite an example of Hitler quoting Darwin?
This is not a quote of Darwin's words, just his theory:
"The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature's efforts to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile."
Do you deny that Hitler believed in eugenics?
Then why don't you allow it if you're as pro-freedom as you claim?
In your own words.....(post 543):Intolerance and discrimination are fine, if you do it for the proper reason.
“Are you a homeschooler by any chance?”
What are you suggesting by this?
Well, I'm not going to defend some strawman that you've created.
Your inability to counter a statement DOES NOT make that statement a strawman.
The only statement you've made is that:
Darwinism is a political philosophy that seeks the destruction of Judeo-Christian culture, an elite governing class and population control/manipulation through eugenics.
I'm not going to bother discussing a movement that you've created out of thin air. What's the point? What do you want me to counter?
No, actually there's not "more to it". The term "Darwinism" was started by the creationists to bash evolution. That other parties have picked up the terminology in no wise changes the perjorative intent.
Let's see what Charles Darwin had to say:
"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws;"
"Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind."
So what are the *right* reasons for intolerance and discrimination?
And for the record, you still haven't answered the question of why you felt it necessary to ping JR when you posted to me.
Why was that?
No, the Darwinists created a movement out of thin air and proceeded to kill a BILLION PEOPLE.
That is quiet an explaination to your assertions and my questions. Thank you.
Except of course for those minority few that demand all things Christian be squashed from the public.
We're coming upon about 90 years his theory of General Relativity has held up. But if you dismiss him....O.K. Your support for the Las Alamos theories are noted.
metmom:
People letting themselves get provoked in order to get banned is a successful tactic. It their goal it to get banned from FR, then I suppose they will keep using it.
tacticalogic:
Yes, people intentionally let other people piss them off so they’ll say something intemperate and get banned all the time. It’s so much easier than just not posting in the first place.
In the liberal world up is down, and down is up.
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.