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 ...
Just like this thread that was just posted...
Socialism and Darwinism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175576/posts
Wikipedia is just like other sites, user required judgement.
Good site. Thanks, whiskers.
I know what you mean about 50-50 chances. :-)
The problem is I may have run afoul of the same thing here. So, instead of being brief, I’m going to be uncharacteristically wordy. And if this gets misunderstood, oh, well.
First, to be clear, I work in biology, have a good understanding of evolution and use that understanding in my work. There is no conflict with my religion because I never thought God was writing a biology textbook. At a basic level, Genesis does not mention fungi, or bacteria for the (to me) obvious reason that the people He was addressing hadn’t seen them. There are day length issues also since, in our time, it has changed.
I also like to keep my own house clean, so to speak. My children were partly homeschooled, yet I am always warning homeschoolers to accept some degree of accountability because there are bad people out there who use that as a cover to abuse their kids.
Which is why I say ~now~ that those who disagree with evolution might have spoken against the intemperate language of a newcomer. After all, it is not the anti-evolution group that is getting banned wholesale.
But, what I tried to get at in my original post was that someone who claims to be pro-evolution did not speak up. I was not addressing the issue I described above. That’s a contrast with the point I had in mind...that the supporters of a position did not actively support someone else on their side. Neither did I, but I was not posting actively at that time.
And now, I have given this more time than I have available so I quite posible will not respond further.
I wouldn’t call it “decency”.
I don’t accept insults.
“First error: You have no references just a statement you make.”
And neither did you, buddy.
“Second error: I am not a creationist.”
Your postings say otherwise.
“Third error: Several searches gave C. Darwin as the source of “Darwinism” as did ‘The Online Etymology Dictionary’.”
Try the Oxford English dictionary.
“Fourth error: Calling me an idiot.”
If the shoe fits.
“Darwinism is correct for the Darwin’s evolution theory and hence I will continue to use.”
And you’ll continue to be an idiot.
The problem is with the scientific popularizers and journalists, who (mis)translate what little they know of science for mass consumption.
Putting those two statements together, I guess you're just defining "Darwinism" as the popular conception of evolution, and expressing a wish that people understood it better. I couldn't agree more (especially after reading these threads). Having done some science journalism, though, I have sympathy for the people who try to explain this stuff at a high-school level. It requires simplification, and simplifying a complex concept is always going to make it "wrong" (like calling a member of the family from a long way back an "ancestor").
'Pro-Choice'? I guess I never saw the question. I am for freedom if that is what you mean. If your question really is am I in favor of abortion then I would have to answer that I am not in favor of abortion. Freedom comes with responsibilities and consequences.
I haven't replied to your comments to me because they are nonsensical. For example;
Hint: what would the reaction be at DC if groups of FReepers bragged here about going over there explicitly in order to disrupt, and then came over here to alternately bitch, whine, and moan, and then brag about their bannings by receiving golden "martyr's crown" icons from the Mods here?
What does that have to do with me? Are you confused thinking that I am Coyoteman?
Tacticallogic asked someone for their bona fides that they were saying God's word.
I find it a mark of hypocrisy that an equally declarative, but negative, statement, is allowed by tactical to pass unchallenged.
I am not Tacticallogic either.
Which is what the Christians have been saying about the Cross anyway.
Huh? What are you talking about?
You really don't know the difference between "freedom to" and "freedom from" do you?
Go read John Donne...
Actually I have read John Donne and Hemingway (For whom the Bell tolls). 'Freedom to' and 'freedom from' are both forms of freedom. As usual you don't seem to have a point.
That would be a Turing PROGRAM.
Again you are confused. I said Turing Test and I mean Turing Test. Did you need a reply to understand the difference?
No, it means you're a troll.
And an unentertaining one at that.
Obviously, my posts entertained you enough that you felt complied to respond half a dozen times with no reply from me. If I am a troll I am a very good one : )
"At this point, absurdity having reached its limit, nothing more can be said except: "Let us pray." Dispater needs a good laugh, and I am sure that he will see fit to set your God straight.
Are you insulting Fichori Metmom? He is kind of sensitive about his education. Did you know that he bought a physics book at a yard sale? He very proudly pointed that out to me : )
You also pointed out that you took Calculus in College and yet you didn't recognize E=MC2. It wasn't Gore's Divinity College that you went to was it?
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a PHYSICS equation, it has NOTHING to do with basic calculus.
Of course, but wouldn't you expect someone who is familiar with calculus to be familiar with Einsteins famous equation? Metmom didn't have a clue, when I tried to explain how that equation worked with the speed of light, or where that equation came from.
The gist of the argument was that nothing is faster than the speed of light, therefore an omnipotent God doesn't exist because the speed of light is a limit.
And God said: Be light made. And light was made. (Genesis 1:3)
As with most atheists, you are incapable of understanding the difference between omnipotent and OMNIPRESENT.
For lack of a better term I suppose....
“Are you insulting Fichori Metmom?” [excerpt]No, she isn't.
“He is kind of sensitive about his education.” [excerpt]Oh really?
“Did you know that he bought a physics book at a yard sale? He very proudly pointed that out to me : )” [excerpt]No, she didn't know that.
I guess, although I wouldn’t have been as polite as Fichori.
Interesting that god made light, then the earth and then he made the Sun. Do you agree with the Genesis version of Creation? As an aside do you know that ID is Deism?
As with most atheists, you are incapable of understanding the difference between omnipotent and OMNIPRESENT.
Actually I think that I have a pretty good grasp of field equations. I think that you are improperly equating Omnipotence and Omnipresent they aren't the same thing.
Wrong again.
1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. (Genesis 1:1-3)
Your inability to comprehend Scripture really isn't my problem.
Actually I think that I have a pretty good grasp of field equations. I think that you are improperly equating Omnipotence and Omnipresent they aren't the same thing.
I think you are grossly overestimating your own intellect.
YOU used the term "omnipotent" to try to say that God was somehow "slower" than the speed of light, the term had no relation to your statement. I pointed out that you were confusing omnipotence with omnipresence. Because God is omnipresent, He goes beyond any limits that He has placed on light.
If you believe that light is either omnipotent or omnipresent, try lighting a match and then set it down for a minute and see what happens to the light.
I didn't even know that!
The truth is much easier to remember than a lie. Do you remember me asking you to get a copy of Feyman's lectures? I guess not. That is when you stated that you had gotten your hands on a copy of a physics book at a yard sale.
“The truth is much easier to remember than a lie. Do you remember me asking you to get a copy of Feyman's lectures? I guess not. That is when you stated that you had gotten your hands on a copy of a physics book at a yard sale.”You are incorrect.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
On the first day, Light is created and divided.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Firmament(heaven) made on the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
On the third day God created the earth and plants
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
God made the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth day.
It isn't my fault if you Deist's believe this, that is what the scriptures say.
wagglebee - Your inability to comprehend Scripture really isn't my problem.
That is a good thing, because your understanding of the scriptures is wrong.
YOU used the term "omnipotent" to try to say that God was somehow "slower" than the speed of light, the term had no relation to your statement. I pointed out that you were confusing omnipotence with omnipresence. Because God is omnipresent, He goes beyond any limits that He has placed on light.
He is not omnipotent because he can't travel faster than the speed of light. As for the omnipresence that is why I pointed out my understanding of fields. Eg gravity fields and EM fields, they are omnipresent, but constrained by the speed of light.
If you believe that light is either omnipotent or omnipresent, try lighting a match and then set it down for a minute and see what happens to the light.
Are you trying to imply that something can go faster than the speed of light with your example? Please try and follow along, it really isn't that hard : )
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.