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 ...
And all those can apply to the evos as well.
What’s it to them if someone wants to believe God over man?
Why do they have to resort to insults and slander about someone who believes differently than they?
Why the mockery and ridicule that we believe fairy tales, mythology, folklore? Why names like cretards, IDiots, ignorant, and stupid?
Why the obsession to see others think the way they do to the point of having it legislated or enforced through the judiciary?
What exactly, are they trying to accomplish with those means?
The Amish believe in creation. Would you rather not have them as a neighbor? Would evos label them as *ignorant cretards who would have us all live in the dark ages*? Are they stupid for not believing in evolution?
Echo Chamber? Like DC where it's posted up front that opposing views are not welcome?
No lively debate allowed there and it's posted up front for all to see.
Like what the FRevos are trying to turn FR into?
How can one have lively debate when the person posting the thread insists that people who disagree with him leave, as in posts 28 & 49.
And Coyoteman was opposed to the misuse of science to further a religious agenda. And when he fought that, he was accused of being anti-God instead of being rightly recognized as anti-agenda.
You’re going to tell me that the behavior described in post 1,043 is simply being “anti-agenda” and not anti-religion?
You do realize the point of the Religion forum is to provide a place for Freepers who are believers to discuss religion, right? A secularist would belong on there like Ken Hamm belongs on Darwin Central, yet Coyoteman being asked not to post there is being treated like some kind of crime.
It's not just CM and this thread. The science threads turn into a general religion pissing contest the minute they venture anywhere near conflicting with somebody's creation doctrine.
Malarkey.
Click here.
Fossils and everything. But no flamewars.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Yep. And everybody claims their hands are clean.
Based upon the responses I've seen posted to your question, the answer is no, we cannot. The howler monkeys always drown out earnest discussion.
As I said earlier, it's a sad day, but it's not the first sad day. I never thought the Peter Principle would apply to a web site.
No, I'll tell you that post 1043 is not an accurate description of CM's behavior.
You’re going to look at the DC tread I gave you a link to and tell me that those folks aren’t trolling? You’re going to tell me they respect this site, its members and its owner and should be given respect in return?
Cheers!
Take a look again at post 1,043.
Now, go ahead and tell me that a guy like that would only be bannned if we want FR to be an echo chamber.
Go ahead and tell me that he's looking for an "earnest discussion." If you do, I'll have a very good laugh, but I won't try to have you banned. One-sided discussions are for those super-awesome intellectually superior dudes at DC.
It’s a very accurate description of the behavior I witnessed. It is also behavior that should result in a ban even if it was only one percent of his behavior on this site.
What I really enjoy is how evos like Coyoteman and CE2949BB wanted JimRob to throw all the creationists off the site so we wouldn’t look bad, but he’s suppposed to keep people who strap tinfoil to their noggin and mutter about Dominionists taking over the country from their well-staffed phone booth. Good grief, what a persecution complex you folks have.
You ever contributed to turning a thread into a flame war?
Okay, you contributed to the flame wars too. So have I. Did it ever get you anything wortwhile you couldn’t have gotten just as well being civil?
Cheers!
And your trolling begets more trolling. Before it's done there's noting left but insults and single issue battle lines drawn.
Nice try though.
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.