Skip to comments.Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]
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 Darwins 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.
In summary, then, Darwinism is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwins 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 Darwins 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 ...
why not? answer any way you want then.
No sorry- I’ve received alright- 3 days now passing a kidney stone- seems to be al I receive. Not tryign to be sarcastic- just that I’ve tried putting my trust in receiving, and just get knocked around for oding so. Not sure what’s goign on- I still beleive He’ll deliver, despite those facts.
You’ll need a court order to get me to answer- mums hte word.
You are on this site, that you don't own, telling others that your way is the only way. He told others not to post on his thread because his voice was silenced on the religious threads, why should his thread be overtaken by those he isn't able to debate on their favorite issues?
I'm not saying anyone is a bad Christian because they wont treat me the way I want to be treated...I'm saying it's a bad Christian who doesn't treat non-believers with the same compassion as they do the believers.
Christians are under an obligation to confront another Christian about it
I guess that's part of the issue here...Coyoteman never claimed to be a Christian...so your confronting him about his beliefs doesn't qualify under this excuse!
There's a big difference between the mods telling someone to do something and some FReeper who is supposed to be on equal standing with other FReepers telling them what to do.
To the best of my knowledge, the person posting a thread is not by default given rights to moderate it.
If the Religion Mod felt that he was violating posting guidelines for the Religion Forum, then that mod did his/her job by telling him not to post there but that's the mods decision, it is not for someone to take on themselves. The rules for the religion forum are more restrictive than other forums as you ought to well know.
I pinged the Religion Mod simply because I am not familiar with the exact circumstances of cm being told not to post there any more.
cm was telling others what they could and could not post. Others were telling him that he couldn’t do that.
How is that unchristian?
That isn’t what I considered unchristian...there are several here who are celebrating his banning. There are many who wanted him silenced and they finally got what they wanted, at the cost of having his opinion and knowledge removed from FR.
There are only a few “Science minded” people left...are they on the short list for getting rid of?
Just because a person posts at DC doesn’t mean they are trolling, it just means that is where they have to go to be able to discuss science now.
The mods wouldn’t have told him to stay off the Christian threads if some Christians hadn’t constantly complained that he was hurting their delicate sensibilities.
Come on...people need to
Grow up and realize their belief isn’t the only one.
Others have the right to believe as they want.
This would be a mighty boring world if we all believed the exact same way.
Debate is a good thing, it keeps us sharp!
Now that most of the science debate has been silenced, that’s one less topic that can be discussed.
There’s plenty of science being discussed on FR and it isn’t just all evolution, and there are plenty of science minded people left to discuss it, even if they don’t accept the hard line evo position on the ToE.
Evolution does not equal all of science and rejecting the hardline no-God, speciation/(macroevolution)/whatever-you-want-to-call-it position of the evolutionists does not equate to rejecting all of science. It does not make one anti-science to disagree with that interpretation of the fossil record.
Science is not supposed to be done by consensus but the minute anyone disagrees with the consensus on evolution, they’re branded and called cretards, IDiots, and other sorts of names along with being accused of taking all kinds of other baseless positions.
Most FReepers are opposed to the misuse of science to further political agenda. When we fight that, we are accused of being anti-science instead of being rightly recognized as anti-agenda. Some, however, are to blinded by their hysteria that they are incapable of distinguishing between the two.
People who push evoloserism are in the same religious category as amalekites.
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.
Fossils and everything. But no flamewars.
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?
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?
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.
No, it's a very tendentious description of his behavior, and one not backed up by the link you provided in the post. For example, I can't find any instance in your linked thread of CM suggesting that "scientists should work toward eliminating religion," as you claim.
He also, of course, didn't ask anybody to throw creationists off the site.
You never baited anyone for entertainment?
That would not be accurate. There may be any number of asinine reasons why he might be banned.
I have *provided* a great deal of entertainment on the crevo threads, however, by posting bad puns and Calvin and Hobbes cartoons.
Then you seem to have an abrasive sense of humor, particularly when you’re tired.
Not the site, maybe, but certainly this thread.
And once warned, suggested to JR that the site would be overrun with fringe posters who equated science with Satanism...(post 54) which is when he got banned.
Of course, atheists who come over here from DC to troll (whether out of malicious intent, or lost bitterness in finding out that the sweet laurel wreaths awarded to "Immortal Brigadiers" do not make up for the lively discussion elsewhere on FR) are trying their best to make CM's post a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But the effort is looking increasingly threadbare.
Do you agree that it’s satanism?
As far as I know, Coyoteman was never told to stay off the Religion Forum. His final thread was in Chat.
The answer to your question is in this thread. Repeatedly.
You need to check out some of the threads from two or three years ago.
Going for the illogical trifecta?
Can you find a post of mine on this thread that directly indicated any such thing on MY part?
And if the only links are indirect, please include the quotes and the chain of "reasoning" that led to your supposition about me.
IIRC gondramB said on a recent thread that he left DC due to the anti-religious sentiment there.
>>LeGrande, While it would take faith to believe that something could move faster then the speed of light in vacuum because nothing’s ever been demonstrated to move faster then the speed of light in vacuum, your assertion (that nothing is faster then the speed of light) is purely dogmatic and as such simply does not prove the non-existence of anything, not even God. (Nor does it prove the existence of anything.)<<
Some things can move faster than the speed of light but they can’t include mass.
The reason is that the energy to move a grain of sand the speed of light would be more than all the energy in the universe. In math terms, it approaches infinity.
As long as we're being sticklers for accuracy, he didn't ask anybody to throw anybody off that thread, either. He asked someone directly to stop posting on the thread.
>>IIRC gondramB said on a recent thread that he left DC due to the anti-religious sentiment there.<<
For the record, it was more complex than that. The behavior that triggered my departure mostly had to do with my failure to disrespect Freep and it was actually my family getting scared by the behavior of one key DC member that tipped the balance. But I’ve also said I was unhappy with a broader anti-Christian sentiment there.
Now, back to your regular programming.
You don’t think those are reasonable restrictions for a science-based site?
If you only look for what you don’t like, you can find it.
I’m not sure what is the entirety of Dave’s problem, but he didn’t fit there well.
That is an outrageous calumny.
It is also more precise to say that the emphasis is non-religious, rather than anti-religious or anti-Christian.
There are many members who feel quite free to express themselves on religious matters, and do. Members, I might add, who are no longer permitted that privilege here.
But it is accurate to say that discussions run to the scientific or evidential side in such matters, rather than emotionalism.
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.