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 ...
Had to look that up.
Thanks for the new word.
No. You just keep pointing out that exchange, and the only fault you find is with CM.
Okay. I checked out all three. I see any of your posts at all in the first thread. There were some in the second and third. I didn’t notice a lot of bad puns and Calvin and Hobbs cartoons. There were some posts that seems well thought out and reasonable, and quite unlike what I experienced a few days ago.
I never said or implied any such thing -- and throughout this thread, as YOU yourself pointed out, I keep quoting CM directly where he mouths off back to the site owner after being told, explicitly, and in public, that he does not have the authority to tell other posters where they can post, nor to control the content of their posts.
I cannot comprehend how any of this impinges on my views on Satanism.
So this entire exchange makes you *look* very like a troll.
Last warning before *PLONK*. (Replies directed to /dev/null)
As far as what you experienced a few days ago, I already suggested a number of times on this thread that pro-evos try to not be so snarky, and they'd get treated better.
I rememver one thread where the subject came up that Jesus dying on the cross was no big deal -- the consensus was "anyone could do it if they believed eternity in paradise with God was just around the corner" or words to that effect.
I haven't lurked there -- even irregularly -- for quite a long time, so I don't know if that thread is still accessible to public view.
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.
You mean like DaveLoneRanger? /sarc>
And if we are going to play the guilt by association, several of the most prominent and influential DCs are explicitly, self-proclaimed atheists. Many of the camp followers are such as well.
We return now to your irregularly-scheduled pie fight/flamewar.
In my experience, it seems to be the opposite.
And FR doesn't have threads where the express purpose is to go over and troll on DC, and then come back and titter like children over our own gosh-darned cleverness.
Childish, and unbecoming of the self-proclaimed intellectual attainments of the DC crowd.
Most FReeper scientists don't go around continually reminding you of how educated and erudite they are. They don't have to.
You seem to be much concerned with trolls and trolling. The "satanism" comment was in reply to a post where someone admits to using the term "Darwinism" intentionally in order to piss people off, and basically encouraging others to do the same but that aspect has remained apparently unworthy of notice. What exactly is your criteria for determing who is and isn't a troll?
And I appreciate the courtesy ping.
[grey_whiskers] 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.
Someone on this thread mentioned CM's valuable "knowledge", whatever that means. I had to laugh when I read that. CM was on his "you are anti-science" kick for years. A long time ago I compiled some instances. Since then he probably threw around the "science-denier" epithet hundreds of additional times:
To: Coyoteman; metmom; DaveLoneRanger; Jim RobinsonSorry, I don't visit those places... You are just blowing smoke.
Oh, but you do inhabit dens of anti-Freeping:"I run five websites... But if you mean Darwin Central, I do not run that site. I am a guest there and, for reasons unknown to me, a moderator there" [Coyoteman]As everyone knows, Dem Central is a premiere anti-Freeping site. Freeper Michael_Michaelangelo describes it thus: "I decided to have a look at the DarwinCentral site last night. The first thread I found was a rather large one trashing FR and Jim Rob. Nice. You must be proud to be a member."
I may be saying that about some of our posters here,
No, this piece of shoddy apologetics won't do. For as will be presently shown, your involvement in accusations of "anti-science" extends to more than just a few individual Freepers.
As you have said: "The left is fond of saying conservatives are anti-science" and we shall see that you are extremely fond of this leftist tactic.
First let's start with the small stuff. To the following Freepers you have hurled general epithets and imputations tarring them as anti-science: Theo, Sopater, GodGunsGuts, Andrew Byler, Wakeup Sleeper, dsc, RobbyS, editor-surveyor. But that's gathered from just a small sampling of your countless posts. You have also done so with the following Freepers: DaveLoneRanger, NewLand, Creationist, metmom, Ethan Clive Osgoode, rbmillerjr, CottShop, Sola Veritas, and even Ann Coulter. Let us tabulate some of your remarks to and about these latter Freepers:Creationist. "You have shown yourself to be a true science-denier."Not only are all these freepers tarred as "anti-science" by you, but also, if you will note, every Freeper on DaveLoneRanger's ping list is called, by you, a "science-denier". And this would include SirLinksalot, gobucks, mikeus_maximus, JudyB1938, isaiah55version11_0, Elsie, LiteKeeper, and a lot of others. Then there are your broad generalizations like this one: "Many on this thread appear to be science-deniers." Now, all this adds up to more than a few Freepers. But there's much more.
CottShop. "I am one of those scientist types you disparage so much."
Sola Veritas. "You should not try to discredit scientists for adhering to the methods of science."
DaveLoneRanger. "As a religiously-motivated science-denier... your opinions on science are not worth much." "Why can't you admit you hate science as well?" "Your hatred for science is clear for others to see." "You ping your list of science-deniers to nice science threads so they can come and trash them, then you claim you are not anti-science?" ""A nice science thread and you ping your list of science-deniers to it." "You yourself trash science every chance you get, then you claim you are not anti-science?"
NewLand. "I challenge your "we're not anti-science" claim. You are anti-science."
Ethan Clive Osgoode. "are you just anti-science?"
metmom. "Do you hate science, and the results of science, so much that you are willing to spread falsehoods in an attempt to discredit them, when the actual facts can be easily learned? It sure seems so."
rbmillerjr. "Sorry you found Darwin Central boring. Those of us who enjoy science and science literacy appreciate the level of discourse which we find there."
Ann Coulter. "...loaded with anti-science propaganda"
With this comment..."Evangelicals typically deny much of science." [Coyoteman]you throw a very big chunk of FR members into the "science-denier", "science-hater" bucket, most of whom don't even bother with the crevo threads. But your accusations don't even stop there. According to you, the management of FreeRepublic is anti-science:"Then, a year or so ago when the admins and management started playing games and banning pro-science posters, many others took the hint and left. That is when Darwin Central was formed -- as a refuge." [Coyoteman]And, according to you, FreeRepublic itself is an anti-science forum:"Scientists have been told that they are not wanted here" [Coyoteman]In fact, you see yourself as one of the few Freepers who are not science-hating "science deniers":
"FR in the last year or so has taken a decided anti-science stance" [Coyoteman]
"FR has turned anti-science in the last year or so" [Coyoteman]
"The reception scientific research receives at FR is dismal, based more on ignorance and superstition than scientific knowledge." [Coyoteman]"It leaves me still advocating for science and the scientific method. (But its getting pretty lonely in these here parts lately!)" [Coyoteman]Your FR career has been a massive exercise in the leftist tactic of tarring conservatives as "anti-science", "science-deniers", and "science-haters".
Ignoring facts, logic, and reason is more of a leftie trait than a conservative trait.
Your philosophy of science (Kuhn) is a typically leftist one - you know, the kind that says we shouldn't use the word "truth" and so on. As Jim Robinson said to Ichneumon: "some of you are absolutely worthless to the cause of conservatism."
Remember when LeGrande said that
[LeGrande] Sirius is close to us so its actual position is going to be very close to its apparent position.and yet the sun, which is much closer, is, according to him, 2.1 degrees away from its apparent position.
And remember when LeGrande said that there is no way to determine if the earth is rotating or not? Remember that? It starts with 488 in the "Sunset" thread and goes on and on:
[Legrande] In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body.
[ECO] Oh dear, what a horrible error on your part. Foucault's Pendulum.
[LeGrande] But if it is only the Earth and the pendulum (remember this is a two body problem not three) how do you determine whether the earth or the pendulum is moving?
[ECO] You see, LeGrandean mechanics makes no distinction between non-inertial reference frames and inertial reference frames. I bet LeGrandean mechanics will also soon teach us that there is no such thing as acceleration either.
[mrjesse to LeGrande] I don't know how you can call a LRG with no moving parts a third body when its buried 10 feet deep. I think what you really wanted to say is "Without any instrument or means by which one can measure the rate of rotation, they are unable to measure the rate of rotation." But just because you deprive us from using any instruments which can measure rotation doesn't mean it isn't there!
[ECO] We will soon discover that clocks, measuring rods, protractors, sextants, telescopes, and even Newton's laws are "third bodies", and thus, not allowed. We will also discover that the bodies are not really "bodies" but some magical substance that atheists like to think about that isn't made of molecules and isn't prone to rotational oblateness. Maybe the same stuff leprechauns are made of.
But, also for the record, I really miss 95% of the DCers both here and there. Lots of bright educated good people with excellent humor. I left there, only with the greatest reluctance.
Why did you leave?
>>Semantics, semantics. Twice the site owner had to slap him down publicly...both within the first 100 posts or so in the thread.
It isn’t any fun to feel ganged up upon in thread - even the best people have a tendency to react to being told to calm down with a negative reaction. Heck, I would have felt ganged upon on Coyote’s behalf except I read the thread backwards and missed the early hostility.
A couple of my favorite debating buddies, Willie Green and Travis can attest to that - its a natural reaction when one thinks one is in the right and is told to drop it.
I don’t want to speak for Jim (and can’t speak for Jim) but I would guess he understands that and its one factor in reversing bans when he is asked to do so.
Harassment and stalking behavior that the mods did not attempt to curtail.
I’ve got to wonder if I am alone in not understanding what the heck point you are making.
Check out the "Sunset" thread, one of the most interesting threads ever. The fun starts with post 458, and then hundreds more, wherein interested parties labour in futility to convince an atheist that the sun does not orbit the earth at 11,000 km/s.
Worshiping yourself, apparently, Buddha.
What an enormous disapointment it must be for someone to attain total enlightenment moments before death, only to realize that there IS an omnipotent ruler of the universe - and that they are not Him.
OK. I didn’t know that. Thanks for the correction.
Would all that fall under the category of *evidence*?
As in *mountains of*.......
>>Check out the “Sunset” thread, one of the most interesting threads ever. The fun starts with post 458, and then hundreds more, wherein interested parties labour in futility to convince an atheist that the sun does not orbit the earth at 11,000 km/s. <<
I’ll check your link.
But your phrasing begs the question: Are you suggesting the sun orbits the earth?
Ive got to wonder if I am alone in not understanding what the heck point you are making.The subject is astrophysics and astronomy.
But your phrasing begs the question: Are you suggesting the sun orbits the earth? [excerpt]I'm not and Ethan isn't either.
[LeGrande] There is no difference between the Earth spinning in place or the sun orbiting the earth, the suns apparent position vs actual position is the same.Like I've said before, not supported by science.
Thank you and thank you for your previous post.
I don't want to answer for gondramB, but for myself: heck no. I didn't understand it the first time I read this argument, and I don't understand it now. I think I get what LeGrande is arguing--the earth's rotation combined with the time it takes the sun's light to reach us means the sun isn't exactly where it appears to be. But I'm not sure whether you and mrjesse are arguing that the sun is where it appears to be; that it isn't but by a different amount than LeGrande claims; that it isn't but for a different reason than LeGrande claims; or even if you and mrjesse are making the exact same argument. I'm not even sure if your animation is supposed to demonstrate something you think is right or something you think is wrong.
All of this is my fault, I'm sure. Seriously.
I think I get what LeGrande is arguing--the earth's rotation combined with the time it takes the sun's light to reach us means the sun isn't exactly where it appears to be. [excerpt]I believe that is his position.
But I'm not sure whether you and mrjesse are arguing that the sun is where it appears to be; [excerpt]We are asserting that it is within ~21 arc seconds of where it appears to be.
that it isn't but by a different amount than LeGrande claims; [excerpt]He is asserting 2.1°
that it isn't but for a different reason than LeGrande claims; [excerpt]The reason for the 2.1° (Legrande claims) is due to the Sun/Earth transit time of the light and the rotation of the Earth on its axis.
or even if you and mrjesse are making the exact same argument. [excerpt]Yes.
I'm not even sure if your animation is supposed to demonstrate something you think is right or something you think is wrong. [excerpt]The animation just demonstrates Diurnal aberration.
If you could take that animation, center the Earth in the middle of the monitor, and rotate the monitor clockwise at the same speed the Earth is turning, wouldn’t the result be the Earth would be stationary, the sun would be revolving around the Earth, and the resultant displacement would be exactly the same?
If you could take that animation, center the Earth in the middle of the monitor, and rotate the monitor clockwise at the same speed the Earth is turning, wouldnt the result be the Earth would be stationary, the sun would be revolving around the Earth, [excerpt]Yes, it would turn into a two body geocentric model.
and the resultant displacement would be exactly the same? [excerpt]No, the resultant displacement would not be the same because the speeds of the observer and observed changed.
atan(Observer_speed_in_Meters_per_second / 299792485 ) * (180 / pi)
I'm not sure which is the "observer" and which is the "observed", but it seems like the displacement is relative to whichever one is standing on the Earth, and that would be the same to them regardless of which scenario is causing the displacement.
What is the calculated difference in observed displacement between the two scenarios?
How do you calculate light-time correction in the case of a two-body geocentric (orbiting) model. The distance between the two bodies is constant.
I'm not sure which is the "observer" [excerpt]The one you're standing on while looking at the other.
and which is the "observed", [excerpt]The one that you're not on, but you are looking at.
but it seems like the displacement is relative to whichever one is standing on the Earth, and that would be the same to them regardless of which scenario is causing the displacement. [excerpt]I'm not sure I follow.
What is the calculated difference in observed displacement between the two scenarios? [#1135]~2.1° (Light-time correction) versus ~0.00583° (Aberration of light).
How do you calculate light-time correction in the case of a two-body geocentric (orbiting) model. The distance between the two bodies is constant. [#1136]I don't have a formula handy, but its pretty simple.
transit time in seconds = distance in meters ÷ speed of light in meters per second
displacement in degrees = earth rotation speed in degrees per second × transit time in seconds
Their posting behaviour and the reaction it gets.
You'll notice that earlier in this thread I posted a link to an article from Norm's Revenge talking about Arctic turtle fossils.
For some reason, it didn't generate a flamewar even though such an item would be pretty much in favor of evolutionary models.
Hence the topic alone is not what is causing the problem...
But I suspect one of two things happen:
1) Someone comes over after posting on DC and is so used to the tone there that his post here looks and feels like culture shock
2) The poster is so unused to dissenting voices on this topic they they lose their patience after awhile : particularly with the more strident, broad brush accusations (happens on both sides, with people calling the other side ignorant Fundies or Satanists, depeding on which direction the lemon meringue is being hurled).
Might as well be the Hatfields and the McCoys.
Do you think it might have anything to do with an absence of posters intentionally trying to make people mad, or throwing around accusations of satanism?
Okay, I'm confused. In a geocentric model I wouldn't think there would be any Earth rotation speed.
Mainly the first.
Not to make to big a deal of it, but I notice that some of P.Z. Myers' and Dawkins more mawkish anti-Christian sentiment is not too soundly castigated from all sides on DC. There is a certain congruence between the attitude of the mainstream on FR towards some loudmouth posters of a certain proclivity, and that on DC towards loudmouths of the corresponding proclivity.
You can always ignore the most egregious posters on both sides.
I'm still not getting that to fit the model conceptually. This isn't a matter of orbiting the sun, but rotating in place at more or less a fixed distance from the sun.
IOW, there's a certain degree of civility that's expected from one side that the other side doesn't feel obligated to observe.
Go ahead, tell me it isn’t so! :-)
Neither side makes a partiularly gracious winner...or loser.
(...back to work to debug a code. G'night.)
Have fun. I gotta go hack at some PS script myself.
The unintended consequence of which is that pro Science posters on FR are under heavy selective pressure, while many anti Science posters feel free to behave like spittle hurling whackadoo’s.
I'm working on developing the theory that just because you can doesn't mean you ought to.
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.