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 ...
>>God told us everything we need to know in plain English in the KJV Bible. We don’t need to know about the internets to get to Heaven.<<
Since we have the source materials used to created the KJV, why would the authoritative version be that particular one?
How would you go about eliminating Christianity from science classes and above all, I’d like to see some examples of Christianity IN any science classes currently that needs eliminating.
Thank you for making the dishonesty of your presentation so apparent. Darwin often used the literary device of posing the kinds of statements critics of his theory might make, and then answering them. Anti-evolutionists are fond of quoting just the initial statements to imply that he had no answer. So let's see what he really had to say:
We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.That makes it clear that Darwin held pretty much the opposite views of what you're trying to ascribe to him.The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
>>I’ll tell you something else here: history of science books are not going to be terribly kind to Albert Einstein.
There were a lot of things that Einstein didn’t know but he certainly is regarded as a giant.
In science its actually normal for the giants of one era to be wrong about the great discoveries of the next era and we still celebrate their work given what they knew at the time but Einstein is still relevant to an astonishing degree.
Please find a quote where Darwin unilaterally disavowed Galton.
>>How would you go about eliminating Christianity from science classes and above all, I’d like to see some examples of Christianity IN any science classes currently that needs eliminating.<<
Personally I don’t favor elimination mention of religion in science class- I know from teaching science and working with a science education foundation that kids ask about all kinds of things and it is stifling to be allowed to respond to questions that touch on religion.
But... I do see examples of teachers injecting their religion into their teaching. I also see parents objecting to curriculum based on religious beliefs.
In the real world, that and a buck will get you coffee.
Where have I denied freedom to anyone? I believe you should have complete freedom to believe as you wish and the freedom to speak as you wish. Where is the problem?
In your own words.....(post 543):Intolerance and discrimination are fine, if you do it for the proper reason.
That is your evidence that I deny others their freedom? LOL
How does that differ from your belief (John 7: 24) to "judge righteous judgment." Judging is nothing more than intolerance and discrimination. If as seems to be the case you don't believe the New Testament, that means that you aren't a Christian. Which god do you espouse? Allah, Dispater? The Flying Spaghetti monster? Inquiring minds want to know.
Did I tell you that Dispater is a bud of mine? He says that Allah and him are drinking buddies : )
>>No, the Darwinists created a movement out of thin air and proceeded to kill a BILLION PEOPLE. <<
Now.... we’ve talked about this. There is a line between a science or a religion versus how it can be misused. For example i suspect that Stalin and Hitler would found other justification to kill those who did not conform and obey even if Darwin had never been born.
Likewise, I live about 10 miles from where the KKK was founded - racism would have found another way to justify itself without the Christian trappings that KKK misused.
And yeah, I know I just mentioned three groups that tend to derail discussions but I hope you can see I’m using extreme example and not trying to stop good discussion.
I’ve got me a starbucks card from work as a pat on the back, no idea how much coffee I can get though.
You mean that they took their freedom from a King that God had appointed over them. Or don't you believe that members of the Church of England are Christians?
Perhaps you are right, but I don’t think that Margaret Sanger would have had the amount of success that she did without Darwinist eugenics. And I certainly doubt that such an otherwise distinguished jurist such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would have had the gumption to write, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” nor would there have even been the need were it not for the prominence of the Darwinist eugenics movement.
That's nice.
racism would have found another way to justify itself without the Christian trappings that KKK misused
Agreed
I believe that man can interfere with God's Will, though I doubt you have the intellect to understand that.
Have you ever actually READ "The Declaration of Independence"?
So now you get to claim someone supported anything they didn't explicitly disavow? Yeahhh...I don't think so. Have fun with your fantasies.
IMHO, if Thomas Paine were alive today, he could probably get himself banned from one of these threads.
Uh-huh, and do you ever see teachers injecting their secularism into science class? politics? ideology?
Because virtually all the parents I run into in real life and on FR complain about 95% of the time that socializing and not educating kids is the problem and 100% of the time it’s the secular humanist agenda behind that socialization.
You see in the public school system, the godless liberal NEA calls the shots, lobbvies for funding etc.
Not to say there aren’t the occasional religious kooks, it’s just I’ve yet to run across one personally or hear about one locally.
When your cousin is publicly using your name and theories to advance an agenda, it seems reasonable that you would disavow it if you disagreed with it.
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.