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 ...
You’re a Creationist because of your religion.
The ToE is the creation account of the atheist and secular humanist. It’s all they have to explain origins.
The ToE is based on forensic evidence. Aside from dating and chemical analysis, exactly how is evolution tested in the lab?
What predictions is it capable of making?
Coyoteman’s been banned.
Thank you, Jim.
I just caught up with my responses and saw the comment in post 57
This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science,
Actually it’s a cult thread. You wouldn’t recognize a science thread if it bit your hands off.
Creationism isn’t a religion though, and that’s the point I was making. It’s been called a religion by evos on this forum.
How about someone who's name says 11-28-97?
I like your thread title Dog Boy!
There's a difference between the thory of evolution and the cult of darwinism, and by now almost any conservative that's been on this site for 24 hours understands you're incapable of telling the difference.
The only scientists that have ever posted here are all creationists.
Not yet but I won’t say never. I have learned that connection lines can jump species or create them and span huge time periods in a single line. See habilis in the chart and read this.
It is particularity hard to list the features of Homo habilis, because the specimens attributed to habilis (and the reasons the material was placed there) vary widely. The species is a mishmash of traits and specimens, whose composition depends upon what researcher one asks. The simplest way to describe the general features is to describe specimens that are generally considered habilis by most people, and list their relevant traits.”
An introduction to the well known but poorly defined species.
Like describing a man as “kinda like him but a little bit like him but with the features of that guy”.
Sounds like good science to me!
“Coyoteman” is over at Darwin Central, high-fiving and yukking it up with his fellow Darwinian Beavises and Buttheads right now, no doubt.
He’s finally “earned” his laurel wreath, for getting banned from Free Republic. He’s been trying to commit Martyrdom-By-Mod for some time now.
He’s finally gotten his Darwin Award, and over a thread that claims “Darwinism” should be discouraged as a moniker, lol.
Poor, poor Darwin, being dumped by his accolytes, on his 200th birthday.
A wingman passing nearby snapped the moment of JimRob's victory:
Smooth kill, Boss! Don't forget to have your crew chief paint another little red star on your canopy rail. :-)
I believe in a creator, and that the world was created by him. But, how far must I go to be allowed to post here. Must I believe that there were dinosaurs on noah's ark?
All I have to do is not give it to you.
Hope I don’t sound like the teacher’s pet echoing JimRob like this, but the way I like to put it is that unless someone’s screen name ends with “Robinson” or “Moderator,” they don’t get to give instructions here.
Exactly, cultists need to understand there's a difference between their cult and science, i.e., the theory of evolution and the cult of darwinism.
You have been around long enough to remember "physicist", who was not a creationist. Or, do you deny that he was a scientist?
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.