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 ...
I suppose so. Ironically (or perhaps not), I've found that most people I've met who profess to be atheists after having rejected some religion or another really actually knew quite little about the religion they rejected. You wouldn't believe some of the outlandishly silly "reasons" for rejecting Christianity that I've heard - "reasons" which don't even have anything to do with it, but which the sceptic is just absolutely sure is some integral, foundational doctrine of the faith.
I don't find that hard to believe.
He says that Allah and him are drinking buddies : )
I don't find that hard to believe either.
So you favor intolerance and discrimination based on your arbitrary definitions of "ignorance" and "stupidity".
And just who gets to decide what is ignorant and stupid?
On what basis? What's the standard you use?
What if my definition of ignorant and stupid is different than yours? How do we decide which one to use?
Lets see?
My question to you Metmom, and anyone else who might be interested, is what is your priority on Free Republic, freedom or your other beliefs?
'Other beliefs' is not 'either or' there are almost limitless options. I didn't single out Christianity or any other belief. You apparently read something into what I said that I didn't say. My mother would call that a guilty conscience, my father would call it a Freudian slip, I am not that charitable : )
Have any other logical fallacies that you'd like to improperly apply?
You stated that I set up an 'either or' situation which I did not. Maybe you should try and understand the meaning behind bearing false witness?
On the contrary, you're the one advocating intolerance and discrimination arbitrarily against those who you think are wrong. That is denying people their freedom.
Atheism has no great track record in the 20th century.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Everything.
It is up to you. You have the freedom to choose. That is what discrimination and intolerance is all about, making a choice. If you take away someones power to make a choice you are taking away their freedom.
I wouldn't dream of imposing my values on you, sadly you don't seem to want to reciprocate.
I don't find that hard to believe.
Does gullibility run in your family?
He says that Allah and him are drinking buddies : )
I don't find that hard to believe either.
Closely related family?
So, you're pro-choice?
I wouldn't dream of imposing my values on you, sadly you don't seem to want to reciprocate.
Sure you would. You said so yourself.
In your own words.....Intolerance and discrimination are fine, if you do it for the proper reason.
No argument here. I don't even think that Christians believe in the same God.
Isn’t it though?
yes...
This thread is perhaps the gravestone on the crevo threads here at FR.
Perhaps not, but evolutionists at this site are not only an endangered species, but one actively hunted with the express intent of elimination of the species.
And the crowd all cheered.
The irony will not be recognized when the target is consvervative talk radio, I’m quite sure.
'Other beliefs' is not 'either or' there are almost limitless options. I didn't single out Christianity or any other belief. You apparently read something into what I said that I didn't say. My mother would call that a guilty conscience, my father would call it a Freudian slip, I am not that charitable : )
I would call it "you're apparently unaware of what your own words meant"
The fact that you used the term "other beliefs" is irrelevant. Your question plainly asked what our priority is: Freedom OR our "other beliefs". That's an either-or dichotomy there. Either we prioritise freedom, or we prioritise our "other beliefs", which in the context of the discussion can be quite reasonably construed as referring to "religious beliefs, specifically Christianity". The implication is that the two cannot be prioritised in tandem, which is false.
You stated that I set up an 'either or' situation which I did not. Maybe you should try and understand the meaning behind bearing false witness?
More likely you just need to pay closer attention to what you write. If you didn't intend to set up a false dichotomy, then you should probably have proofread your post.
Certainly a problem and I don’t think it’s sheer coincidence that much of what’s wrong with public schools today began about when liberals took them over in the 70’s just after prayer was abolished and a slow insidiuous anti-God, pro-secular humanism began to “flourish”, if you can describe the proliferation of something so rotten as flourishing.
Where did you get this idea? Stalin and Lysenko disapproved of Mendelian genetics (because it was incompatible with Darwin's Pangenesis) and also Weismann and Morgan because these two were critical of Darwin's theory of Pangenesis. Lysenko's theory of heredity was a re-habilitation of Darwin's theory of the inheritance of aquired characters (pangenesis). Scientists who talked too much about Mendel and chromosomes ended up in the Gulag. In addition to that, J.B.S. Haldane, one of the founders of the Modern Synthesis, was a Stalinist and an apologist for Lysenko. He was actually some kind of leader in international Stalinism and his name comes up in the reports of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
What? Coyoteman got banned because he flung poo at Jim Robinson, of all people, and this translates into evolutionists being hunted down like wild dogs?
Whatever you're smoking must be strong and illegal!
Your generalization does not apply to me or to most atheists I know. Maybe you should exchange notes with some of your anti Mormon Cabal friends, they should be able to set you straight pretty quickly. Their favorite attack against me, after they lose the argument, seems to be to accuse me of being a Mormon in disguise.
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.