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 ...
Context. Wendy and I were talking about General Relativity and cosmology. I am sure there is much Einstein did not know. He was an eccentric. He didn't wear socks. There are lots of things about Einstein which Einstein were mistakes. I pointed out the fallacy of his cosmological constant. But Einstein has had an incredible impact on Physics, Cosmology, and Science in general. What the future will say of him no one knows.
Other than trash Mr. Einstein, I do not see the relevance of your point, unless you assert you can predict the future.
>>You can certainly call something else Darwinism if you want to but it mainly confuses the discussion.
I believe that evolutionary theory is used to confuse the discussion.<<
I don’t know how the name change came about. It looks like it happened in the 1930’s.
The orthodox answer is probably that it was both to show the incorporation of genetics and because biology was being organized more logically.
But for all I know there could have been a motive to distance modern biology from being centered on one man and to distance it from eugenics. I don’t really know.
Its reasonable that there was a strategic reason since the Scopes trial had already signaled a conflict.
But I do thinks it is healthy for us to talk about this even though we have strong disagreements on some issues.
Bottom line for me is that using biology terms go back 80 years so to change and go back to an older term is confusing.
“They run for the HILLS.”
Aren’t you a bit hysterical, even for a Darwin thread?
Maybe you're just hanging out with the wrong crowd?
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.
??? What does that have to do with anything in this discussion?
>>Other than trash Mr. Einstein, I do not see the relevance of your point, unless you assert you can predict the future. <<
If it sounded like I wanted to trash Professor Einstein, I apologize. That was not my intent.
Are you the best fit to the *local* environment?
Also, sometimes new species will arise not by supplanting old ones, but by exploiting new niches unavailable to the old, while having little enough competition for those resources which they share a need for, that they do not replace the old species.
That's why (2nd Amendment) there are still knives, even after we developed guns. Just don't bring the knife *to* the gunfight, or you will win a Darwin Award. :-)
Cheers!
Bullshit. Evolution didn't do SQUAT to help me find my glasses this morning.
Cheers!
Whatever you're smoking must be strong and illegal!
It's like talking to a brick wall. They want to believe that cm bought it because he was an evo, you'll never convince them.
How else do they get that laurel wreath anyway?
Ah, the waters of Meribah, eh? And it cost Moses the chance to enter the Promised Land.
Thanks...I'll be here all week, try the lungfish.
Cheers!
Asking what someones priority is, is not a false dichotomy.
And that's your whole problem right there.
I've never seen anyone else who uses so many words to say so little and contradict themselves at every turn.
How else do they get that laurel wreath anyway?
It's all good. I hear Soliton and C-man are both up for beatification soon.
"Eugenics Scott"? Naah.
American Eugenies Society? Not quite.
American Eugenie Cs Society. Nope.
Not a typo there? You sure?
Cheers!
And you are a Darwinian because you are a Randian atheist.
"Less filling!"
"Tastes Great!"
Yeah, as C.S. Lewis' Bulverism rears its ugly head.
These threads always degenerate into that or Godwin's Law...
Cheers!
Well, yes it is. When you ask them if they prioritise freedom OR "something else", regardless of how nebulous you want to be with your definition of "something else", you're setting up a dichotomy. The "either" is unwritten, but logical understood. My argument is that it's a false one.
What are you, some kinda Nazi?
/
They’ll probably be getting their wreaths gold plated.
This is actually a conflation of several things, which I'm too bored to get into right now.
Cheers!
No, he got banned for telling another poster not to post, and then for mouthing off to the founder of this forum, as I detailed (with relevant post numbers) in post #323.
Nice try at a strawman, though.
Have you considered a spot of intellectual honesty in this thread, for a change, rather than trolling?
Cheers!
You’re well outnumbered on this thread, but you fight the good fight.
I’ve said on many of these threads that this is merely an argument between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalist Christians.
This has nothing really to do with science or religion, but you are one of the very few who understand both.
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.