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 ...
To Anger them even MORE.. I refer to is as BS
to the libs and scientists I say...
What good is “Darwin’s Survival of the FITTEST,” when you LIBERALS Always put in place POLICIES that THWART Darwin at every turn.. are you LIAR or HYPOCRITE...
They always come back with “YOu want to leave the Poor to DIE??” ... when I return with ..”IT was GOOD enough for DARWIN!!”
They run for the HILLS.
yeah, Darwinists are weird.
In la-la land dancing around a theory-tale.
How many intermediate forms do they have? Oh yeah, NONE.
just because you say it, don’t make it so home-boy.
Technically, it would be wierd seeing Darminists dancing around anything. I do not believe there are any Darwinists alive anymore. They’ve all passed on from old age by now.
Here is an intermediate or transitional. Note its position in the chart below:
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection
Darwinism is a term used for various different movements or concepts related to a greater or lesser extent to Charles Darwin's work on evolution. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and depends on who is using the term.
The principles of natural selection set out by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species (1859) and other writings; The evolution and common ...
I'll stop using the term Darwinist or Darwinism when the Darwinists stop referring to me as a creationist and/or a fundamentalist, etc.
How does that work on a collective/individual basis? Do you refer to anyone who believes ToE is plausible as a "Darwinist" as long as there's one person who calls you a "creationist"?
What good is Darwins Survival of the FITTEST, when you LIBERALS Always put in place POLICIES that THWART Darwin at every turn.. are you LIAR or HYPOCRITE...
Why would anyone confuse an observation of how nature works with a prescription for running a society?
They always come back with YOu want to leave the Poor to DIE?? ... when I return with ..IT was GOOD enough for DARWIN!!
When and where did Darwin write this?
They run for the HILLS.
There is more than one reason for doing so.
I won’t call Dawinism “Darwinism” when you all stop mis-calling Creation Theory/I.D. “relgion”!
But they’re connected by green lines! That’s gotta count for something, right? Maybe proof that one leads to the other and they’re all related. But then again....
At least we know what the objective is now.
"They" are not the only ones doing so, lol.
**However, the original Lucy fossil did not include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor hand and foot bones! Several other specimens of A. afarensis do have the long curved fingers and toes of tree-dwellers, **
Darwinist or LIBERAL Or Socialist SCUM .. all the same.
Why let a few FACTS get in the way of a good AGENDA... DARWINISTS are Good at that .. AlBORE is even better, with his GloBULL WARMING !
"The larger australopithecine body included changes to the spine, pelvis and leg joints that make walking an effective form of locomotion. Though still capable of climbing and resting in trees, a habitual bipedal posture freed the hands to manipulate, carry and throw objects. Though the finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, afarensis hands were similar to humans in most other respects."
"The hands of apes and humans differ considerably with regard to proportions between several bones. Of critical significance is the long thumb relative to other fingers, which is the basis for human-like pad-to-pad precision grip capability.... In this article, the manual proportions of Australopithecus afarensis from locality AL 333/333w (Hadar, Ethiopia) are investigated by means of bivariate and multivariate morphometric analyses.... Our results indicate that A. afarensis possessed overall manual proportions, including an increased thumb/hand relationship that, contrary to previous reports, is fully human and would have permitted pad-to-pad human-like precision grip capability. We show that these human-like proportions in A. afarensis mainly result from hand shortening, as in modern humans, and that these conclusions are robust enough as to be non-dependent on whether the bones belong to a single individual or not."
Hmm. Like an ape in some ways, like a human in others. Could it be--gasp!--a transitional???
“At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.”
Fair is fair, if the authors can use the broad brush so can I. So why not call the ToE true believers Darwinist as long their leading spokesmen call me something I am not.
Or are the ToE followers getting ready toss Darwin back into the primordial soup?