Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]

springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

[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.”

[mrjesse]

Said TacticalogicLeGrande and I have already discussed this. We seem to be in general agreement on some points, and we may still disagree on others.

But what about the point in question - as to whether, for an observer on earth, at an instant in time, the sun's apparent position will be 2.1 degrees behind its actual position? Do you agree with LeGrande on that one? Even though his same math and method would put Pluto out of the night sky when seen in the night sky? And even though there are no supporting scientific reports? And even though there are plenty of scientific reports which describe the sun having an apparent instantanious displacement of about 20 arcseconds -- not 2.1 degrees?

If you Believe in spite all of that, or if you believe that LeGrande sincerely believes, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you're of the same religion (Atheism, Naturalism, whatever it may be) of LeGrande and you'd take just about any absurd thing by faith if it was said by someone of your religion. I thought you might have practiced some logic at some point in your history, judging by the looks of your nickname.

I have no inclination see no good reason to join what appears to be a personal vendetta over whatever remaining difference of opinion we may have on the subject, so NO.

Differences of opinion? Uhh, this is science we're talking about here. We're talking about whether there is a 2.1 degree instantanious apparent angular displacement of the sun, or whether Pluto is apparently 102 degrees displaced. Simple math and geometry.

Is that how you arrive at your scientific knowledge -- pick some feller who's opinion you like then just take his opinion as gospel?

And this takes me exactly right back to my earlier statement - the fact is that there are lots of folks like you and LeGrande who love to teaching wrong ideas that they know is wrong in order to further their agenda -- and of course none of them will counter their fellow Believers even though they know things aren't right -- and I maintain that this is indeed why science education is today in such shambles.

But a lie is a lie!

The fact that LeGrande refuses to answer the my question ("What if the sun were 12 light hours away..") and refuses (or is unable) to provide a single supporting scientific article - these facts tell me that LeGrande must know that he's wrong and is therefor intentionally knowingly lying.

-Jesse

[tacticalogic]

Uhh, this is science we're talking about here.

I don't think so.

If you Believe in spite all of that, or if you believe that LeGrande sincerely believes, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you're of the same religion (Atheism, Naturalism, whatever it may be) of LeGrande and you'd take just about any absurd thing by faith if it was said by someone of your religion. I thought you might have practiced some logic at some point in your history, judging by the looks of your nickname.

This is about going after people because of their religious belifs, and I'm not going to help you do that.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

And this takes me exactly right back to my earlier statement - the fact is that there are lots of folks like you and LeGrande who love to teaching wrong ideas that they know is wrong in order to further their agenda -- and of course none of them will counter their fellow Believers even though they know things aren't right -- and I maintain that this is indeed why science education is today in such shambles.

Yes, this gets to the core of the problem. If there wasn't something fundamentally wrong with Darwinians then there would be no need for them to support Darwinism with so many specious and mendacious arguments as they constantly do. And the same applies to atheists who blather about physics; who cast their weird lobotomized ideas into scientific-sounding form and then force others to accept them, on pain of being called science-deniers if they resist. This farcical abuse of science has been going on a long time, as you can see from the following exposure:

Clodd's Primer of Evolution.

I suppose that the reason why atheists knowingly teach scientific and philosophical perversions under the aegis of scientific authority, is to wear down the brains of their victims until nothing at all makes sense: there is neither truth nor falsity; nothing can be proved; fact and fairytale are indistinguishable; everything is an illusion of bouncing atoms and waves of nothing; the Sun is 2.1 degrees away from where you see it; monkeys change into people; and so on. Nothing wearies the mind more than a steady diet of lies and fallacies. This conditioning admirably prepares the unfortunate victim's brain for its destiny as a receptacle of atheism.

[quasarsphere]

[Freedom is earned not given.] Well, America's Founding Fathers didn't believe this, but it's a popular phrase with Darwinists. I've never heard it before.

[LeGrande]

mrjesse - So in answer to your question I'm telling you that the sun was within about 20 arc seconds of where it appeared to be when it was shut off, and the apparent position of the sun will still continue to be within about 20 arc seconds of its actual position for the remainder of the 8.3 minutes.

mrjesse - That's a silly statement - but you asked it. Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes because that's the rate the earth is rotating at. But every last lightwave will strike the earth within about 20 arcseconds of the direction of the sun.

Not because of the Earths rotation, it is because of the time lag of the light. You are seeing the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago. Yes the light that you are seeing came from the Sun and it is within 20 arcseconds of where the Sun was, but 'was' is the important point. The suns actual position when it was turned off was 2.1 degrees ahead of where you saw it when it was turned off. That is why the Sun appeared to continue moving 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes, from the time it was shut off.

It is most dishonest of you to claim that your statements are true when you refuse to apply your own math and method to a sun that was 12 light hours away or to Pluto which can be up to 6.8 light hours away.

Dishonest of me? Wow! Your cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming. Exactly the same principles are at work at whatever distance the object is away from you.

The reason I have avoided answering your more esoteric questions is because distance changes the effect in several ways. Notably light has been preceding the object for hours, years or Millennia. You can be seeing way, way into the past and the relationship of its direction based on an angle from a rotating earth is meaningless.

If I can't explain the 'simple' stuff to you I would be an idiot trying to explain the more complex stuff. In fact I think I am an idiot for trying to explain the simple stuff, but I don't mind being laughed at, or called dishonest, when I am right : )

[LeGrande]

mrjesse - But what about the point in question - as to whether, for an observer on earth, at an instant in time, the sun's apparent position will be 2.1 degrees behind its actual position? Do you agree with LeGrande on that one? Even though his same math and method would put Pluto out of the night sky when seen in the night sky? And even though there are no supporting scientific reports? And even though there are plenty of scientific reports which describe the sun having an apparent instantanious displacement of about 20 arcseconds -- not 2.1 degrees?

mrjesse - Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes after it is shut off. (LG I added the last part 'after it is shut off' for clarification.

By your own logic, the Sun can't appear to continue moving if the actual and apparent position are only 20 arcseconds apart (or at least not more than 20 arcseconds anyway, which is miniscule.) Which is it mrjesse? Does the Sun appear to continue to move across the sky for 8.3 minutes or does the Sun appear to stop in the sky until the light goes out?

But a lie is a lie!

I think that you actually believe that you know the truth, that is scary. When someone shows me an error that I have been making, I thank them. I don't call them a liar. When someone points out an error to you creationists you attack them. I suppose you attack out of fear and rage, trust me, the fear and rage can be replaced by awe and amazement when you truly start seeing the Universe for how it is, but that involves letting go of false beliefs.

The fact that LeGrande refuses to answer the my question ("What if the sun were 12 light hours away..") and refuses (or is unable) to provide a single supporting scientific article - these facts tell me that LeGrande must know that he's wrong and is therefor intentionally knowingly lying.

I have answered the question. You are the one that is lying mrjesse. You also have the tools to answer the question yourself. If you look at an object 12 light hours away as it comes up over the Eastern horizon (at which time its light is shut off) which direction will you be facing 12 hours later when you see the light go out? East? Straight up? West? I know you know the answer so I will save you some time, you will be looking West, 180 degrees from when you first saw the object and the light was shut off. Thus, from the observers frame of reference, the actual and apparent position are 180˚ off, not your measly little 20 arcseconds or so.

Now mrjesse, do you know why Astonomers don't use the Earth as our frame of reference? In fact there is no absolute frame of reference. I know that you have stated that you don't want to get into that but sometimes background knowledge is important : )

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

When someone shows me an error that I have been making, I thank them.

No you don't.

I don't call them a liar.

Yes you do.

You are the one that is lying mrjesse.

See?

[LeGrande]

Where am I in error?

[Fichori]

“This is about going after people because of their religious belifs, and I'm not going to help you do that.”

Yes, LeGrande's belief about 2.1°, Al Gore's belief about Glowbull Worming, Darwin's belief about the Origin of Species...

All religious beliefs.

[Fichori]

“The reason I have avoided answering your more esoteric questions is because” ... [excerpt: 1225]

“I have answered the question. You are the one that is lying mrjesse.” [excerpt: 1226]

Either you did or you didn't. (Make up your mind already!)

Lets see a link to where you answered mrjesse's question of "What if the sun were 12 light hours away.."

“In fact there is no absolute frame of reference.” [excerpt: 1226]

Thats like saying there is no Cartesian coordinate system.

frame of reference : a set or system (as of facts or ideas) serving to orient or give particular meaning [Britannica-Webster 1981]

“If I can't explain the 'simple' stuff to you I would be an idiot trying to explain the more complex stuff. In fact I think I am an idiot for trying to explain the simple stuff, but I don't mind being laughed at, or called dishonest, when I am right : )” [excerpt: 1225]

Well, if your right, then you have no reason to not explain the more complex stuff.

[tacticalogic]

Yes, LeGrande's belief about 2.1°, Al Gore's belief about Glowbull Worming, Darwin's belief about the Origin of Species...

All religious beliefs.

Interesting.

I believe that just because you can get away with labeling anything you want "religion" and then using that as an excuse to attack people, it doesn't mean you ought to. Is that a religion too?

[Fichori]

... “labeling anything you want "religion" and then using that as an excuse to attack people,” [excerpt]

On the contrary.

It is a reason [excuse] to not attack or challenge a position or belief, because religious beliefs are not subject to scientific scrutiny.

[tacticalogic]

It is a reason [excuse] to not attack or challenge a position or belief, because religious beliefs are not subject to scientific scrutiny.

Then why are you trying to get me to help you go after Legrande, over what you say is his religion?

[Fichori]

“Then why are you trying to get me to help you go after Legrande, over what you say is his religion?”

Is LeGrande saying its religion?

Or is he saying its science.


Its like that Hanson guy at NASA saying that we are causing Glowbull Worming.

He says its scientific fact.

He is also full of hot air.


So, tacticalogic, would to call out James Hansen and say 'look, what you're telling everyone is not supported by science, so cut it out!' ?

[tacticalogic]

Is LeGrande saying its religion?

No, you're doing that, and then telling me we shouldn't be criticizing him for it, while you're badgering me to join you in criticizing him for it.

[LeGrande]

Well, if your right, then you have no reason to not explain the more complex stuff.

I suppose you are correct but I get bored easily. Here goes nothing : )

LG - In fact there is no absolute frame of reference.

Fichori - Thats like saying there is no Cartesian coordinate system.

The question is whose Cartesian system do we use? Which one is valid? Look at this animation Merry go round the question is which frame of reference is valid? The person sitting on the merry go round or the person sitting on the ground. Or this reference from the same site here. Picking the frame of reference is important to understanding the problem and the variables involved. The frame of reference is arbitrary.

Now do you understand why there is no absolute frame of reference?

Normally I don't like to use references, but I liked the merry go round example. It also could be used to show the Sun and Earth just as easily : )

[grey_whiskers]

Knock it off, all of you. /Coyoteman mode>

The *REAL* problem is that some of the people disputing about the apparent solar position are EGOcentric ;-)

"An you'all KNOW what I'm talkin' about !"

Cheers!

[Fichori]

Please define EGOcentric.

[grey_whiskers]

Well it certainly isn't Gravity. Nice of you to admit that ONLY the power of God applied directly every moment of every day could explain such a preposterous model that has a massive object in orbit to a much less massive object.

Try reading C.S. Lewis The Discarded Image; c.f. the quote by his character in Perelandra saying that an angel that has kept a planet in its orbit for hundreds of millions of years should be able to manage a packing case...

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

They think the world -- Sun, moon, stars, everything -- revolves around *them*. :-P

Cheers!