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 ...
Jim -
Unless you want Free Republic to become a fringe site, please do something about the posters that are claiming the theory of evolution is “Satanism” (#21) and “devil worship” (#91).
Posts such as those aren’t helping Free Republic or the Republican Party.
Is he a “Creationist,” Gumlegs?
Nonresponsive (again). Custard Pie - wall - nail
Daddy Darwin may be turning into a stuffy embarrassment to evolutionists but one look at the child tells us who the father is. And like it or not the dogma learned at Father Darwin’s knee is the Veritas of evolution today.
I understand the tactic. You’re not getting what you want.
Single gifted scientist? If he were around today, given his theory, which has "evolved" into a cult, he'd be shouted down, ironically, as a religious kook injecting religion into science if he submitted anything that remotely challenged evolution instead of supported it. In other words, if he were to write a paper about his own theory's flaws, how do you think it would be accepted? (By that I mean rejected.) I wonder how he would feel about that.
Although Darwin might have anticipated the whole ID premise, a lot of significant evidence has come to light since 1859 and a great deal of thought expended on what it means.
If he did indeed anticipate this, it's not very apparent that he anticipated his work being hijacked by an anti-God cult that responds to each and every challenge the way it obviously does today.
In the field of physics, would anyone, of reasonable credibility, own up to being a “Newtonian”, in the light of everything that has been discovered since the eighteenth century? Newtonian physics works fine and dandy for most purposes but we now know it to be an incomplete view of the world as it actually is.
I can't think of anything that is so insecure surrounding gravity (etc.) today, that when a concerned group of parents places a sticker on a textbook reminding students as in the example in evolution is mere theory, and not fact, they get sued, can you?
That's where you're wrong. Since I can't get honesty from you, I've gotten exactly what I want.
I’ve made few statements regarding my opinion of the theory of evolution. In the end, it is either true or it is false and NO AMOUNT of debate can change that.
My problem with Darwinists has ALWAYS been their anti-God agenda and eugenics. Darwinists systematically ignore the fact that Darwinism has been responsible for over ONE BILLION UNNECESSARY DEATHS in the past century.
The Pope spoke talk about the necessity of accepting LEGITIMATE science. He DID NOT talk about blindly accepting science to push an agenda and he certainly didn’t condone the murder of over 125,000 innocent human beings A DAY.
I don’t dispute that in the beginning Charles Darwin was simply writing about his own observations, but his family quickly transformed Darwinism to a force of evil. Neither Karl Marx nor Charles Darwin wrote about killing people, but their philosophies quickly became to the pillars of evil in the Western world.
Judging from this piece, John Paul II may well have been banned from FR as a "Satanist" or "Liberal Troll," but he would have been welcomed at a site that several here have spent several posts sneering at.
I find that more than a little ironic.
There’s blood in the water, and you want your share. Not happening here.
Slippery Clintonian parsing aside, please refine your reply to highlight just how Pope John Paul II is not a "Creationist," Gumlegs.
And I suppose you think your anti-FReeper site is?
Oh, of course!!
Just like how it's understood here, yet it didn't stop many evo's from accusing anyone who disagreed with them of thinking that dinosaurs rode on the ark.
Primordial soup Nazis? cool! Made with goose steps and spills on brown shirts! But a person can get heil! on it!
If there is blood in the water, it happened when coyotemen opened his own veins. Otherwise our little exchange has also revealed that unless it’s in ‘science,’ honesty is a virtue you don’t value. But, keep talking. Maybe more will come out.
Evidence be damned.
Followed no doubt by the obligatory lecture about evidence!
Sheesh, in the dictionary next to "dead end" you find a picture of tacticalogic!
Which "anti-FReeper site" would that be?
My problem with Darwinists has ALWAYS been their anti-God agenda and eugenics. Darwinists systematically ignore the fact that Darwinism has been responsible for over ONE BILLION UNNECESSARY DEATHS in the past century.
“… their anti-God agenda” is unsupported. There are some who accept the Theory of Evolution who are atheist, and some who are not. Eugenics has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You blithely assign all those unnecessary deaths to “Darwinism,” but the logic appears to be of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety.
The Pope spoke talk about the necessity of accepting LEGITIMATE science. He DID NOT talk about blindly accepting science to push an agenda and he certainly didn’t condone the murder of over 125,000 innocent human beings A DAY.
Read what he wrote. He accepts the Theory of Evolution as legitimate science. Your attributing every mass murder since 1859 is duly noted and dismissed. Shall we share the credit for the Holocost with Martin Luther?
I don’t dispute that in the beginning Charles Darwin was simply writing about his own observations, but his family quickly transformed Darwinism to a force of evil. Neither Karl Marx nor Charles Darwin wrote about killing people, but their philosophies quickly became to the pillars of evil in the Western world.
Fallacy of adverse consequences. The Theory of Evolution is an observation of how nature works. If some jackass misuses it and twists it, that in no way affects the validity of the observation or the theory.
You had your chance to have my account.
This is a very sad day for what was once a premier conservative website.
Unfortunately, it is not the first of such. You are banning Coyoteman because he was trying to gently remind someone that discussion forums have consistent and non-arbitrary rules for civil discourse.
At least, successful ones do.
.
I feel compelled to defend the posting of science information here. It is essential for people who will need to make decisions regarding their future, and their children's prospects.
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.