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 ...
You need to be telling that to your fellow DCers. They apparently haven't gotten the message yet.
Nor have some of the folks here.
Genesis is not the only book in the Bible, that demonstrates man was put here by God, made by Him.
If you reject this, you reject the Bible.
Christian parents are no longer allowed to raise their children as believers. They are ridiculed in the name of a "science" that has gone where science cannot enlighten, into the theological realm.
This is the source of discord.
Projection again. You really should see someone about that. I dont need you to do anything. What youre doing is just fine. People are watching. Dont worry. Ill get tired pretty soon and go to bed. Then you can run over to DC and say I Won! I Won!.
No, but that still doesn't do anything for those screwed by the jackass's misuse. See also nuclear proliferation.
The problem is that instead of using creation vs. evolution in class to illustrate the differences between scientific methodology and scholasticism or religious faith, many pro-evos try to eliminate religious discussion altogether, or to curtail it altogether.
The problem is a knotty one, and involves such things as religious pluralism, the so-called "separation of Church ad State", and how one goes about gaining consensus when a society goes from majority Christian to merely plurality Christian; and the possible co-opting of legitimate concerns of scientists, by Gramscians and others, to eliminate the role of Christian faith in public life and consciousness.
If Coyote had simply NOT told another poster to shut up (he started the thread, but does not have that authority), and then hadn't mouthed off in full Matt Damon mode to Jim Robinson, he'd still be here.
You don’t “ping” someone who’s already here.
Christian parents are no longer allowed to raise their children as believers.
Do you agree God was with them?
How does one distinguish from true and false claims that God is with someone?
A few years ago I went back to school, after a 20 plus year hiatus.
I was required to pass a number of Science Courses in order to achieve my personal goals.
Perhaps it is limited to Massachusetts, but I can assure you that some Professors are teaching a lot more than just Science out there.
I learned a lot more than just about the Krebs Cycle, or the Golgi Apparatus.
I learned that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the lack of AIDs research funding and that he was personally responsible for the deaths of thousands. A lot more than Science is being promulgated in those liberal enclaves.
What is going on in Colleges & Universities around the nation is an atrocity.
frothing-at-the-mouth hyperbole placemarker.
Can you give specific quotes from representative freepers that heliocentrism is Satanic?
...and actually, it's not geocentrism that's wrong. It's egocentrism.
(Sorry to bring up Obama in a nice crevo food fight.)
Never been to DC, and there aren’t any winners in a crevo thread, just survivors. All you people watching out there - welcome to FreeRepublic!
Ummm, you got all ass-backwards, it’s metmom not playing your silly game, besides Einstein, I’ve yet to see you try to reason with coytoeman for his “burnings at the stake”, “inquisition”, and “theocracy” hysterics each and every time your cult was so much as challenged with a sneeze of doubt or dissent.
Get a clue and a grip.
My point exactly. It’s easy to say you speak for God or know what God wants.
I understand the banning now now since I perused the entire thread, and of course your post to me.
Personally, I like contention out here. I do not mean disruption for the sake of it, but I appreciate that often times reasonable people will disagree.
I really hope that I never get banned again from FR.com because it is simply my favorite on line place to be.
I tend to lurk more than I post, and I post a lot.
Based on my understanding, which is limited since I was born 1981 and haven't given much attention to HIV/AIDS history, President Reagan did drag his feet on acknowledging HIV/AIDS.
That inaction may have indirectly delayed scientific research (via Federal funding).
However, I wouldn't hold President Reagan personally responsible for any of those deaths. The science - again, based on my limited knowledge of the subject - was still evolving then.
It sounds like the professor in question should have been told to tone down his rhetoric.
Do you think pretty much everybody is equally capable of recognizing projections when they seem them too?
(next be on the look out for "You're projecting". "I win").
MM, to speak of heliocentric vs. geocentric is to speak of the motion relative to the observer. Does the earth turn beneath the stars or do the stars spin around the earth? Is there a way of finding the answer?
Perhaps one of the “we” of “we wouldn’t cram you into that box” crowd could help out here. They are pretty good at cramming so maybe they’re good at explaining ..........
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.