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 ...
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 ..........
Pretty much, particularly if they don't have emotional attachments to the issues.
But now socks...
The secondary question -- whether someone being a creationist should disqualify them from public office -- is very troubling to a ...Free Republic.
Nice try at sweeping bigotry under the rug.
You need to address the question in context: to what extent would her creationism (if present) inform her policy and appointment choices to such an extent that it would really screw the country? And if they would, why can't we ban liberals from public office?
Learn to think your *own* positions through several layers deeper (and without retorting by strawman or ad hominem, otherwise you may occasionally come across as a liberal mouthing memorized platitudes, even after they have become non sequiturs to the point at hand.
If there were teeth, that could be blood, but it isn’t.
Do you yourself really believe, accept at face value, adhere to, accept, or affirm the claim that "God was with the Nazis [as they claimed of themselves]"?
If not, why not?
If so, why?
We’re not all Catholics, Gumlegs. A Pope is just as fallible as the rest of us in this fallen world, as far as I’m concerned. I greatly admired Pope John Paul II, and believed him to be a Godly man, though.
As far as the fey little “oh, please,” you tell me how parents can raise children in their faith, with all of officialdom in opposition to doing so.
Oh! You're a child.
I have hope that you will grow out of your intellectual swashbuckling stage in time.
Except of course when it comes to the cult of darwinism, it works just fine then metmom.
Likewise, accepting the reality of God doesn't make you anti-science like cm used to accuse everyone who disagreed with him of.
You're attempting to frame this in a "cultural war" context, which simply isn't valid.
It is a culture war and science is the weapon of choice with which to bludgeon Christianity with. It's being used to push religion out of schools in the name of science. It's been used to make out Christians as being ignorant and anti-progress.
The culture war is between the ideology that's hijacked science and Christianity.
It would do good for you guys to see that and rescue science from their grip. Evos refusal to do so only reinforces the idea that evos are throwing their chips in with the liberals/atheists/God haters.
You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you are not also liberal/atheist/God haters if you don't speak up against the abuse and misuse of science instead of justifying or excusing what they do.
Well, I guess you needed to correct me on something. Glad you found it.
Jesus Himself speaks of creation and the creation of Adam and Eve.
Or was Jesus a liar, Gumlegs?
OK, if you say so. But, if youve never been to DC how do you know there are no winners? (Ill avoid the obvious rejoinder)
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Please, cite examples.
Been here over 10 years. Haven’t seen any yet.
You didn't really pay attention, did you? I pointed out that I I posted the Pope's piece because it demonstrates how one can be serious about one's religion -- you will allow that the Pope was serious about his religion, won't you? -- and still accept that the Theory of Evolution is science.
As far as the fey little oh, please, you tell me how parents can raise children in their faith, with all of officialdom in opposition to doing so.
They can see to their childrens' religious instruction. Are there police stationed at your church refusing to allow the congregation to enter?
So you *admit* you're a loser? ;-)
God told me so Himself.
I’ll claim to be a survivor. :)
Shame on you for exhibiting the errors of a senile old man.
His departure from God’s word must now be an embarrasment to him in the presence of the Lord, and hopefully he is unaware of what you are doing here.
No it doesn't convince the voters. That's why the evo/atheists end up suing creationists and Christians into silence in the public school system, because they couldn't convince the voters and get their own way otherwise.
You should get your head examined because it was you that brought Sara Palin up in the first place and politics and so on...
I was not long out of high school at the time. No one knew what GRID (and that’s what they called it, then) was at the time. He didn’t delay any research. He could not have acknowledged an unknown. He and Nancy were very good friends with a victim of the disease, Rock Hudson.
You’re being too credulous regarding a leftist myth.
You figure you’re going to win something?
Looks like it.
Creationism, since it is based on the Christian Bible, doesn’t have a place in the public school system. The public school system, which must educate children of parents who belong to many different faiths and none at all, must remain neutral.
There isn’t anyone stopping you from sending your child(ren) to a private, religious school or homeschooling.
Dressing Creationism up in scientific jargon - that is, Intelligent Design - doesn’t convince the scientific community or judges, either.
Show me an atheist that supports Intelligent Design and you may be able to convince me that ID isn’t dressed up Creationism.
You name one of the few respites remaining, and think you've scored a point.
And, do you honestly believe that Pope John Paul, II uncritically accepted the entirety of ToE, without exception? I can assure you he did not.
I’m familiar with the Dover case. Creationists attempted to smuggle Creationism into a public school and had their asses handed to them.
Every day I wake up breathing, I've won. Every time people reveal themselves and don't know it, I've won all I need to. I'm not greedy and I'm not prideful. I'm mostly grateful.
Atheism sort of precludes a designer, unless you're talking space aliens or something. See Scientology.
Christianity has a place in public education, along with other religions as philosophy, where IMHO, it proves to be head and shoulders above the other religions of the world. But it is not science.
That qualifies you among the survivors.
That seems to be a weakness of the evos for everything from that to the flat earth accusations against creationists to the creationists wanting to take us back to the dark ages.
Are we going to go over this, all over again? I thought you and I settled this.
Maybe you can work Creationism into a comparative religion class - Christians believe X, Muslims believe Y, Buddhists believe Z - or as part of the history of science - as an example of primitive beliefs on the origin of earth/life - but you cant teach it as science because it isnt science.
Deal with it.
Then you do have an idea of what I’m talking about after all.
I thought so.
I know why Sarah was mocked as the mocking MSM proudly proclaimed that the overwhelming majority of 40 and under COLLEGE educated crowd were Bama supporters. Animal Farm is reality, the most 'fittest to survive' are the ones more equal than the rest. Enjoy your victory.
Now the scientific methodology became precedence by the Supremes as only acceptable dogma in their houses of worship around 40 + years ago. And the taxpayer taking to fund your houses of worship has produced the perfect election. You all wanted God out of your means and methods and so you now have it, be happy.
The majority of Bama followers are NOW going to get to live under that scientific methodology.
And as Bama proclaimed you all would get back to 'real' science, most likely it will require 'hate crimes' legislation to punish and retrain anybody who knows and stands against a crack pot theory of primordial soup.
Kinda like Daniel getting tossed in the proverbial lions den.
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.