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.”

[From many - one.]

If one approaches the question in a more scientific manner, one might notice that national news has more than twice as many posts as the next highest category.

One would also notice only 430 threads in Freeperama.

And, yet another look shows that the Freerepublic posts are under 10% of all posts.

[gondramB]

I’m coming in late here....

but calling developmental biology “Darwinism” seems a lot like calling electromagnetic science “Franklinism”

and criticizing modern evolutionary synthesis for something that Darwin didn’t know or got wrong is a lot like blaming the semiconductor industry for something Benjamin Franklin didn’t know.

Which is to say that even the most clever attack in these avenues is almost always founded on either ignorence or deceit.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

http://www.eugenics-watch.com/aeugensoc/aememp.html

[JSDude1]

Prove it, Empircally?? Then I’ll believe you (and not through some nutty statement of some far-out website), but through scientific evidence that Creation Theory is “religion”. Untill then you’ll loose this because ID/Creation has validity, and Neo-Darwinism has “holes”.

[From many - one.]

Since you got “what Darwin said” wrong, I’d suggest you look that up before you ask for explanations of your misconceptions.

[gondramB]

>>I’ve always wondered why, since the vast majority at DC have been banned or left FR in disgust, you continue to browse FR. Narcissistic tendencies perhaps?

If DC is so pro-science, I would think its’ members would spend more time responding to scientific inquiries than dispraging FR. <<

I’m a former DC member. 90% of the members want to move beyond any issues with Freep except for keeping in touch with what happens here. That is normal for any breakaway group.

Sadly, there some DC members so filled with pain and so intent on lashing out at Freep and/or Christians in general that the place is too fixated for me. Throw in some stalking behavior and DC has just become unhealthy.

Its very sad because there is an incredible collection of bright education conservative folks with a lot of insight and humor at DC. Very, very sad, in fact.

[js1138]

You are aware that the AES didn’t exist in the year she is alleged to have joined.

[trisham]

But why to you have to wait to be banned? You can leave any time you want.

Or is it that laurel wreath thingie? If you get banned, you can pretend that it's for supporting science instead of classic liberal agenda.

*******************

Well, he's gone, metmom. Do you think he is capable of understanding why? I'm inclined to doubt it.

[tacticalogic]

Those are your words, not mine.

Then what matters is not what's said, but who's saying it.

[gondramB]

>>I won’t call Dawinism “Darwinism” when you all stop mis-calling Creation Theory/I.D. “relgion”!<<

What term would be better for I.D. - philosophy? metaphysics?

I don’t of a better term for the supposition of a supreme being without scientific evidence than “religion.”

another reason it tends to get called religion is that almost 100% of the proponents are religious and seem to approach the issue from a religion P.O.V.

A third reason is groups like the Discovery institute deliberately using I.D. to try to sneak religion into science class.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

You are aware that the AES didn’t exist in the year she is alleged to have joined.

Silly apologist for AES.

[valkyry1]

yet another look shows that the Freerepublic posts are under 10% of all posts.

Thats because they shut it down and cleaned it up several times 

[JSDude1]

“don’t of a better term for the supposition of a supreme being without scientific evidence than “religion.””

That may be the conclusion behind it (when the science is realized), however that is NOT the real scientific evidence behind ID/Creation Theory.

“almost 100% of the proponents are religious and seem to approach the issue from a religion P.O.V.”: So what? Just becuase a scientist happens to be “religious” (code word Fundamentalist Christian), does that mean that he doesn’t have right to use science: DOES HE SUDDENLY CHANGE (natural principles, which God has put in place-PHYSICS, etc..)? DOES HE FUDGE/CHEAT: NO (this was rhetorical)!

I don’t give a care what some groups do, the real science behind it is sound!

[metmom]

Me neither. And the fact that the other evos don’t seem to get it either confirms that.

He was so convinced that if he got banned it would be because of his believe in the ToE.

There’s just no reasoning with some people.

[metmom]

Thats because they [DC] shut it down and cleaned it up several times

Because it was making them look bad.

Now the juicy stuff is members only.

Imagine that.

[gondramB]

>>Oh, and let’s not forget the *any challenge to the ToE is not scientific, it’s religious apologetics* label. <<

Its really unfortunate if it comes across that way - since challenge and asking for transparency and proof is part and parcel of any science.

Scientists are people and they have flaw and tempers.

If its any consolation, within science circles I’ve had very good luck asking about holes in theories and hypothetical about what it would mean if some theory is found to be wrong. Likewise I get asked questions about my beliefs as a Christian its never seem to have impaired my ability to work with other scientists.

There are of course a-holes in science. And more than our fair share of scientists impaired at talking to non-scientists - its probably comparable to the issues with computer geeks.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

And it would be anti-welfare as well.

Perhaps you could take that up as a platform for selling Darwinism and Eugenics to conservatives. It may be better than your current anti-God strategy, which seems to be not very convincing.

[gondramB]

>>That may be the conclusion behind it (when the science is realized), however that is NOT the real scientific evidence behind ID/Creation Theory.<<

Every time I address this I worry I’m gonna sound like Bill Clinton.... but here goes...

It depends on the meaning of “theory.” Most people learn about “theory” in geometry class where a theory is anything that is proposed but a theorem has been proved.

But in advanced science a theory is a well substantiated explanation - not just a proposal. But a theory is never proved and never becomes a theorem because it is always subject to new evidence.

So.. to a scientist, you can’t I.D. a theory because it not substantiated. And I.D. certainly is not a “useful theory” because it doesn’t make predictions that can be tested that are not made by other theories.

And to a scientist its not an insult to say evolution is theory - so are lots of scientific principles used routinely to do useful work.

I’m sorry for the semantics but I think the words being used are part of the problem here. There are of course serious fundamental differences too but it would help if we can eliminate the language problems so we can at least understand each other.

[tacticalogic]

Or I could just recognize the attempt to provoke an emotional response and ignore it accordingly.

[gondramB]

>>“almost 100% of the proponents are religious and seem to approach the issue from a religion P.O.V.”: So what? Just becuase a scientist happens to be “religious” (code word Fundamentalist Christian), does that mean that he doesn’t have right to use science: DOES HE SUDDENLY CHANGE (natural principles, which God has put in place-PHYSICS, etc..)? DOES HE FUDGE/CHEAT: NO (this was rhetorical)!<<

Well, if humans were without flaw it wouldn’t matter.

Did you see the report that two studies showed mercury in most high fructose corn syrup? The first thing I did was look up the principle researcher for each report. Turns out its the same guy. So I looked into his agenda. If he had spent his life opposing corn syrup I would have factored that into my reaction.