There is no theory called “Darwinism”. There are no “Darwinists”. As revolutionary as Darwin’s original theory was, even in its day it was never claimed to be the complete story of evolution. The theory has been greatly expanded upon in the 150 years since. Calling today’s theory of evolution “Darwinism” is like calling aviation “Wrightisim”
Not exactly the same word but it conveys the same idea.
Also you seemed to have overlooked this part of the article:
“The differences that make us human are more likely due to mutations that were favorable to us in the particular environment into which we moved, and these mutations then accumulated through time.”
As usual straw men and misdirection.
==“The differences that make us human are more likely due to mutations that were favorable to us in the particular environment into which we moved, and these mutations then accumulated through time.”
I’d be curious to know why Ira’s Temple of Darwin sect considers the quote issued by the above Temple of Darwin sect as being comprised of “straw men and misdirection”???
And in the quote you have “mutations” instead of natural selection is held responsible for “differences that make us human”.
Perhaps you should explain to the believers in evolution that there are no “Darwinists’ or “Darwinism” since they use those terms to refer to themselves.
Hello Strawman!
Just to yank people's chain, because I'm mad at my wife's job for keeping her up past midnight the last couple of nights, and I want to take it out on somebody...
Is that why the site is called "Darwin Central"? /sarc>
(...and yes, it can be defended perfectly well by any one of a number of rationales. But seriously, the selective pedantry is just as much an error as quote-mining and completely incorrect definitions of technical terms.
Cheers!