Getting Rid of Darwinism; Couldn't Agree More!!

[Burninator]

How about we let people use whatever word(s) they want to describe evolution/darwinism and over time which ever one word (or possibly a new word) is more adapted to describe this process will become the dominate usage and the lesser used word will fall into extinction and we won't have to make this arbitrary decision now.

Hmm...this sounds familiar to something I've heard of before...but I can't quite put my opposable thumb on it...

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't really know how much the term Darwinism is used in science circles, mostly when I see that stuff talked about it's theory of evolution, evo-devo, natural selection, etc, so my first impression was she's making a big deal about a non-issue, but I don't move in science circles.

I guess I'm a bit torn.

On one hand I onetwo_threefour you make a good point and I think I agree with your post. I don't say Einsteinism, I say general and special relativity. I don't say Newtonism. Holding to Darwinism does give the impression to a lay person that things haven't changed in 150 years (a common thing among those who argue against evolution forget or choose to ignore).

On the other hand changing the name would seem like changing the name of the political right in Canada.. people aren't going to hear the new name and just accept it when they didn't before. The problem of acceptance of evolution is one of education; many people who reject it actually reject their idea of what evolution is, which is typically wrong.

Coming up with a new name for the purposes of more accurately describing the collection of theories is fine I guess, as long as it's for the right reasons.

I know what you're saying, but it's a bit of a 'hearts and minds' thing as well. When you let your opponent dictate the terminology of your debate, you are already halfway to losing. I don't know how many times I've discussed or read discussions involving anti-darwinists (in their language) where they bring up palaeontology, genetics, archaeo-climatology as if the findings in those fields were Darwinian ideas. They tend to support the Theory of Evolution, but they are not ideologically driven by anything Darwin said. Darwin never said that newer fossils wil tend to lie in strata above older fossils, and yet an anti-evolutionist will reject that as a Darwinst idea.

As I see it, recasting the terms of the debate is a legitimate purpose for a scientist to complain about the use of Darwin's name attached to all of these other fields and findings.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Burninator

How about we let people use whatever word(s) they want to describe evolution/darwinism and over time which ever one word (or possibly a new word) is more adapted to describe this process will become the dominate usage and the lesser used word will fall into extinction and we won't have to make this arbitrary decision now.

Hmm...this sounds familiar to something I've heard of before...but I can't quite put my opposable thumb on it...

In general I agree, but you run the risk of sticking your head in the sand and allowing the larger debate to be lost. The opponents of reason are well organized on this front.

[SebC]

I support this... I'm sick of the morons who think that finding a hole in Darwin's theories disproves evolution. Changing the terminology would help get rid of the fallacy that if Darwin made any mistake than he is actually not infallable and so evolution is a lie. The Pope, on the other hand...

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by SebC

I support this... I'm sick of the morons who think that finding a hole in Darwin's theories disproves evolution.

Do you think these people will care though? The person who still doesnt have enough proof to believe in evolution, will never have enough, and likely doesn't want it in the first place.

[photon]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I know what you're saying, but it's a bit of a 'hearts and minds' thing as well. When you let your opponent dictate the terminology of your debate, you are already halfway to losing. I don't know how many times I've discussed or read discussions involving anti-darwinists (in their language) where they bring up palaeontology, genetics, archaeo-climatology as if the findings in those fields were Darwinian ideas.

Good point. I know exactly what you mean, there's been quite a few times I've read something along the lines of evolution is false, there's no evidence as to what caused the big bang.

[Hack&Lube]

I understand the point...but really it's also like saying: "let's get rid of Newtonian physics"

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I understand the point...but really it's also like saying: "let's get rid of Newtonian physics"

I'd argue that.

Before the advent of "Quantum Physics", Newtonian physics was simply "physics".

Darwinism is more about the application of natural selection to evolutionary theories. It's a tiny part of a massive section of biological science.

A more clear term is simply "evolutionary biology". It may seem semantically, but clarity can go a long way.

[Thor]

This kind of feels like the current debate amongst Atheists about the use of that word Atheist/ism. Thats quite a silly debate all over the negative image of that word.

Because Darwinian has such negative connotations in the religious circles, its reasonable we should call it simply Evolution to remove the iconic Darwin image out of people's heads and give more credence to the word Evolution for obvious reasons stated above.

I can't say I lose sleep over it, but I do see why people think its necessary to call it Evolution over Darwinism.

Its like when people talk about Intelligent Design, I always make sure I call it in return creationism

[Azure]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I can't believe the responses here. Hardly anybody is getting the point.

The problem is that Darwin- (ist, ism, ian) has become a politicized term used by opponents of the Theory of Evolution to denigrate the field of Evolutionary Biology. She's making a completely valid argument.

What exactly did I say again?

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Azure

What exactly did I say again?

Actually your post is why I said hardly any. At the time I started composing my reply I think yours was the second last post and there seemed to be no trend appearing supporting the article's point. My post took a while to finish because I was at work at the time.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

The opponents of reason are well organized on this front.

Are they really?

The opponents of reason aren't a threat here in Canada. They may be "well organized", but their organization skills aren't going to get them anywhere in this country, even in Alberta.

I understand that using "Darwin/ian/ism" can be polarizing or an easy target, but so what? Let them be polarized. Let 'em have that easy target.

There has been a lot of ink dedicated to the notion that anti-evolutionary claptrap can't be taken seriously because if it is then it might actually be taken seriously. There would be the illusion of a debate. Of "competing theories". Makes sense to me. There isn't a debate. They can't be taken seriously.

Changing the lingo or removing Darwin's name so they don't have something or someone to attack seems to me that the evolution "side" is playing into their hands and admitting that "they" might have a leg to stand on.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Why could 1 and 3 not both be correct?

Say God created the first organisms to live on this earth but allowed them to evolve through natural selection and survival of the fittest. Evidence is around us every day to prove that evolution exists, new species are being created (and destroyed) every day. All it really comes down to deciding then, is whether the very first species (likely far less complex than the ones we have now) were created or just came into existence by themself.

Why not #2 then?
Just about every major event in the bible was written by the Sumerian's 3-4000 years before Christianity even existed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Actually your post is why I said hardly any. At the time I started composing my reply I think yours was the second last post and there seemed to be no trend appearing supporting the article's point. My post took a while to finish because I was at work at the time.

Ah, I see.

Either way, I think you're bang on with the point the author was trying to make.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Are they really?

The opponents of reason aren't a threat here in Canada. They may be "well organized", but their organization skills aren't going to get them anywhere in this country, even in Alberta.

I understand that using "Darwin/ian/ism" can be polarizing or an easy target, but so what? Let them be polarized. Let 'em have that easy target.

There has been a lot of ink dedicated to the notion that anti-evolutionary claptrap can't be taken seriously because if it is then it might actually be taken seriously. There would be the illusion of a debate. Of "competing theories". Makes sense to me. There isn't a debate. They can't be taken seriously.

Changing the lingo or removing Darwin's name so they don't have something or someone to attack seems to me that the evolution "side" is playing into their hands and admitting that "they" might have a leg to stand on.

Notwithstanding the rest of your post, I would say Yes they really are organized. You've got the Discovery institute, you've got that movement releasing bulls**t motion pictures that get played on hundreds or thousands of screens, you've got coordinated legal attacks such as the Dover trial. They are organized. If you think that the winds of change won't blow through the conservative movement in Canada if the ID movement is somehow successful in the States, I think you're being naive. I spend a fair amount of time looking at Canadian political discussion forums, and everytime ID comes up, many of the most vocal conservatives express their belief in the cause. If the US legal system ever grants legitimacy to the arguments made by the ID movement, it would definitely send a shockwave through Canadian society as well.

While you and I might not take them seriously and understand that there is no scientific debate, the war for the average voter doesn't play the same way, especially in the US. I used to make the mistake of overestimating the discernment of the average voter to see through nonsense, but the political events of this decade strongly suggest otherwise.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

They are organized. If you think that the winds of change won't blow through the conservative movement in Canada if the ID movement is somehow successful in the States, I think you're being naive. I spend a fair amount of time looking at Canadian political discussion forums, and everytime ID comes up, many of the most vocal conservatives express their belief in the cause. If the US legal system ever grants legitimacy to the arguments made by the ID movement, it would definitely send a shockwave through Canadian society as well.

If I'm being naive, I think you are giving them too much credit. If someone tried to pressure the Calgary Public School Board to teach creationism alongside evolution, they'd be laughed out of town, and this is the most conservative city in the country.

I'm sure there are message board fundamentalists, but they have about as much say on public policy as I do on Flames trades. Even the Conservative government (both provincial and federal) ignores this stuff and will continue to do so just in the interest of self-preservation.

[onetwo_threefour]

You may be right, I may be crazy...*

It is certainly possible that I am overreacting, but there has definitely been a pendulum swing in Canada with certain conservative positions on the upswing. I will admit that most 'social conservative' positions have not seen much more support under the current government, but they are still out there, and there are a large number of them in the Federal governing party, (Hell, there's even a few of them in the Federal Liberals). I still wonder whether a majority might see a push towards putting i these old ideas back on the table in Canada. Then we'd really see how different the Canadian electorate is from the US.

But I acknowledge your point, it MAY be an overreaction. I just think it's a harmless one if it is.

* apologies to Billy Joel...

[FlamesAddiction]

I think it's a fair point. I have seen many anti-evolutionists try to dismiss evolution simply because certain Darwinistic theories can't explain all aspects of evolution. Darwinism is just a small piece of the puzzle.

Really, trying to equate Darwinism with evolution in general is like generalizing religion with Judeo-Christian theology and making sweeping generalizations based on that one aspect.

Darwin also didn't invent evolutionary science. He built upon many ideas that already existed and did an excellent job articulating them, but it does seem a little inaccurate that his name is pseunonymous with evolution in general (at least to a lot of people).