"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Darwinian has a pretty specific meaning to denote a person who studies Charles Darwin from a historical perspective, as in "Darwinian scholar". Thus Desmond and Moore, Janet Browne, Ospovat, Bowler, etc. are Darwinians. Evolutionary biologists doing research are not.

Darwinian has a pretty specific meaning in the evolution literature. Darwinian selection is synonymous with positive selection (as opposed to purifying selection and balancing selection).

"Dogmatic Darwinists" - An Instance of the Misleading Rhetoric of the Anti-Evolutionists.

People keep describing all the clever IDiotic political strategies, analyzing them, and criticizing them... but in the end I've got to wonder what you've really accomplished. It's like the Democrats reacting to the use of the word 'liberal' or John Kerry explaining his position on Iraq. Cerebral... intellectual even, but hardly effective in what essentially is a political battle.

I'll put money on Witt knowingly abusing the term 'Darwinist' or 'evolutionist' to mean everything that he sees wrong with the world, even if somebody explains to him his mistake. I'm sure you realize... regardless of what this post explains, or the hundreds more coming from our side that I am sure are in the pipeline... Witt will keep on using it. The simple reason is that, for the masses, a one-word political label works on the masses so much more effectively than the nuanced explanations.

Honestly, who the hell (besides the scientist) cares what the scientific usage of 'Darwinist' is? It's about time those of you who are knee-deep in this political shit to start trying something new. Maybe, you should trying embracing the label, and redefining it as something positive, instead of this weak attempt to distance yourselves from the label, or complaining about its misuse. If being a 'Darwinist' doesn't stand for something evil or wrong, why won't scientists use the word to describe themselves? Makes the ignoramus wonder, doesn't it? The next thing you know, you'll have the absolutists mislabeling scientists 'Einsteinians' for promoting the notion of relativity. And when is this going to end?

Darwinian has a pretty specific meaning in the evolution literature. Darwinian selection is synonymous with positive selection (as opposed to purifying selection and balancing selection).

— RPM

An eye for an eye and an -ist for and -ist. Don't forget to use "Paleyist" in any exchange where "Darwinist" is raised.

An eye for an eye and an -ist for and -ist. Don't forget to use "Paleyist" in any exchange where "Darwinist" is raised.

If being a 'Darwinist' doesn't stand for something evil or wrong, why won't scientists use the word to describe themselves?

— wad of id

Let me emphasize that the term "Darwinism" is only rarely, if ever used in the scientific literature. There's a good reason for this: It has no fixed meaning. It has at times been used to describe the mere process of natural selection causing adaptations (something almost every biologist agrees with) and at other times used to describe the notion that natural selection alone is responsible for evolutionary change (something almost no biologist agrees with). Hence it is usually either redundant or it doesn't apply.

— Steve Reuland

Harsh, maybe, but surely not guttural.

Scirus search:

Evolution:

3,913,739 total | 653,615 journal results | 96,107 preferred web results | 3,164,017 other web results

"Natural Selection":

156,612 total | 15,084 journal results | 2,989 preferred web results | 138,539 other web results

selection:

7,852,945 total | 661,758 journal results | 405,729 preferred web results | 6,785,458 other web results

Mutation:

1,273,943 total | 456,425 journal results | 57,695 preferred web results | 759,823 other web results

"genetic drift":

27,708 total | 3,974 journal results | 801 preferred web results | 22,933 other web results

Darwinist:

6,070 total | 156 journal results | 131 preferred web results | 5,783 other web results

Darwinian:

66,042 total | 5,218 journal results | 947 preferred web results | 59,877 other web results

Darwinism:

48,915 total | 1,654 journal results | 550 preferred web results | 46,711 other web results

Now just plain Darwin:

533,726 total | 18,068 journal results | 4,392 preferred web results | 511,266 other web results

Obviously the "journal results" are most important. Secondarily look at the "preferred web results." "Other web results" does not filter out quacks and other bad sources. To show this:

"Answers in Genesis":

1,960 total | 1 journal results | 1 preferred web results | 1,958 other web results

Another contrast is "intelligent design":

54,677 total | 553 journal results | 157 preferred web results | 53,967 other web results

Scanning the "journal" and "preferred web" it is clear that the hits are dominated by 1) opposition to or new about "intelligent design". And 2) use of the phrase in a way unrelated to the ID discussed here such as a patent that says "The invention relates to the clinically intelligent design of diagnostic devices"

Splitting hairs? As you point out, Mr. Hopkins, that many biologists don't use "Darwinist", and this may or may not be true since I'm not privy to how you're validating your poll, you still have the some that do. What do you do with them?

On a similar note, the Catholic Apologetics International site, which argues for geocentrism, actually uses the word, "Copernicanism".
http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-jul-05.htm

he replied in part "I use the term to refer to a person who believes that natural selection working on random variation produced all the diversity of organic life we see around us."

If it served the IDCist purpose in discrediting science, Darwinism could probably mean Killers of Small Furry Animals.

First of all, it should be noted that when a suffix is added after Darwin's name, the preferred term is Darwinian, not Darwinist.

It's like the Democrats reacting to the use of the word 'liberal' ... Maybe, you should trying embracing the label, and redefining it as something positive, instead of this weak attempt to distance yourselves from the label, or complaining about its misuse...

Let me emphasize that the term "Darwinism" is only rarely, if ever used in the scientific literature. There's a good reason for this: It has no fixed meaning.

— Steve Reuland

Now if all you want to say is that Darwinism as used today has little to do with science, you ought to be more even-handed in your criticism and excoriate everybody who uses the term

because in all these uses there is a purported connection with Darwin's scientific ideas.

I certainly wish Dukakis had had the presence to do that with the word "liberal". He could have pulled out a dictionary, found a definition like this: " Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." and said, "Liberal? Yes and I'm @#$%@$% proud to be one!".

Not to be hyper-critical, but what on earth do you mean by "guttural?" Do you mean it is a velar (it isn't)? Or "harsh?" In linguistics, we do not talk in those terms. For a website concerning science, you should be far more respectful of other sciences. We have, in linguistics, a systematic way to describe the sounds produced in a language. You have a linguistic ideology. Tell a Salish that their words sound "harsh." A more logical reason for the use of "Darwinist." Is the suffix -ist which can also be used with "fascist," "sexist," or "racist." It tends to be affixed to beliefs that are reviled (at least in the popular vernacular). The use of that suffix, then indexes a negative attitude (kind of like the use of the suffix -gate). Darwinian sounds no less "harsh" or "guttural" than Darwinist. I believe it is the choice of suffix, not their sounds, that is the driving force here.

I believe the key message here is to demand definitions. Let's make it clear what the subject of discussion REALLY is. Just as DarkSyde did, we should keep asking, "What do you mean when you say 'Darwinist'?" "What do you mean when you say 'evolutionist'?" And then point out where they are making up their own reality. The strategy is not likely to change the minds of any IDers, but the repetition might have an impact on some bystanders.

I'm still waiting for someone to ask some politicians for the definition of "frivolous lawsuit" and then to ask them for data about such lawsuits based on that definition.

Now if all you want to say is that Darwinism as used today has little to do with science, you ought to be more even-handed in your criticism and excoriate everybody who uses the term, because in all these uses there is a purported connection with Darwin's scientific ideas.

— Googler

The sin committed by Witt et al isn't the mere fact that they use the term "Darwinist", but they use it in a througly misleading way.

Steve Reuland posted Entry 2066 on February 26, 2006 11:14 AM. -- opening comment in thread. Let me emphasize that the term "Darwinism" is only rarely, if ever used in the scientific literature.

It has at times been used to describe the mere process of natural selection causing adaptations (something almost every biologist agrees with) and at other times used to describe the notion that natural selection alone is responsible for evolutionary change (something almost no biologist agrees with).

Yet ID advocates use the term almost exclusively to describe anyone and everyone who accepts mainstream evolutionary biology. I don't know why they expect scientists to take them seriously when they lack the professional courtesy to use accurate terms when describing those with whom they disagree.

Not to be hyper-critical, but what on earth do you mean by "guttural?" Do you mean it is a velar (it isn't)? Or "harsh?" In linguistics, we do not talk in those terms.

— slothrop

For a website concerning science, you should be far more respectful of other sciences.

Hey, LARRY, why are you posting under the name Andy? Why do you have so many names?

For what it's worth, the term 'guttural' is very seldom used in linguistics anymore, primarily because it doesn't really mean anything.

Is that a picture of Witt..?

Not very flattering.

Let me emphasize that the term "Darwinism" is only rarely, if ever used in the scientific literature. There's a good reason for this: It has no fixed meaning. It has at times been used to describe the mere process of natural selection causing adaptations (something almost every biologist agrees with) and at other times used to describe the notion that natural selection alone is responsible for evolutionary change (something almost no biologist agrees with). Hence it is usually either redundant or it doesn't apply.

— Steve Reuland

It's amazing and, like the need for similar "yeah-we-know" public service warnings ("Don't drive and drink," "Smoking results in various nasty health conditions," etc.), disheartening that this type of article has to distributed over and over and over again to prove so meting that is both a well-documented fact - the creationist public is ignorant, and the leadership is not often simply ignorant, but lies and a testable theory - revivals of creationism are never changes in essence, but changes in promotional forms.

One newer modification of the basic theory, suggested by many long-time watchers of this tribute to the exploitation of human cowardice and vanity called creationism, by whatever label, is that newer strains of creationism always, in public, pretend to creep a little closer to accepting the real science. Theoretically, this would extrapolate to the bizarre situation of Creationists fully accepting all of the Theory of Evolution, and yet opposing its being taught in schools.

A big reason for that, as suggested in the opening comment of this thread, is that the suffix "-ism" implies a philosophical belief or even a cult, whereas "Darwinism" is supposed to be science.

— Andy H

Why is it that random mutations are so often left out of definitions of Darwinism ? Random mutations are as fundamental to Darwinism as natural selection is.

I think that the term "Darwinism" is used by some people to show that they accept some parts of evolution theory, e.g., "changes through time" and common descent, but reject or question the notion that evolution was driven solely by random mutations and natural selection.

No term has been more misused than ID. It has become a catch-all term for virtually all scientific (or pseudoscientific, to some) criticisms of Darwinism. The term ID is applied to scientific criticisms of Darwinism that have little or nothing to do with design, intelligent or otherwise. The term ID has been used to describe the Ohio evolution lesson plan, which was not ID at all.

Is that a picture of Witt...?

— Stuart Weinstein

"Another aspect of the new philosophy of biology concerns the role of laws. Laws give way to concepts in Darwinism". "Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations." Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought", SciAm July 2000.

Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006 -- "Where Do We Go From Here? The Future of Darwinism in American Society," at the Museum of the Earth, 10 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. This panel discussion, moderated by Cornell Provost Biddy Martin, will examine the impact of the recent Dover decision on the future of Darwinism. Panelists include Cornell faculty members Barbara Crawford, Sheila Ann Dean, Bruce Lewenstein, and Steven Shiffrin; and Janet Shortall, associate director of Cornell United Religious Works. Seating is limited, call (607) 273-6623, extension 33 for tickets.

"What is Darwinism?" By Joel Hanes, Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

FL,

I generally just scroll past your oiled evasions and W.D.-ite lies, but somehow read your most recent post here before recognizing it as your "work."

So, what other names have you used here at PT, ala "Larry"? C'mon and own up! I KNOW the odor that attaches itself to your particular style of slander and misrepresentation, but I can't conjure up the name you used to try to sell it under.

With a complete, and easily justified lack of respect for you,

--- BAC

"Although I greatly admire Darwin's contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist. Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do. It's a rationalization that fuses two somewhat flawed traditions in a mathematical way, and that is the beginning of the end. Neo Darwinist formality uses an arithmetic and an algebra that is inappropriate for biology." ---Lynn Margulies, as quoted in John Brockman's The Third Culture, 1995 (Simon and Schuster).

"What is Darwinism?" By Joel Hanes, Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

— FL

... The term "Darwinism", ... has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period.

— Ernst Mayr

We'd like it to be known The exhibits that were shown Are exclusively our own All our own, all~our~own ---Emerson, Lake & Palmer

... The term "Darwinism", ... has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

The term "Darwinism" was coined by Thomas Huxley. While I was trying to find that reference (I have not yet succeeded), I was amazed as I went through the Huxley literature at how little has changed. The argument that sticks out in much of Huxley's writing was an argument regarding Archaeopteryx as a transitional form to birds. The "model lesson" plan on "critical analysis" that just got voted out here in Ohio (at least for now) had the same creationist Archaeopteryx crap from the 1860s. For all their political savvy, these ID creationists aren't very original when it comes to science.

I find it very amusing though that many of you still think Intelligent Design is Theistic by default.

It is not. It implies "intelligence" at the root of this existence. Not necessarily God of the Hebrew Scripture or any other scripture, just intelligently designed. And to add to the soup - I know of no church in this country teaching ID ever. Maybe the Jim Jones Church of ID. :)

FL, I'm not sure if you're incapable of understanding a simple point or what.

The shifting meanings are not okay, they are what have rendered the term all but unusable. Anyone who uses it better be pretty clear and consistent with what they mean. This is not a problem for most biologists, because as I've pointed out, they almost never use the term.

But the IDists use the term constantly. That would be acceptable if they would be clear on which of the many possible meanings they meant, but of course they aren't.

"Truth is born into this world only with pangs and tribulations, and every fresh truth is received unwillingly. To expect the world to receive a new truth, or even an old truth, without challenging it, is to look for one of those miracles which do not occur" (from an interview of Wallace published posthumously in 1913).

I find it very amusing though that many of you still think Intelligent Design is Theistic by default. It is not.

Can you name anyone besides your compadres the Raelians who seriously consider a nontheistic identity for the "Intelligent Designer/Implementer"?

there's honestly no use whatsoever trying to complain about any non-Darwinists freely and publicly using the same term also.

I find it very amusing though that many of you still think Intelligent Design is Theistic by default.

many of you still think Intelligent Design is Theistic by default.

I find it very amusing though that many of you still think Intelligent Design is Theistic by default. It is not. It implies "intelligence" at the root of this existence. Not necessarily God of the Hebrew Scripture or any other scripture, just intelligently designed.

— Dan

Comment #82289 Posted by Russell on February 26, 2006 01:44 PM (e) An eye for an eye and an -ist for and -ist. Don't forget to use "Paleyist" in any exchange where "Darwinist" is raised.

Based on the level of disagreement, human beings are highly unreliable at identifying correct political claims. This is extremely unfortunate, since it means that we have little chance of solving most social problems and a good chance of causing or exacerbating them. The best explanation lies in the theory of Rational Irrationality: individuals derive psychological rewards from holding certain political beliefs and since each individual suffers almost none of the harm caused by his own false political beliefs, it often makes sense (it gives him what he wants) to adopt those beliefs regardless of whether they are true or well-supported. The beliefs that people want to hold are often determined by their self-interest, the social group they want to fit into, the self-image they want to maintain, and the desire to remain coherent with their past beliefs. People can deploy various mechanisms to enable them to adopt and maintain their preferred beliefs, including giving a biased weighting of evidence; focusing their attention and energy on the arguments supporting their favored beliefs; collecting evidence only from sources they already agree with; and relying on subjective, speculative, and anecdotal claims as evidence for political theories.

Well I guess we don't need new terms for the ID homie army..

IDiot works quite will, IDiocy is already in the dictionary and I'll be damned... so is idiotism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idiotism

--Apologies for the ad hominem but it does serve to illustrate a point.

All of those words mean basically the same thing. So, it's easy to discuss. However darwinism has a plethora of meanings which, as has been pointed out in this thread, makes it a difficult term to discuss unless the person that uses it defines it.

On the one hand, it's as silly to call modern biologists Darwinists as it would be to call modern physicists Einsteinians or Gellmanians. On the other, if you're understanding of the world is going to be associated with somebody's name, you could do very worse than Darwinism since Darwin was in many respects an admirable man who would be rather venerable even if hadn't turned out to be right about everything important.

Scientific jargon tends to develop new meanings on their own in popular usage, especially if a word or phrase becomes associated with larger ideas than the original scientific context. Many examples come to mind... "Jurassic", "wormholes", "hormonal", "quantum", etc.

This is clearly the case with "Darwinian". Supporters of evolution need to decide (sooner rather than later) whether or not that word should be coopted by the far-right for a negative connotation. There is nothing wrong with words gaining additional meanings, as it happens all the time. But there is everything wrong with a word being used to label a large class of people incorrectly. My beef with the original post is that it is so clueless about the status of the usage "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" as a nonscientific, popular usage of the word, that it criticizes the usage on totally different grounds.

So, really the question that should be asked by pro-science people is... what would we like the popular definition of "Darwinism" to be? And how do we get other people to accept our usage? Really, who $!@#ing cares what the IDiots think it means...

Reality check, people. The D-word is likely to stay in the vocabulary of many, as the culture war rages. There is not much of a point in trying to quash its use by declaring its meaning "redundant" or "inapplicable."

R. Dawkins uses 'Darwinism' as the first word of page 196 of "The Selfish Gene".

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on February 26, 2006 01:36 PM (e) "Dogmatic Darwinists" - An Instance of the Misleading Rhetoric of the Anti-Evolutionists.

However darwinism has a plethora of meanings which, as has been pointed out in this thread, makes it a difficult term to discuss unless the person that uses it defines it.

"Philosophy of biology (especially Darwinism)..." http://www.fsu.edu/~philo/people/faculty/mruse.html

But as we've seen from the specific examples of Ernst Mayr and even last month's Cornell University Darwin Day announcement, some evolutionists are NOT in any hurry to define Darwinism ~at all~ whenever they use the term.

— FL

Further, he boasts that "I work with biologists every day as part of my ongoing battle with creationism, and I haven't met one yet who refers to himself as a Darwinist, or his field of research as Darwinism." Which, as it turned out, simply means that DarkSyde is jack-ignorant of the very existence of evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulies, whose clear example was clearly given previously.

Wow! From BC we learn of a geocentrist. I checked the link and, sure enough, it's true! I've kept the link in my already bulging "religious madness" bookmark folder. Thanks.

Re:Know Your Creationists: The Philosopher's Stoned

Science is faith? From Exhibit A (from Witt):
"Belief in the scientific method is faith, in the sense that there are a number of unprovable axioms that must be accepted: 1) There is an objective reality ..."

Denying reason:
We're seeing a lot of "atheism is a religion" these days. In my view, this and Witt's comment both implicitly contain the same core attack: they deny reason without even mentioning it! This attack does not even admit a conflict between reason/science and faith/dogma; everyone, it claims, is a dogmatist. Isn't this just post-modernism unleashing dogmatism? This is what I expected but it's amazing to see it in the flesh.

Axioms are faith?
If axioms could be proved, they wouldn't be axioms. Witt would have us prove existence by means of knowledge of what?Accepting an axiom that is presupposed by all knowledge is not faith; it's a fundamental epistemological requirement. Even in attacking axioms, Witt must assume them. I think Rand is dead-on correct about this.

IDC is religious!
I boil the thing down to this: "There exists a non-natural undesigned designer, because all natural living things require a designer."

From Steve Reuland:
"It's routine for IDCists to throw up a virtual haze of pseudoscientific chafe using every one of those techniques and then some in a few short sentences, and it often demands fairly detailed rebuttal to straighten the whole stinking mess out."
A historian (I don't remember who) said about (as I recall) Midevil times: something like "a time of impenetrable irrationalism." I've always found this to be a chilling idea that provokes fear in my gut because I can see so much of it today.

Attacks on reason are very very serious. If reason loses, we'll end up being ruled by mad men with mad schemes.

Anyway, nice contribution Steve! Thanks!

I'm not a "Darwinist" and never have been. I don't "adhere" to "Darwinism" in any way.

I agree with the idea that humans and all other life on Earth evolved through entirely natural processes, some known, some as yet to be discovered. I agree with this idea because it has lots and lots of scientific backing that I can reference that fits in with and relies on other science, including biology, chemistry, physics, paleontology, geology, astronomy, as well as engineering and math. I agree with this idea because in all the years I studied biology and worked in the bio-pharmaceutical industry, I never once saw any biological event that required theorizing an intelligent designer, other than those working in the R&D department, that is. Every product we made and tested was done so using current scientific understanding of evolutionary biology.

The problem is that when the ID crowd, and the creationists, both young- and old-earth, use "Darwinist" they do so in a pejorative sense as a political tool. Perhaps the people FL cited are being political as well. Perhaps they are embracing the term, in the way that some women embrace the term "b1tch," in order to "own it."

But FL's post actually proves the point that has been pressed many times in this thread: Even scientists and science philosophers who study evolution do not agree on the meaning of "Darwinist," so if IDists are going to use it, they need to be sure they are defining the term, otherwise it diminishes understanding rather than increasing it. Much the same way that intelligent design theory diminishes our understanding of biological processes rather than increasing it.

Mel you said:

Attacks on reason are very very serious. If reason loses, we'll end up being ruled by mad men with mad schemes.,

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IF ?

F.L.

Yes limpidense didn't have his mind reading glasses on when he accused you of being Larry, I was wondering when you go going to scream like a pig about that.

Limpid go back and look for the larryism in "Dan's" barf

Speaking of Hog Howlers F.L. when are you going to give us another rendition of your 2 minutes of glory on the Pulpit of your local church on "Darwin Sunday"

you know the one that goes:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up .....
...but by the content of their character

Well F.L....... you would have real trouble with a speech like that wouldn't you ?

lying is not a pretty thing ....especially on a pulpit.

Not that I care what this FL believes, but I'm quite aware he isn't one of Larry F's legion. I believe that I recall FL's particular scent under another troll's name, who managed to bore everyone from bothering to engage him some years back.

Someone else's reading skills really seem to be in question here, perhaps.

limpidense not directed to you of course, just FL ,I knew that he would kick up. If it WAS Larry he would not argue simply because he's insane.

On the comprehension;
Yes ala rather than aka er...

passe

If anyone knows how to put in European symbols let me know

Steve Reuland posted Entry 2066 on February 26, 2006 11:14 AM. ... Let me emphasize that the term "Darwinism" is only rarely, if ever used in the scientific literature. ... Yet ID advocates use the term almost exclusively to describe anyone and everyone who accepts mainstream evolutionary biology. I don't know why they expect scientists to take them seriously when they lack the professional courtesy to use accurate terms when describing those with whom they disagree...

I prefer to constantly use the word 'scientist' when someone says 'darwinist'.

'The darwinists claim... etc'

Answer - actually, the scientists claim... etc

If someone says 'what about scientists who don't "believe" in evolution' the answer is simple - they are not scientists.

There is no doubt that ID advocates misuse and abuse the term. Furthermore, it is indeed true that the term is often thrown around with little meaning. But since I took the time to respond to Dark Syde on this issue on Daily Kos, I'll take the time here. I think I do know what the term means. And when appropriately used, both the term Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism are perfectly appropriate. Of course, one might also use the term "synthetic theory" to describe much the same thing. In fact, they are good terms. I'll repeat a few points here I made on Daily Kos.

Let's note for the record that a number of prominent people in the pro-evolution movement use the term. They say it loud and they say it proud. Why not? Mayr uses the terms Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism and Synthetic theory throughout his writings. Michael Ruse uses all terms extensively. The terms are used by Dawkins, Dennett, Sober and many others. At times, the terms are even used interchangeably. For example, Michael Ruse has referred to himself as an "ultra-Darwinian". Though Ruse himself goes to great lengths in his historical writings to distinguish between "Darwinism" and the mdern mature science of the synthetic theory. E.O. Wilson uses the term. There are of course related terms such as Evolutionary Pyschology and Sociobioloy

So the fact that the term seldom appears in published articles on evolution is a red herring. Indeed, in much of scientific. What do these terms all have in common? They describe research strategies employed by scientists in their work. Since for evolutionary biologists, the principles of the synthetic theory are assumed as useful background knowledge, there is no need to specify the basic assumptions or name the research strategy they are employing. It is either assumed, or, it is unconscious. I judge the latter to be a bad thing.

Long before Kuhn, going back at least to Pierre Duhem and probably Charles Pierce we have known that scientific research is not conducted in a vacuum. Scientists don't go out assembling a jumble of random facts. Their research is frame by a set of principles that guide observation, tell them what questions to ask, what questions not to ask, how to judge the results of their research, and finally, tell them what kind of phenomena are even acceptable and believed to exist. Scratch a hyper empiricist and you will find a naive and unknowing practitioner of a paradigm of some sort. The fact is that there is a philosophy underlying evolutionary biology. There is an ontology and an epistemology. And this is a good thing.

Rather than beating on the ID'ists for using the term "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" or "Neo-Darwinist" we should beat on them for abusing and failing to adequately grapple with what Kuhn, Lakatos, Popper, Laudan and many others have actually written. We should beat on them for not taking the time to understand the basic ideas and concepts underlying Neo-Darwinism and for not bothering to articulte their own coherent research strategy.

At the risk of going on a bit too long let me add a further point. Not only do scientists work in overarching research strategies (whether they admit or not), they also work in a broader scientific community. While I would eschew the strong program in the sociology of knowledge, I fully acknowledge the weak program. When studying any community one must always distinguish between the self description (emic) of the members of the research community and the actual behavior of the research community (etic).

Most physical and natural scientists that I know (not all, but many) are bright people. Probably brighter than I am. They tend however (for the most part) to be naive or indifferent to matters related to philosophy of science. Thus it does not surprise me that the emic self description of people is "there is no paradigm or research tradition, I just go with the evidence". But when you observe the practice of science at a broader level, it is clear that the emic is often at odds with the etic.

I see nothing to be gained by being naive about philosophy of science. Again, I'll say the term Neo-Darwinist loud and I'll say it proud. It describes a lot that is reliable knowledge.

For the record:
I would define Darwinist as any theory that explains common descent and bio-diversity through variation and gradual natural selection, but does not fully specify a mechanism of inheritance.

I would define Neo-Darwinist as any theory that explains common descent and bio-diversity as resulting from non-acquired genetic variation as the mechanism of inheritance and gradual natural selection.

These terms thus distinguish theories that have developed as a consequence of Darwin's writings from teleological, saltationist and orthogenetic theories of evolution.

FL, since you're whining about hypocrisy, why don't you go clean up your own side of the aisle. Start with "ID", or even "research program of ID".

Lead by example, eh?

Not that I care what this FL believes, but I'm quite aware he isn't one of Larry F's legion.

Anyone contact Cornell University or Michael Ruse yet?

Both "Andy H." and "FL" are Larry Fafarman, who is known for posting under other names. He has shown that he does not understand any subject relevant to evolution, nor many subjects not relevant to evolution. These subjects include: biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, imaginary numbers, the Holocaust, and the workings of the US legal system. The overwhelming majority --- if not all --- of the assertions and opinions he posts here are repetitions of assertions and opinions already debunked in previous threads. He is only seeking attention, so please do not give it to him.

Oops, I seem to be wrong about "FL." My apololgies...

'Darwinist' is a word much like 'liberal' - context is critical. In the mouth of a creationist, these two words converge to the point where they are nearly synonymous, both meaning "as low as a Godless human can fall."

OMG. PRincess bride is my all time favorite movie.
http://newsbusters.org/node/4186

Now if all you want to say is that Darwinism as used today has little to do with science, you ought to be more even-handed in your criticism and excoriate everybody who uses the term

"Darwinism", of course, is simply the latest of the ID code words for "atheism" --- along with "materialist", and "philosophical naturalist".

I would define Darwinist as any theory that explains common descent and bio-diversity through variation and gradual natural selection, but does not fully specify a mechanism of inheritance. I would define Neo-Darwinist as any theory that explains common descent and bio-diversity as resulting from non-acquired genetic variation as the mechanism of inheritance and gradual natural selection.

Not really. By singling out only one of the ideological players in this game, he misses the cultural significance.

This is another misleading statement. Many people use those terms in their proper context, and they have a significance that that goes beyond their use by creationists, if any.

"Darwinism", of course, is simply the latest of the ID code words for "atheism" --- along with "materialist", and "philosophical naturalist".

So they really aren't "code words" at all, unless they are being misused. To dismiss them as such may be convenient propaganda, but it completely misses the point.

"Inconcievable". That was the word that Vezzini kept using when Inigo said "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Vezzini was referring to the remote possibility that they were being followed and then chased by the Dread Pirate Roberts (Wesley). I was suddenly struck with the uncanny similarity between Vezzini and Prince Humperdink and Dave Scott and Dembski.
Think about it for a minute.

DS=Vezzini
Dembski=Humperdink.

Dover was the iocaine challenge but DS wasn't the one who drank it, Behe was.

Think about it.

Vezzini still at large,still thinking he is the smartest man alive. Inigo in the palace. Humperdink not willing to quit but still loathe to put himself in real harm's way...

Or think of DS as Count Rugen. Think of Uncommon descent as the room under the tree.

Ok. Aren't you all simply astounded at the similarity?

AD,

You are drawing too sharp a dichotomy. In order to quantify, observe and attempt to falsify, you must have philosophy. Your measurement terms and observations are defined by the theory. You seem to be suggesting a naive empiricism-just go out observe, measure, quantify-and that's all that science needs.

I see science and philosophy in a continuum. One rests on the other. There is science as in what the natural and physical sciences do. There is science as in the overarching approach to knowledge. Both need each other.

You are drawing too sharp a dichotomy. In order to quantify, observe and attempt to falsify, you must have philosophy. Your measurement terms and observations are defined by the theory. You seem to be suggesting a naive empiricism-just go out observe, measure, quantify-and that's all that science needs.

I see science and philosophy in a continuum. One rests on the other. There is science as in what the natural and physical sciences do. There is science as in the overarching approach to knowledge. Both need each other.

Edit: Pardon multiple spelling errors. I purchased a new keyboard and have lost my ability to type.

"For theologians and philosophers alike, Man was a creature above and apart from other living beings....The application of the theory of common descent to Man deprived man of his former unique position."

The truly outstanding achievement of the principle of natural selection is that it makes unnecessary the invocation of "final causes" - that is, any teleological forces leading to a particular end. In fact, nothing is predetermined. Furthermore, the objective of selection even may change from one generation to the next, as environmental circumstances vary.

PRincess bride is my all time favorite movie.

There is NO meaning of Darwinism, for example, that does NOT "reject supernatural phenomena and causations", is there?

FL, (jeff)
You sound like you're trying to prove something. What is it?

AD

I do not think we are very far apart on this. At most we have a difference of emphasis. I would accept for example your tri-partite division of Science, maybe science, Definitely not science as valid as a general description.

The point i am making that I think you are missing is that the practice of science rests on some principles that we would probably not classify as pure science. For example, Elliott Sober has coined the "no evil demons" axiom. Now Sober justifies his no evil demons axiom by reference to a likelihood proposition. All well and good. But ultimately, we are getting into an infinite regress. Somewhere along the line in order to do science you do have to have an implicit or explict ontology and epistemology. Now I think that ontologies and epistemologies are ultimately testable by implication, even if they are not directly and immediately testable.

In my view, ID fails as science, not because of its ontology per se, but because it just doesn't do the heavy lifting that it takes to actually do science.

So to my way of thinking one can say ID is "not science" because 1. It disregards the ontological and epistemological rules which have come to define our shared cultural understandings of science broadly construed in the late 20th century and 2. It does not engage in any effort to construct testable hypotheses and subject those hypotheses to tests.

So all ID has is a few half baked ideas about teleology, saltationism and orthogenesis. Each of these ideas has been roundly rejected in the past for a reason. Its' not unscientific to attempt to revise dead research programs. But it is unscientific to attempt to do so without any real evidence for doing so.

But they are partially correct. There is a philosophical debate about "naturalism" or "materialism" vs. "supernaturalism". Now, personally, I don't think that high school science classes should get bogged down in that debate. I do deem it worthy for a cultural anthropology or philosophy class, or for that matter, a philosophy of science class.

3.) 1 judge jones makes a ruling and you buy into it because it fits your world view. 1.) ID'ers as you will call them do not use ID in Christian apologetics. 2.) To say something has a creator does not imply in any way a diety. But according to you, I'm lying.

This is infinite regression and does not follow rules of logic. Even if there is proof of an eternal being, which would need no first cause, and it stood in front of you, you would probably reject it because that fits your world view that all things stem from natural causes. Quantum mechanics shows us that things that exist are built from the quantum tiny to the quantum large. In simplified terms, things that are visible and tangible are made of things that are invisible, and barely tangible if tangible at all.

I know I'm off your topic of Darwinski and why people refer to evolutionists as darwinist but I just had to reply to the Rev.

Keep it friendly :)

Comment #82511 Posted by BWE on February 27, 2006 03:55 PM (e) Ok. Aren't you all simply astounded at the similarity?

That was a clever and humorous analogy.

Um, I thought ID was supposed to be science and not religious. So what is this "supernatural phenomena" thingie that you are now dragging into it?

You sound like you're trying to prove something. What is it?

Copernicanism

After being shocked by the CAI link on "Copernicanism" from yesterday, I looked a little further.

I wouldn't have believed this unless I'd seen it with my own computer! I've already booked a "Flood Geology" Web site so I guess the next stop is to see if the "flat earthers" are still around.

From Talk.Origins:
"Forget about the evils of Darwinism.
Some creationists say the initial blame lies with the evils of Copernicanism."

From fixedearth.com:
"The Bible Denys Copernicanism"

"All of the evidence that is required to expose and destroy the counterfeit Copernican Model of a rotating and orbiting Earth--and the entire evolutionary paradigm resting upon that counterfeit--is set out in
scores of links on this web page."

This probably has no chance of getting traction. But, if one
were ask people (geocentric or heliocentric?), I wonder how often one would get the right answer?

Adding this junk to the "culture of misery" the religionists want to create, we have a real nightmare in this country. How long will it be before we hear "The Kingdom of God" as the goal of a presidential campaign?

I don't have to wait for Lenny.

I know of no evidence whatsoever supporting the notion (myth? fable?) that a supernatural force of any kind was required to produce the "first humans." All indications are that the "first humans" were born of their parents, like all other humans and all other sexually-reproducing multi-cellular living things.

That there's no evidence for a supernatural intervention (care to explain, FL, how you would propose that we would even begin to go about obtaining such evidence, using the same scientific method we use to predict the weather, launch satellites, and harness nuclear energy?) does not, of course, mean that it didn't happen. But I'm unlikely to believe that until I'm shown the evidence.

Unlike FL, who apparently believes the "evidence" of the way-later-recorded oral traditions of a tribe of migrant herders, which traditions incorporate a melange of stories told by even earlier peoples (who nonetheless drew different conclusions about which gods were responsible for cranking the plot machinery), none of which are supported by any particular evidence.

Of course, oral traditions can sometimes perpetuate--in highly schematized and personified form--real information about significant past natural events, such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and floods, and of real historical events and personages. Such is suspected to be the case with the myths of certain Northwest Coast native peoples regarding the conflicts of Thunderbird and Whale: these may "record" subduction quakes and the resultant tsunamis. Presumably, however, FL will join the rest of us in doubting that they "record" the actual existence of the demiurges Thunderbird and Whale.

Essentially similar tales with similar plots are widespread all over the world. This may tell us something about the origin and spread of modern humans, or something about the pre-scientific mode of explaining natural and cultural phenomena, but it does not seem likely that it tells us a whole lot about the existence and motivations of a host (or a few, or one) of mighty invisible sky-beings.

FL ought, of course, to apply this same skepticism and critical faculty to the notion that the migrant herder tales from the Midddle East vouchsafe the existence of the supernatural beings to which they attribute the origin of a great flood, etc. But he won't--some tribal myths are simply entitled, without any satisfactory explanation, to much more credence than others...

Why put "first humans" in quotes? Because the "first humans" almost certainly resembled their parents, the "last ape-men," in almost every respect--just as you greatly resemble and differ slightly from your own parents and children, such that drawing some kind of hard and fast line between the generations, and assigning one generation to our most recent proto-human ancestors and another to their fully-human offspring, is almost certainly impossible--the kind of phony dichotomy that makes for dramatic stories, but poor science.

Does this set of evidence-based understandings make me an "atheist," a "materialist," or any other -ist? Does FL's set of evidence-free beliefs make him a "creationist," a "Luddite," a "fundamentalist"? Do applying these kinds of labels to each other usefully sort us into criminals and good guys, abusers and nurturers, worthy and unworthy members of our species?

In most cases, no. Most of the time, FL probably teaches a lot of good lessons using his bag of ancient tales and metaphors, while doing relatively little harm. I hope I mostly pass along good information, and cause relatively little harm, as I encourage others to use their senses and critical faculties to evaluate the evidence that explicates our reality.

Neither support for evolution nor belief in an interventionist creator can reliably sort us into good or bad people, or good and bad parents, or even--on many issues--good or bad citizens. But the capacity to critically evaluate the evidence--or to ignore and obfuscate it--does threaten to divide us into opposing "cultural" camps of the reality-based and the superstition-driven.

FL evidently wants us to declare sides in a "tribal" culture war. Even though I may be just as good a citizen, neighbor, parent, and friend as he, he apparently thinks, at some not-too-deeply buried level of things, that I'm "evil" because I don't go to the same church he does. If I don't change my mind, bad things will, and ought, to happen to me, either here or in the happy hunting grounds...

I, on the other hand, don't have any particular problem with his personal belief system, so long as he doesn't try to impose it upon me, my children, my government, or my school system. Can FL say the same, and back his claims with evidence of the same kind and quality that allows us to predict weather (without idolizing Thunderbird or Thor?) or launch satellites (without invoking Mercury or Hephaestus?) or harness nuclear energy (without propitiating Zeus or Jehovah?).

I don't think so. But time will tell. In the meantime, I find FL's intense interest in getting us to "confess" the basis for our personal thought/belief systems deeply troubling. Keeping tabs in this way leads to what good end, FL, here or in the afterlife? Mind coughing up your underlying motivations there, good buddy? Purely for purposes of peaceful discussion and intellectual cameraderie?

There is NO meaning of Darwinism, for example, that does NOT "reject supernatural phenomena and causations", is there?

— FL

(1) ---That you guys are practicing a double standard, (it's called 'hypocrisy'), trying to jump on ID advocates for using the term "Darwinism" without defining the term, while not saying one peep of public criticism towards your fellow evolutionists who do the same thing (and yes there's specific very recent examples on the table, Cornell University and Dr. Michael Ruse's website.)

Steve writes
"LOL! No, that's the character Vizzini from the movie The Princess Bride. After he keeps shouting "inconceivable!" to things that actually happen (and are thus quite clearly conceivable), Inigo Montoya remarks, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I need to get out more.

Steve,

While disagreeing with the ID'ists on this page over many issues, I think that in this case some of them have raised a valid point. In all frankness my view is that you and Dark Syde both have in this case raised a red herring-or probably several red herrings.

The definition (according to Dark Syde's diary) that was given to him by the ID'ist of Darwinist was evolution by random genetic mutation and natural selection. That definition while short, is essentially accurate. It would have been more accurate on the basis of that definition to say "neo-Darwinist" since Darwinism proper did not specify the mechanism of inheritance.

Again, simply because people don't use a term in the technical literature does not mean the term is invalid. People do use the basic principles and concepts. People do constantly use terms like gene flow, mutation, fitness, natural selection. These of course are the basic concepts of the Neo-Darwinian research tradition.

I think it is fair to challenge the ID'ists to be specific when they throw terms around. But when it comes down to it, whether one agrees with them or not, the term "Darwinian" or "Neo-Darwinian" does indeed describe a general approach to biology. In fact, it is after Darwin that there are significant changes in how biology is practiced and viewed. Prior to Darwin teleological and design explanations were part of science. Post-Darwin, they were not. Granted, the change didn't happen overnight, but Darwin did inaugarate a change in how we think about the world. Some would say (and I would include myself) that this was a "Darwinian Revolution". Thus it is not unfair to equate Darwinism, in the broadest sense of the word, with an overall philosophical approach to science.

The ID'ists are attacking this revolution. I disagree with them and I think they have not offered any good reasons to abandon. Just because people don't use the term in all their technical writings means absolutely nothing when it comes right down to it.

If you want to make a hyper-empiricist case for science, make it. If you want to argue that science functions without philosophy of any sort or kind, make that argument. Thus far, I haven't seen much in the way of argumentation at all.

In fact, Rev. Lenny, isn't this ~your~ position as well? Mmm?

The definition (according to Dark Syde's diary) that was given to him by the ID'ist of Darwinist was evolution by random genetic mutation and natural selection. That definition while short, is essentially accurate. It would have been more accurate on the basis of that definition to say "neo-Darwinist" since Darwinism proper did not specify the mechanism of inheritance.

AD,

If you go to Daily Kos and read Dark Syde's original article, you will see that I am quoting Dark Syde directly. Also, Steve repeats this definition.

Now, I agree with both Dark Syde and Steve that ID'ists have a tendency to throw the term around and use it carelessly. Furthermore, I agree they tend to conflate several philosophical principles into one.

My disagreement is not over criticizing ID'ists for misusing and abusing the term. The way both Steve and Dark Syde have stated their views leads me to believe that they are denying the importance and significance of the term altogether. For reasons I have stated above, and thus will not repeat here, I think that terms like "Darwinian", "Neo-Darwinian", "Mendelian" are very useful terms. Amd each of these terms does have an ontological underpinning. Incidentally, if you back and read Dark Syde's original diary, you might see why in my interpreation of Dark Syde is at best skirting the issue of ontology and other important philosophical issues.

Just as it does not pay to use the term "Darwinian" carelessly, it does not pay to be careless about basic principles of philosophy.

Now, if Dark Syde and Steve want to clarify their position and state that they agree that there is indeed a research tradition (paradigm, research program, etc.) that can usefully be called Neo-Darwinian, and will admit that research traditions in science have ontological, epistemological as well as conceptual and observation statements, I'll shut up on this issue. If they will admit that the term "Darwinian" has extreme importance in the history of science, I'll shut up.

So far all I see is people refusing to address this issue and offering naive empiricist dogmas to justify a position.

I'm reminded of Keynes' dictum that madmen authority who claim to be immune from the influence of economists, are often distilling the wisdom of some defunct economist. Ditto for scientists who claim to be immune from the influence of philosophy. They also tend to be distilling the wisdom of some defunct philosopher. In this case my suspicion is that it is an ill considered and poorly understand version and conflation of Popper and the logical positivists. Perhaps its Pemple and Hopper they are influenced by?

(2) ---That if I choose to call you a Darwinist, BWE, (with or without "defining" the term), I have NOT placed an inaccurate label on you.

Well, why not? Because even though there are "numerous meanings" to the term Darwinism (Mayr), any flavor of which you may personally choose to identify or not-identify with, the fact remains that there exist several non-negotiable tenets of Darwinism no matter what flavor you choose or don't choose. Those tenets are described uncompromisingly by Mayr in his SciAm article, and they are echoed by Futuyma ("a completely mindless process" with "no purpose" "no conscious forethought" and "no goal") in his evolutionary biology textbook.

Think of Uncommon descent as the room under the tree.

Now, if Dark Syde and Steve want to clarify their position and state that they agree that there is indeed a research tradition (paradigm, research program, etc.) that can usefully be called Neo-Darwinian, and will admit that research traditions in science have ontological, epistemological as well as conceptual and observation statements, I'll shut up on this issue. If they will admit that the term "Darwinian" has extreme importance in the history of science, I'll shut up.

That you guys are practicing a double standard, (it's called 'hypocrisy'), trying to jump on ID advocates for using the term "Darwinism" without defining the term, while not saying one peep of public criticism towards your fellow evolutionists who do the same thing (and yes there's specific very recent examples on the table, Cornell University and Dr. Michael Ruse's website.)

That if I choose to call you a Darwinist, BWE, (with or without "defining" the term), I have NOT placed an inaccurate label on you.

So, BWE, if you call me Jeff Whassisname, you are inaccurate. In a previous thread, I've already identified both my hometown and home-church, and if you contact Jeff for HIS hometown and HIS home-church, you'll find they don't match with mine.

So far all I see is people refusing to address this issue and offering naive empiricist dogmas to justify a position.

Darwinism, I would assume could not mean more, nor for that matter less, than an understanding and employing the knowledge of the role of natural selection in speciation.

AD,

Since I've addressed some of these points in previous posts I'll confine myself to summarizing.

I don't think that any one has ever claimed that all researchers in a field sit down and consciously think about the research program. Nor do they try (for the most part) to exhibit doctrinal conformity. For most people a research program is probably not even consciously thought of. And I think this becomes increasingly true as the research program becomes more dominant and more accepted and more successful. Neo-Darwinism has been tremendously successful and therefore very few people sit down and feel a need to consciously justify it or examine it (save for philosophers of biology). But this does not mean that it does not exist or exert a real force on scientific thinking and practice.

If you go back and look at Steve's list of terms that do show up you will see that they all refer to core concepts of Neo-Darwinism. Terms like selection, fitness, genetic mutation, gene flow are all central concepts. An article that purported to demonstrate Lamarckian inheritance would face an enormously high burden of proof if submitted to the vast majority of journals-and it should! In contrast, no one spends a lot of time trying to prove the Central Dogma of modern genetics. But everybody uses it and accepts it as a valid principle. The Central Dogma is of course a core concept in modern evolutionary thought-which I will conveniently call "Neo-Darwinian".

I'm getting frustrated because I have made these points before and now have the sense that none of my points have been addressed.

Oh well. If people want to continue to present an image of science that derives from Pemple and Hopper, who am I to stop them?

The definition (according to Dark Syde's diary) that was given to him by the ID'ist of Darwinist was evolution by random genetic mutation and natural selection. That definition while short, is essentially accurate.

— Chip Poirot

It would have been more accurate on the basis of that definition to say "neo-Darwinist" since Darwinism proper did not specify the mechanism of inheritance.

Again, simply because people don't use a term in the technical literature does not mean the term is invalid.

The ID'ists are attacking this revolution.

If you want to make a hyper-empiricist case for science, make it. If you want to argue that science functions without philosophy of any sort or kind, make that argument.

The way both Steve and Dark Syde have stated their views leads me to believe that they are denying the importance and significance of the term altogether.

Now, if Dark Syde and Steve want to clarify their position and state that they agree that there is indeed a research tradition (paradigm, research program, etc.) that can usefully be called Neo-Darwinian, and will admit that research traditions in science have ontological, epistemological as well as conceptual and observation statements, I'll shut up on this issue. If they will admit that the term "Darwinian" has extreme importance in the history of science, I'll shut up.

(2) ---That if I choose to call you a Darwinist, BWE, (with or without "defining" the term), I have NOT placed an inaccurate label on you.

— FL

I've seen the world "Darwinism" to mean essentially BS detector in an editorial.
That would seem to me to be a term that has consistant meaning by both scientists and people like F.L. except of course F.L. is unwittingly showing his ignorance every time he uses it.

So F.L. who unknowingly projects 'I don't like "darwinism" because it detects my BS' is correctly using the term.

I'm getting frustrated because I have made these points before and now have the sense that none of my points have been addressed.

Neo-Darwinism has been tremendously successful and therefore very few people sit down and feel a need to consciously justify it or examine it (save for philosophers of biology). But this does not mean that it does not exist or exert a real force on scientific thinking and practice.

I would define Neo-Darwinist as any theory that explains common descent and bio-diversity as resulting from non-acquired genetic variation as the mechanism of inheritance and gradual natural selection.

In contrast, no one spends a lot of time trying to prove the Central Dogma of modern genetics.

Oh well. If people want to continue to present an image of science that derives from Pemple and Hopper, who am I to stop them?

Steve,

This is the original quote from Dark Syde, reprinted above by you:

That definition is essentially correct. Again, just because people do not use the term consciously when they publish an article does not make the term unimportant to scientific research.

"Darwinism" has meant many things. In the 19th century Darwinism simply meant "evolutionism". And evolutionism included saltationist and teleological theories of evolution. Darwinism was later used to distinguish a focus on natural selection from Mendelism.

At the core of Darwin's explanation for bio-diversity was constant variation and natural selection. So technically speaking, any theory that incorporates both is "Darwinian".

I think there are actually multiple positions within the ID movement-which is part of the problem. As a whole, it is just a confused mish mash of religious and quasi-religious thinking in combination with a few discredited ideas. But on the whole, they do know what they are attacking, even if they get a lot of technical points wrong. What they are attacking is the idea that the origin of species can be explained exclusively (at least in scientific terms) as a natural process. And they rightly equate Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism with that view.

I'm all for challenging them and pinning them down on their definitions and term usage. But it is not helpful, nor in my opinion really intellectually honest to insist that "Darwinism" or "Neo-Darwinism" are irrelevant to scientific research.

AD,

First a definition. I would define a theory as a statement that specifies causal relationships. For example: The Quantity Theory of Money specifies a causal relationship between the quantity of monetary aggregates and the price level. So inflation is "explained" by increases in the money supply. Now, I would call the Quantity Theory of Money a discredited theory or ill supported hypothesis, but let's not go there for now. It has the formal structure of a theory and is capable of being tested. If we want to be technical we can distinguish between theory and hypothesis-as in an hypothesis is an untested theory. One can distinguish between specific theories such as "the theory of natural selection" and groups of related theories. I would call groups of related theories a "research tradition" (but feel free to substitute in the word "research program", "paradigm", etc.). So for exaple, "Monetarism" and "Keynesianism" are more general theories. They incorporate a lot more than just one specific causal statement. The relationship between theory, ontology, epistemology and observation terms is complex. People like Quine, Laudan and most recently Susan Haack have wrestled with this issue.

All the above is a much abbreviated discussion that is much lengthier and more problematic.

There is therefore no "the theory of evolution". At least not historically. Historically there have been many theories of evolution. Goldschmidt has a "theory of evolution" that has been discredited. He explains bio diversity by dramatic reorganization of chromosomes leading to macro mutations and then elimination or survival by natural selection. His theory is not really Darwinist per se because it is not gradualist-though clearly it is Darwinist with its focus on selection.

What you call "the theory of evolution" is the modern synthetic theory of evolution: evolution by variation of non-acquired genetic characteristics and differential survival by natural selection. The common term for the modern synthetic theory is "Neo-Darwinism". The term is used to distinguish the modern synthetic theory from rivals and precursors. If it makes you feel better to say "synthetic theory" all well and good, though some might ask "what are you synthesizing?" Well, the obvious answer is Mendelian genetics and natural selection-though I suppose the term Mendelian does not do modern genetics full justice. But modern genetics does owe its debt to Mendel just as natural selection really owes its debt to Darwin and Wallace. So the term "Neo-Darwinian" is readily descriptive.

The term "central dogma" is sometimes used to refer to the underlying principle of "Mendelian" genetics: in other words, only changes that occur in the chromosomes of the sex cells can be transmitted to offspring. So Lamarckian inheritance is ruled out. Note how by saying "Lamarckian" I also readily and easily convey a well understood, albeit discredited concept-or really, a number of discredited concepts. So the term "Mendelian" genetics helps us to distinguish from Lamarckian concepts.

As for my views on science, for lack of a better term I would call myself a classical pragmatist. You could also call me a Piercean since classical pragmatism descends from the writings of Charles Sanders Pierce (and please don't confuse us with Rorty's vulgar pragmatism and his butchering of Dewey). Some well known modern classical pragmatists are Larry Laudan and Susan Haack. In some ways I think Elliott Sober is also influenced by Classical Pragmatism.

How do you defend science from the onslaught against it by the religious right and the Pomo Left? The only way is to get in there and slug it out. It's a battle one fights daily. But we certainly don't make progress by running away from terms and quoting Pemple and Hopper.

Btw: do you get the reference to Pemple and Hopper? They don't exist. It's Popper and Hempel. A lot of people in discussing science seem to mix Popper and Hempel quite naively while engaging in naive and excessive deferentialism to science. Popper and Hempel said some similar things and some dissimilar things.

But again, to paraphrase Keynes-scientists who claim to be immune from the influence of philosophers are often distilling the wisdom of some defunct philosopher.

What they are attacking is the idea that the origin of species can be explained exclusively (at least in scientific terms) as a natural process. And they rightly equate Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism with that view.

Chip,

Yeah, I did get the reference regarding them - I claim to be nothing even approaching an expert on philosophy (and to a point, this is very deliberate), but I do know the names. I'm a sort of anti-philosopher myself, which is not to say that I believe philosophy is "bad" or any such nonsense. It has great value. I just try to always build from the ground up, in terms of observing practical reality, defining a goal, and then using whatever methods best achieve that goal.

With regard to what you are saying, I don't disagree with your intent. In fact, I think we probably have nearly identical viewpoints on this. My issue is not related to philosophy, really. It is this:

From a purely practical standpoint, there are political activist groups attempting to attach (knowingly) bogus definitions to things like "Darwinist". Either we need to present a united front in rejecting them (which has not, as of yet, happened), or we need to deny them the hill on which they wish to do battle by changing our terms.

Rhetorically speaking, either of those are a valid strategy, but the latter seems to be much more practical in execution. That's my main concern.

However, you raise some valuable concerns about the context within which science is conducted - yet I would think that the intense value placed on new and verifiable research would mean that if someone had a solid study that put a dent into a current major theory, it would become the "hot" issue in science in a good way. The problem is that scientists invalidate science, and it is the competition among scientists for research money and stature that make such a system work.

To wit, I think one of the big problems I have with some scientists is that they feel the need to use science as a stepping stone for their own religious beliefs, which they then portray as science. Likewise, when those who are not scientifically educated attempt to co-opt science and twist it to fit their religion, they are essentially doing the same thing. There's a line drawn by methodological naturalism that cannot be effectively crossed, and yet, people find it very easy to cross that line at times. Often, I think this is to gain recognition, yet it's ultimately counterproductive for everyone.

This is not to say I disagree with the historical value of the terms - in fact, I think you are dead on to say that Lamarckianism or Darwinism have historical contexts that are highly valuable. We'd be unable to intelligently discuss the history of moder biology without them.

Likewise, though, in the specific debate we are in now about evolution, it's misleading to keep bringing up Darwinism. Why?

We aren't talking to philosophers of science (who are, on average, way more educated about science than all laymen and some scientists), and we aren't talking to people who realize we don't mean everything Darwin said was right when we throw around that term. I think that's where the disconnect is; I'm not talking about historical context and you're not talking about specific debate tactics. In essence, I think we are both right, now that I've read your explanation.

Thank you.

I'm all for challenging them and pinning them down on their definitions and term usage. But it is not helpful, nor in my opinion really intellectually honest to insist that "Darwinism" or "Neo-Darwinism" are irrelevant to scientific research.

— Chip Poirot

Steve and AD,

I agree that the ID'ists tend to use rhetorical tricks (at least when they are being clever). Sometimes they simply speak from pure misinformation. I also agree that as a general rule, it is pointless for a researcher to specify the research tradition in each and every article. So in that sense, terms like Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, etc. are probably not very useful in day to day scientific work.

But the terms still are useful in more general overall discussions. So in a discussion about the nature and history of science for example, it is useful to use terms like "Darwinian" or "Neo-Darwinian", "Copernican", etc. They are useful umbrella terms that convey information just as are terms like Monetarist, Keynesian...

AD, I have the sense you want to argue for a pure inductive approach to science. But we have known since Hume this is not possible. Since Pierce we have known we use induction, deduction and abduction.

In the history of science, prior to Darwin science, or more precisely, natural philosophy, did indeed invoke "supernatural" explanations. Paley was one of England's foremost scientists-not a raving backwoods fundamentalist. Darwin shifted the terms of debate and the publication of the Origin of Species altered the nature and meaning of the word "science".

Though I agree that ID'ists try to present Darwinism as too dogmatic, it is still not wrong to portray the modern theory of evolution as "natural selection acting on random genetic variation". Sure, there are things like structural constraints and sexual selectiona and random drift. But "random genetic mutation" I think covers genetic drift and natural selection to my way of thinking is just ultimately shorthand for a myriad of factors that influence differential survival and reproduction. I think their point is that they think science, particularly evolution, should include vitalistic, teleological and/or saltationist theories, because vitalism, teleology and saltationism leave the door open for supernatural explanations.

So while modern science does, by definition, exclude supernatural explanations, that does not detract from the fact that Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism are ultimately responsible for that. Now when I say "exclude supernatural explanations" I mean that they exclude such explanations from the structure of scientific explanation. I do not mean that it excludes such things as "theistic evolution" for example.

I think the best strategy in dealing with this is to say "yes, I do eschew explanations based on vitalism, teleology and saltationism...". For that matter, when used and defined carefully, I would proudly admit to being a "mechanist" or a "determinist" or a "materialist". Rather then run from the terms, I would embrace them and discuss their full meaning and application.

Its a little bit like being called a liberal. As soon as you say "this is a meaningless term" you have lost the debate. Better to embrace it and defend the principles of liberalism. When Howard Dean was on hardball and was asked "Is the Democratic Party Pro-Choice" he should have said resoundingly yes-and here's why. We're pro-freedom. Instead, he got trapped into sounding confused.

Anyway, if you wish to bow out it is probably a good thing. I suspect we have reached the point where we may just be talking past each other.

AD, I have the sense you want to argue for a pure inductive approach to science. But we have known since Hume this is not possible. Since Pierce we have known we use induction, deduction and abduction.

Edit:

Somehow, I snipped a middle paragraph, which was...

I also agree about hitting back on definitions. I definitely agree that when someone tries to frame the terms of a debate to put you at a disadvantage, you turn that back on them by defending what your terms actually mean (which puts them in a difficult spot opposing you) and the significance thereof. The trick, however, is knowing which terms to do this with. Sometimes it's better to pull the rug out on someone by denying the fight, though; you can damage someones credibility in a debate if you can show the argument they are attacking is a nonsensical strawman. In an ideal world, you'd use a combination of both to make them seem uninformed and incompetent, all while defending your turf.

These are very serious science issues we are dealing with here. For example: Can evolution really explain wesley's tolerance to iocane? I don't think so. So when you go out there just haphazardly bandying about the term "Darwinian" referring to prince humperdink's hold on power, you are potentially laying the groundwork for real social strife in our own universe. Jeez. It's not just "as you wish" here.

Philosophy and science --

Many of the comments have been a helpful refresher. (I remind you that research is done by people good enough and fortunate enough to be awarded a Ph.D. What does that abbreviate, again?) I'll just pitch in a older, throughly discussed concept: the physicists 'principle of least action'. There is simply no prior reason that nature should be explicable by least action. Indeed, there may be some mathematical framework which explains physical phenomena without appeal to least action.

However, the mathematics of least action offers an easy route to predict, for example, refraction as well as many other disparate phenomena. So many take the principle of least action to be part of the philosophy of physics.

Where is the dogma? (Out chasing the karma)

Rev, I wish you would if you keep telling jokes like that >.>

Come oooonnnn --- you know you laughed at them.

Heck, probably even Larry laughed at them.

And, until his recent experiment with punning (search "bug" on the recent emtomology thread), no rumor of humor had ever tinkled the doorbell of his cranium.

Oops. make that "entomology."

Emtomology, I suppose, might involve whatever hijinks our emergency responders get up to in between shifts...

The movie (The Princess Bride) is on cable this afternoon.

Henry

Re "The movie (The Princess Bride) is on cable this afternoon."

Cancel that post - apparently the monthly cable Channel Guide was wrong.

178,000,000 for god
232,000,000 for sex
510,000,000 for love
38,600,000 for cult
3,900,000 for Stupid christians

Some other google results.

If, as my wife claims, god is love, then god beats sex hands down.