I strongly disagree with the arguments of this essay by Carl Safina, "Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live", even while I think there is a germ of truth to its premise. It reads more like a contrarian backlash to all the attention being given to Darwin in this bicentennial of his birth. The author makes three general claims that he thinks justify his call to "kill Darwin".
The first is a reasonable concern, that "equating evolution with Darwin" is misleading and can lead to public misunderstanding…but then Safina charges off into ridiculous hyperbole, that scientists are making Darwin into a "sacred fetish", and creating a "cult of Darwinism". It's simply not true. I go through this every year, when I'm off to give a talks about Darwin around the time of Darwin Day, and there's no deification going on anywhere. I talk about the central principles of Darwinism, which are still valid, but I also point out that he got many things wrong (genetics is the most vivid example), and that the science has advanced significantly since his day. I've talked to many other scientists who do the same sorts of lectures, and nobody portrays him as Saint Darwin.
As for equating evolution and Darwin, I deny that, too. I reject the label of "Darwinist" because my interests in the field are so remote and alien from what Darwin did that we really don't have much in common — I care about evo-devo and molecular phylogenies and gene regulation and signal transduction, none of which invalidate Darwin's ideas about selection and change and common descent, but which are such distant derivations of 19th century science that if Darwin were handed one of the papers in the field, he would find it incomprehensible. Again, this is a common experience among my colleagues: we respect Darwin as the discoverer of a set of general core principles, principles that have stood the test of time and are still incredibly useful, but we've moved on.
Safina makes a second and very common error: he claims that Darwin didn't say anything new, anyway. There is a strange historical industry dedicated to finding omens and portents in other people's writings that preceded Darwin, and it is entirely true that ideas like the transmutation of species were bubbling up all over the place in pre-Darwinian Europe. You can also find short passages in the works of virtually unknown authors that even hint at the process of selection. Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, was known as a bit of a heretic who contemplated the unity of all life, and Robert Chambers published his theory of evolution, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, in 1844, and of course Wallace was the co-discoverer of the idea of natural selection. If there had been no Darwin, his theory would still have emerged out of the ferment of biological thought going on in that century. But he still deserves full credit. Darwin is the man who realized the grand import of the idea; this was no casual mention of an interesting possibility, but a profound recognition that his explanation for the origin of species was going to have a sweeping effect on science and society, and a determination that he would document it thoroughly and well. Darwin also explained the concept lucidly, and with volumes of evidence, to such a degree that Thomas Huxley would say "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!" upon learning about it.
Respect for Darwin is as much for the disciplined and scientific way he addressed the problem as it is for the discovery itself. When we celebrate Darwin, we are not cheering for a man who got lucky one day, but for someone who represents many of what we consider scientific virtues: curiousity, rigor, discipline, meticulous observation, experiment, and intellectual courage.
Safina's third complaint is that we've discovered so much more since Darwin, that "Almost everything we understand about evolution came after Darwin, not from him". This is trivially obvious. We could say similar things about Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Dalton, Lavoisier, Dalton, Mendel, any scientist of the past you can name. Mendel, for example, is a fellow I spend a week discussin in my genetics course to explain the simplistic basics…and then I spend the rest of the semester explaining that all of his postulates are so loaded with exceptions that they are often completely false in many real-world genetic situations. Yet at the same time his principles represent a powerful starting point for deciphering the complexities of genetics. Shall we throw Mendel out of the history books because 143 years of progress have reduced his seminal work to a relatively tiny blip in the volumes of evidence since?
Safina is taking a deeply anti-historical position, and I would go so far as to call it an anti-scientific one, as well. Science is all about the evidence for what we know, and explaining how we know it; announcing that Darwin must go is to throw out the foundation of our discipline, and teach disrespect rather than appreciation for our origins. It's also damaging to public education: we can explain Darwin's insights to the lay public, but it's almost impossible to explain the details of modern research without relating it to the central questions that Darwin formulated 150 years ago.
So, obviously, don't canonize, beatify, or apotheosize Darwin … but don't throw him out, either. He is (not was) important.
65 Comments
David Hudson · 10 February 2009
If there were any such thing as "Darwinism", its adhernts, its "ists" would behave as other true believers in an "ism" do; that is, spend much time not on research, but on reading the basic texts, Origins of Secies, Descent of Man, and his last book on worms, and then expostulating their hidden meanings. Even research would be directed by the text in order to explain a sentence here, a paragraph there. By this standard, no biologist can be a "Darwinist"; a biologist does real science.
vel · 10 February 2009
I wrote Dr. Safina about this. I have yet to see any evolutionary biologist call the theory "Darwinism". I find it even rare to see the word "Darwinian" used. In my experience, the only ones who use the first term are creationists who use it in an attempt to conflate evolutionary theory with communi*ism* and fasc*ism*. They are quite like the Bush adminstration when they came up with "Islamists". Dr. Safina simply has his cause and effect reversed.
This essay just seemed like a way to get some attention by being contrary.
harold · 10 February 2009
The real culprits are the pseudo-intellectual low-brows of the American news establishment, who constantly indulge in the tired and stereotyped tactic of trying to declare that "controversies", defined simplistically as being the result of "two equally supported and opposing sides", exist, where there is no controversy at all. (Not infrequently this is accomplished by presenting the valid, evidence-supported "side" of the "controversy" or "debate" as a rigid, inflexible straw man, and presenting "the exact opposite" as the only alternative to the straw man.)
The problem with Safina's essay is expressed in one of his sentences.
"By propounding “Darwinism,” even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one “theory.”"
No supporting evidence is given to justify this statement.
And in fact it is simply not true.
He could have said, "By heavily emphasizing Darwin, a small minority of science writers put excess emphasis on the direct role of Darwin in modern evolutionary biology". That would have been accurate.
But what Safina says is simply not true. There are not significant numbers of scientists or science writers who "propound 'Darwinism'".
Of course, one will find plenty of biographical and historical treatments of Darwin, as well as of Gallileo, Newton, Einstien, etc. A biographical study of Darwin is no more "propounding Darwinism" than a biographical study of Gallileo is "propounding Gallileism".
Kenneth B · 10 February 2009
Re: "the cult of darwin". I attended an excellent talk by Michael Ruse last week. Near the end of the talk, the title of one of his slides was "Should we venerate Darwin today?" Ruse's answer was "Yes", not because Darwin was right about everything, but because he set the program for future scientists to follow, much in the same way that Newton did. My immediate thought: "Uh oh. The creationists in the audience are going have a field day with that terminology" Sure enough, I heard some people chatting after the conference about how Ruse said we should "worship" Darwin. _I_ understand what he meant by "venerate", but to the average man on the street the word "venerate" has very religious connotations, e.g. the catholic doctrine of the veneration of saints. I think "venerate" in this context was a poor choice of words. Unfortunately, it's mistakes like that that give creationists ammunition to call Evolution a religion.
fnxtr · 10 February 2009
Reminds me of Boulez' whiny "Schoenberg is Dead".
kevin · 10 February 2009
It is mostly creationist who use the term Darwinism. Most scientifically literate people understand that while evolution still embraces the basic principles outlined by Darwin, 150 years of advances in biology has significantly changed our understanding of the process. Calling evolution Darwinism allows fundamentalists to ignore the past 150 years of evidence that has developed to support his theory.
That being said, it is appropriate to recognize Darwin for his contributions, his vision, his research, and his humanity.
Larry_boy · 10 February 2009
Larry_boy · 10 February 2009
Where "here quiz" should read "her quiz"
Larry_boy · 10 February 2009
Heck, I'm not even sure I mention Darwin when we do our two weeks on evolution. I only get ~30 minutes to talk, and I'm not going to spend too much time on irrelevant historical asides.
Pete · 10 February 2009
Previously, I would agree that "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" was a term used exclusively by creationists for their own purposes. However it seems to me that at least Dawkins in the "Blind Watchmaker" uses the term frequently. Am I wrong about this? It was a library book and I don't have it in front of me.
Larry_boy · 10 February 2009
DS · 10 February 2009
I also propose that no one should worship Mendelism or Einsteinism.
Seriously, recognizing the proper place of Darwin's accomplishments in the history of science is in no way a type of worship. Only someone who isn't actually a biologist would even think that it might be.
Cory Zimmerman · 10 February 2009
I agree with Safina. The masses should no longer issue any residual scientific credit for groundbreaking work performed in the past. If Darwin hadn't put forth years of effort formulating his theory of evolution, some other common schmo would have. I mean, science isn't about introducing new groundbreaking ideas so future scientists can build on them. It's about getting it right the first time, so everyone can justly call that branch of science yours. Makes me wonder where Mendeletics is....
Furthermore, I think the process of pasteurization should henceforth be called science-procedure-fine-tuned-over-the-years-for-the-sake-of-public-food-safety-ization, because frankly, Pasteur's been hogging all the credit lately.
And what of this Einstein jerk slapping his name all over Science's theories of relativity? Sure, Einstein did all the hard work initially. But it's not fair! Relativity should belong to Science, not Albie.
Coming Soon:
Maybe we'll see a public statement from Safina to the effect that he will be recalling everything he has ever written, so each work may be retitled, "One Unique Product of the Ideas That Came Before Me," by Human Being.
And if I ever actually hear of the cult of Darwinism (which I just now discovered reading Safina's article), then golly-gee, I swear I'll naturally-select their whole cult out of existence!
Henry J · 10 February 2009
Not to mention the more than half scientists that got chemical elements named after them (including Einstein).
Eric Blood Axe · 10 February 2009
Come now! Newtons gravitation may be old hat, but most of his other work. Binomial theorm, mechanics, physics is just as valid today as it ever was.
FL · 10 February 2009
Stanton · 10 February 2009
Dave Luckett · 10 February 2009
All right, fair enough, the word "Darwinism" has been used, even by a distinguished biologist. It was inadvisable usage, perhaps, because it carries overtones - certainly unintended, as the rest of the quote shows - that the Theory of Evolution is a teaching or a doctrine rather than an overwhelmingly-supported explanation for the origin of species, backed up by enormous quantities of unimpeachable evidence. OK. So what?
In the war FL's fighting, this is as close to a victory as it gets. I was going to say that it's like bringing a wet noodle to a tank battle, but that isn't true. FL can't be killed by the weapons available. He is immune to evidence, deaf to reason and blind to the heresies of his own warped theology. But that only means that reason and evidence can't touch him. He's bullet-proof, invulnerable. It all passes right through him. He has just marched up to the M1 and slapped its front plate with his piece of boiled spaghetti. Congratulations.
Chris Lawson · 11 February 2009
FL is right that Mayr used the word "Darwinism" several times in an article he wrote for Scientific American. You can check the full article here (PDF: http://www.geocities.com/cybermorphy/mayr2000.pdf).
But Mayr is using this as a historical term, that is, as per the article's title "Darwin's influence on modern thought." One may note, if one reads the article, that Mayr does not say that Darwin was right about everything biological. What Mayr is talking about is the philosophical legacy of Darwin, and that's why he repeatedly uses the term "Darwinism" when he discusses things like Darwin's demolition of teleology and determinism.
vel · 11 February 2009
Ah, thank you, Chris Lawrence for responding with that link. I suspected as much just from reading that one sentence and reading Dr. Mayr's wikipedia(!) entry. I find it just too cute that creationists (I'm assuming FL is this) have to lie so ineptly for their cause.
FL · 11 February 2009
teach · 11 February 2009
harold · 11 February 2009
GuyeFaux · 11 February 2009
Stanton · 11 February 2009
John D · 11 February 2009
Ichthyic · 11 February 2009
you don't have that quite right.
The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the observation of evolution (the observation that species change over time), while natural selection is considered one mechanism of the larger theory of evolution. Neutral drift is another mechanism, but is still part of the larger theory of evolution.
so the correct answer to the question: "What is the name of the theory which describes how organisms change over time?"
is evolution.
or, technically, the theory of evolution, but I could see that as being a bit redundant an answer to the question as written.
btw, the confusion, pervasive or not, over the difference between the observation of, and theory of, evolution has been one of the factors people like Dawkins use in favor of maintaining the label "darwinism".
me? I tend to prefer the complete "Theory of Evolution" moniker myself. makes it all clear.
John D · 12 February 2009
Actually, I think I have that right.
Evolution is "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth." (New Oxford American Dictionary)
Evolution is change over time.
So, in the phrase “What is the name of the theory which describes how organisms change over time?,” we can replace "change over time" with "evolution."
“What is the name of the theory which describes how organisms undergo evolution?” (I needed a verb.)
Okay, "theory of evolution" works, but it's not much of an answer.
"Evolution" is not the answer, because it's not a theory, it's an observation. Using the phrase in this sloppy fashion just lets people say, "well, evolution is just a theory."
Make this our mantra: "The theory of evolution is the theory that explains how evolution works."
Ichthyic · 12 February 2009
Sorry, John, but you're wrong here.
evolution is both the name of the theory and the observation. It may be sloppy shorthand to you, but it is indeed how it is most often used. for the purposes of a freshman level bio exam, "evolution" is a perfectly acceptable answer to that question as it was worded.
You're right to raise an objection to the confusion this causes, but then we're already in agreement on that, as mentioned in my previous post.
John Kwok · 12 February 2009
John Kwok · 12 February 2009
just to get back to the main points of PZ's comments, I concur with Neil Shubin's astute observation that it is really amazing how much Darwin got right with regards to biology (which he notes in the PBS NOVA documentary about the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, that is currently airing this week to commemorate Darwin's 200th birthday).
novparl · 13 February 2009
"What evolution is " - Ernst Mayr (2001)
9 references to Darwinism. incl. definition: D's concepts & theories on which his followers base the explanation of evolution.
FL - you'll enjoy this - next entry :"Darwinism, social - A political theory postulating that ruthless egotism is the most successful policy."
Dawkins; Devil's Advocate [but not against evolution, natch] 6 headings in index, incl. "Darwinism is universal".
That'll make 'em really angry...
phantomreader42 · 13 February 2009
Marion Delgado · 13 February 2009
I am almost at the opposite end of most of these discussions from PZ,and yet I agree these articles are despicable, really.
They're an attempt to create a double-bind. Everyone who does one needs to be called on it, and the people telling us we're overreacting are missing the point.
There is no Darwin cult. The statement that there is is itself giving aid and comfort to creationism, which IS a cult.
And the implication that evolution is sick or struggling to live is indeed laughable. I sure hope this sort of nonsense was not what the Macarthur Foundation had in mind with this dope.
I also wonder how much livelier controversy in evolution has to be for some people? I sided a long time ago with Gould and Lewontin, for instance, against people like Dawkins and Pinker, and still do.
But neither "side" was saying either that Darwin was right about everything or that he was a cult leader that had to "die."
This breezy, highly politicized crap is becoming a genre of its own. It's VERY slimy, because the goal is to have you either act like "Darwinism" is a sacred cow or not respond at all while serious scientific issues are dumbed down and trivialized, and ENTIRELY false equivocation runs rampant.
novparl · 14 February 2009
@phantomreader42
Nice to hear from you again.
Dawkins : The Ancestor's Tale. "Darwinism is selfish". Not "was".
DS · 14 February 2009
novpari,
Tracked down that JMS book yet? Willing to admit that there is a valid evolutionary explanation for anisogamy yet? Going to try to move the goalposts yet again?
Just so you know, no one really gets angry with your nonsensical assertations, they just pity you for your ignorance. You have the right to display your ignorance all you want, I just can't understand what you hope to accomplish by doing so.
Yours in Darwin
DS · 14 February 2009
P.S.
More on topic, if you play Lennon's song Imagine backwards you can clearly hear the words "Darwin is dead".
Stanton · 14 February 2009
ben · 14 February 2009
Scott · 14 February 2009
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 14 February 2009
novparl · 15 February 2009
@ Stanton
According to DS, Wikipedia is rubbish. But he won't be honest enough to admit he said so.
Stanton · 15 February 2009
DS · 15 February 2009
I'm right here novpari and my comments are here for all to see.
Do you think that Wikipedia is a good source for scientific information? Is it peer reviewed? Do you think that it is better than the primary literature? Is that where you get your information, or do you just frequent creationist web sites? How reliable do you think those are as a source of scientific information?
So, have you found that JMS book yet? Are you willing to admit that there is a good scientific explanation for the evolution of anisogamey or not? Do you really think that no one has any idea how or why sex evolved? Are you completely ignorant of all of the last 150 years of research?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and everyone else is free to ignore your opinion if is is an uninformed opinion.
Darwin is great, Darwin is good. Blessed be the name of Darwin.
Stanton · 15 February 2009
On the one hand, Wikipedia isn't the best source of information. But, on the other hands, Wikipedia can help lead people to primary sources of information, as well as give them at least a concise summary of pertinent information concerning any given topic.
At the very least, Wikipedia's information is heads and shoulders over the lies and stupidity spewed by creationist websites.
mrg (iml8) · 15 February 2009
novparl · 16 February 2009
@ Stanton
Did you even read the 1st sentence of the Wikip article you recommend? Did you?
I accept Wikipedia as representing mainstream evolutionist thinking. It's DS who doesn't, not me. Shout at him.
Henry J · 16 February 2009
Funny, I figured that an article in Wikipedia would represent the thoughts of the person who wrote that article, which might or might not correspond to the consensus view of a subject. (Ideally it would, but no guarantee, even when the subject is one that has a consensus view.)
Carl Safina · 20 February 2009
My responses to these responses can be found at:
http://carlsafina.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/you-say-you-want-an-evolution-well-yknow/
Troy · 5 May 2009
The problem with Darwinism, which is NOT some creation of creationist, is not from the upper levels of science.
Durring Darwin's time the English freely mixed philosophy and science. One well knows we should do no such thing today, but our knowledge today of the nature of science in no way means his theory is not mixed with philosophy, it is. The philosophical ends are tied into the conception of natural selection - that the fit are of worth, and the rest are not. Taken to its extreme the so-called theory points directly to there being no such thing as God - a matter of which science has no power whatsoever to demonstrate.
There is a belief system which believes this: I believe there is no God. That group has for years used Darwin's work as a spearhead in pushing their belief system. In general it works like this: we are correct and justified in our beliefs because science has proven Darwin's general theory to be true. Today it fly's under the banner of neo-Darwinsm, regardless of the fact that it too is invalidated by science.
We know in the upper levels of science that the problem with Darwinism is well understood, witness for example statements from Lynn Margulis such as, "Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk", or more to the point, Neo-Darwinism is "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology."
The problem does not rest with a lack of understanding in the top ranks, the problem rest in the low level biology text books which are funded by taxpayers dollars and in turn preach Darwin as though the theory is fact, equating "evolution" with his theory etc. It amounts to preaching the teachings of a "a minor twentieth-century religious sect" as though science supports the sects doctrines. This can be completely established by going to any major library, pulling the basic biology text, and viewing how Darwin and his work is treated - we do not teach that it is "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology", but instead, incorrectly treat it as though it is some sort of fact of nature. The problem is not that the fundamentalist, or creationist are in those text books, their not - its that the Darwinist are.
Flint · 5 May 2009
Much of the inspiration for Darwin's original thesis was derived from considering the results of selective breeding, which everyone from farmers to hunters to pigeon fanciers had been practicing for centuries. Selective breeding wasn't a "minor religious cult", it was a practical, useful technique and still is. No gods were involved, only the inherent plasticity of organisms.
Textbooks do not "equate evolution with Darwinism" anymore than they "equate physics with Newtonism." The historical sections note the pioneers of each field, then go on to provide the shape of development of each field, ending with current understandings.
And we treat both evolution and gravity as facts of nature because that's what they are. Still, nobody questions that there are religious cults that reject much of biology for doctrinal reasons, work diligently to misrepresent it as required to force-fit their beliefs, and end up concluding that some facts of nature are religious. Not because they are, but because their religion is in some sense incompatible with reality, and they blame the reality.
And so some folks go to the library, see that facts are presented as facts, note which facts refute their religious convictions, and reject those facts as having the wrong religion!
Troy · 5 May 2009
A great deal of inspiration for Darwin's work was Malthus, who himself was anything but unbiased - simply read what he had to say of the Irish, which in turn was used to promote the genocide of between one and two million human beings. Herbert Spencer went on to justify the genocide and Malthus by claiming a law of nature was responsible, the law being natural selection, all of which he published several years prior to Darwin's book on the preservation of favoured races came out - an idea that Darwin then supported, with his theory, in the book "the Descent of Man".
I would like to say that it was not completely fair using the top biologist the way I did.It is of worth that she claims that neo-Darwinism is "complete funk" - after all, that is here field. it is not so fair to use her claim that neo-Darwinsm is nothing more than a religious sect, after all, that is not her field of expertise. It is however the field of expertise of sociologist, and it is easy to show that very highly recognized sociologist claim exactly the same thing about the neo-Darwinist - and that they also point out directly that the sect has its belief systems elevated in low level biology text books which do just as I said they do. It's not a matter of "opinion", but something which can be and has been scientifically studied - Darwinist are a religious group, and their beliefs are being promoted in publicaly funded text book - its beyond time we start enforcing our rights and boot the Darwinistic religious crap out of publicaly funded text books.
Note: To see a short paper from a prominent sociologist in the field relevant to this topic, please follow the link for a paper by Rodney Stark: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html
Stanton · 5 May 2009
So, tell us again who, besides Creationists, claim that "Darwinism" is a religious cult?
John Kwok · 5 May 2009
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Troy · 6 May 2009
Sociologically a "sect"s occur by schism of a conventional religious body; and act of breaking away to restore the original content. A cult, on the other hand, is not a renewal of an old faith, but instead a completely new faith. I suppose one could look into labelling the original movement as a cult and the neo-Darwinst as a sect - but the matter is really of secondary importance here, isn't it.
Consider this, if this is a field of science, and Darwin's work in its neo form is a "fact of nature", then it would be easy to show the theory is not out of line with empirical data - but instead of doing so, one of the feature properties of that religious body often shows itself: they seek to equate any dissenters with being creationist. That is a feature of a crusade, not of science.
There have long been people who have correctly understood the movement to be what it is, and not a science. Sense the early 1980's, when the Darwinist took a major blow via Alverez scientifically demonstrating that the anti-catastrophe preaching of the Darwinist was just that, preaching - there has been a growing body of people pointing out that with Darwinist, we are dealing with a religious movement, not a thing which is supported by science. Above I gave example of a top biologist who states nothing less, and a top sociologist of religion who squarely equate the Darwinist with being a religious movement - nether of them are creationist.
Dave Luckett · 6 May 2009
Troy, the Theory of Evolution, in its modern synythesis, has not been falsified by evidence. It has passed all evidential tests. That's why it is science.
Lynne Margulis is a professional gadfly - a distinguished biologist, but given to hyperbole and extreme positions, having no claim to any authority beyond the facts themselves. Quoting her words - if those are her words in context - doesn't prove anything. If we were to take them as Holy Writ, as you appear to do, we would indeed be guilty of running a sect. Only we don't, so we aren't.
There is no such thing as Darwinism, and it is useless to use the expression. If it is meant to refer to Darwin's original work, it is so out of date as to be meaningless. Darwin was right, but he was ignorant of genetics, nearly all of microbiology, and of biochemistry, and had available to him only a tiny fraction of the fossil record now known. Those discoveries substantiated his ideas, and added so enormously to them as to change the nature of the science beyond recognition. One might as well refer to modern physics as "Einsteinism". It would make as much sense.
It is not merely that creationism is not viable in the face of the facts; it isn't, but neither is any third theory. Nothing else squares with the evidence. That is why the Theory of Evolution is science. Your desperate, foolish and void-of-evidence attempts to cast evolutionary biology as a religion are simple nonsense. You are talking rubbish, and it only makes you look like a fool. Not an apostate, not a heretic. Just a fool.
Troy · 6 May 2009
"Troy, the Theory of Evolution, in its modern synythesis, has not been falsified by evidence. It has passed all evidential tests. That’s why it is science."
With all due respect, it is not, nor has it ever been in line with the actual nature of the fossil record. The theory predicts gradual change in the fossil record. The fossil record has Stasis as its obvious feature, not gradual transition. In normal science this means you toss out the idea, not the empirical evidence! At very least you don't act as though it "squares with the evidence", which it very clearly does not.
Second, the high priest of modern synthesis is Richard Dawkins - claims Jews can't be scientist because they are Jewish - crusades are run by that, not science. Let us be perfectly clear - it is a crusade and people like him are crusaders hiding behind the mantel of science.
Third, very highly qualified sociologist do equate it with a religion, not with science. You can call that foolish and stupid and ignorant and the ranting of a creationist all you want - but in doing so it only points directly to the claim the sociologist are scientifically pointing at when they do their science - namely that the Drawinst types bat anyone on the head as being stupid, ignorant, and creationist, any time someone shows up questioning their religious doctrine. A very important and to the point example of this is seen when Karl Popper suggested that the typical version of evolution is not even science at all, it being instead an untestable tautology. He was then subject to both public condemnation and personal abuse!!! So now what - the many biologist who claim the general presentation is crap, and the sociologist who claim its not science, and Karl Popper - they are all talking desperate, foolish and void-of-evidence rubbish than makes them look stupid! I think not!! I think there is a perfectly valid reason that Alverez (and others) more or less equated them to being nothing more than a bunch of name calling intellectual worms void of practising anything that resembles actual science (glorified stamp collectors was a term he referred to Darwinistic palaeontologist as being)
Forth, creationist have zip to do with any of this - it is not their religion that is in the publicly funded text books - nor do I advocate it should be - I would be as opposed to that as I am to ANY religious ideology being so promoted in public text books, including that of the atheist. It is NOT a battle of creationist against Darwinst - it is a battle against any religious systems being elevated in publicly funded text books - it is a battle against the strongest anti-science group going - the DARWINIST (and yes, we can show all sorts of examples of where they tried to completely stop the forward movement of science - take the man who published about the great flood from glacial lake Missoula, as but one example - Darwinst redicualed him his whole life, for they with their lofty claims knew better than earth being expossed to "catastrophes").
Stanton · 6 May 2009
Troy · 6 May 2009
The highly respected sociologist of religion is Rodney Stark. You can read the conclusions of his work on the Darwinist in a paper called "Fact, Fable, and Darwin", a copy of which is here: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html
With respect to Dawkins, he published against a man who showed the statistical problem with the development of octopus eyeballs and human eyeballs. Dawkins wrote a reply to the man's work which I presently am not finding on the net - with a little time I should be able to do so. The reply starts with how the man, being a Jew, is not qualified to speak on such matters. I'll find it somewhere with a little time.
Instead of trying so hard to claim I am a worthless piece of crap, thereby displaying the typical Darwinism behaviour of hate to all who dare to go against Darwinism - why don't you show how the fossil record is nothing but a record of transitional forms and not a record of stasis - after all, that would a) not be knee jerk bashing supporting the findings of sociology, and b) would support the claim that it "squares with the evidence".
In the meantime, for those who want to see a widely accepted theory which the Darwinst attacked hard core for years, go here: http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=429
Please note the statement they have about the Darwinist, which reads:
"Geologists in the mold of “uniformitarian” geologist Scotsman Charles Lyell (1797-1875) have long struggled with “catastrophism”, the doctrine proposed by French zoologist and comparative paleontologist, Georges Cuvier (1769-1832). Catastrophism theory states that major changes in the earth’s crust result from geologic catastrophes, including the Missoula floods that scoured the basalt lava flows in the Pacific Northwest. Nineteenth century Englishman Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and his pal Lyell belittled Cuvier, contending, “Real scientists build their theories only on what they observe directly in nature and not on wild imaginings of unobserved forces.”
Troy · 6 May 2009
Darwin and genocide
Darwin's theory on natural selection was used by the S.S. In the picking of doctors for the Jewish prison camps. (in Germany they used his theory from the books of a German, it being thought that the English where below the Germans). It worked like this, those students most favorable to Darwin's theory where selected as the group from which the prison camp doctors would be picked. Does this mean natural selection caused the extermination of the Jews – hardly! Only an idiot would claim such a thing!!
Because it does come up in talks with respect to the religious colors of the Darwinist, lets look at the relation between mass genocide, Darwin, and natural selection. We start with the mass genocide in Ireland called the Great Irish Potato famine.
Natural selection did NOT cause the Irish genocide, a politically activated philosophical ideology did. Same is true with all the other genocides. (the potato famine hit the earth; only in Ireland was there genocide – it was caused by the English, not the potato famine)
AFTER the Irish mass genocide Herbert Spencer justified the politically activated philosophical ideology by equating it with a law of nature, namely the law of natural selection (Westminster Review 57 (1852): 468-501).
AFTER Spencer published on the matter, Darwin published his book on the Preservation of Favoured Races. Clearly Darwin’s publication had nothing to do with the Irish genocide given that it showed up years after the genocide, not before it.
Now it is true that Spencer and Darwin both claimed the genocide was the result of natural selection (yes, links can be given directly to their works) - that is, they claimed their “Law of Nature” caused it. Spencer did so in his Westminster Review paper, right in middle of his definition of natural selection he pointed to the Irish as an example, and Darwin did so years later, after he had time to understand the “true meaning” of his work, in the book “the Descent of Man”. Because they very clearly did so, we are perfectly justified in saying that “their” work is inseparability married to a philosophical ideology - it is nothing less than a justification of that ideology via a “law of nature” - a law which in fact turned out to be quite incorrect, leaving behind only the ideology - which happens to be, were we sit today.
fnxtr · 6 May 2009
...and E=mc^2 led to Hiroshima, therefore relativity is wrong.
Troy you are *way* out of your depth here, and you're about to get pummelled. Just sayin'.
fnxtr · 6 May 2009
You mean the Rodney Stark at Baylor? That Rodney Stark? Yeah, no bias there...
Stanton · 6 May 2009
The Nazis used "Darwinism" for their excuse for genocide?
If that's so, then how come Hitler constantly plagiarized Martin Luther's "Of the Jews And Their Lies" for his "Final Solution"?
But, anyhow, your constant ranting about the evils of "Darwinism" and its alleged cultists is boring. Plus, you're the only person here displaying a "typical behavior of hate," what with your obsessed demonization of "Darwinists."
Dan · 6 May 2009
Stanton · 6 May 2009
I mean, honestly, if it really was true that "Darwinism" was the primary reason that the Nazis used for setting up and committing genocide, why would they place Darwin's books on their lists of banned books, as well as sneer at, as well as deny the idea that apes, or worse yet, Untermensch, are related to
Germans humansAryans, and why would the universities in Israel have extensive Biology departments, with numerous professors therein devoted to studying applications of Evolutionary Biology?Oh, wait, it's because Troy is building an elaborate, vitriol-filled and overly verbose strawman about the alleged evils of the cult of evil known as "Darwinism"