That said, there is a book available from amazon.uk.co called The Darwin Conspiracy by Roy Davies. From the book site, here is the synopsis:
"Charles Darwin has been hailed as the greatest scientist of the 19th century for his discovery of the secrets of evolution. Today, the impact of his work is still felt throughout the world.
But did Darwin really come up with the idea of evolution himself or did he take it from a young researcher trying to impress him?
The Darwin Conspiracy examines how Darwin struggled for years in scientific dead-ends until he was presented with the solution to the greatest scientific puzzle of his day by a naïve naturalist collecting beetles in a tropical jungle.
So began the conspiracy by which eminent scientists promoted the ideas of Darwin ahead of those of Alfred Russel Wallace in order to achieve ever-lasting fame for their greatest friend.
Using extensive research about contemporary shipping time tables and Darwin's own correspondence, the author challenges the commonly-held belief that Darwin scored a scientific breakthrough when in reality he used another man's insights for his own benefit, and committed one of the greatest scientific crimes in history.
The Darwin Conspiracy is a true story about deceit and deception and stands as an outstanding metaphor for the idea of survival of the fittest."
Based on the site, a review (see below) and a portion of the book provided, it would appear that The Darwin Conspiracy is an overview of previous research into the history of Darwin's research. I would find this interesting to see how Darwin fits in with other research done by Lamarck, Blythe and Wallace (among others).
As for the "conspiracy" charge, there may or may not be something to it. Let's grant for the moment that the upper-class Darwin was favoured over the lower-class Wallace. That Darwin was favoured over Wallace doesn't surprise me either since it is almost "natural" that the upper class will support one of their own over someone "below" them. From this alone, I don't see an active conspiracy.
For fun, let's pretend Darwin did "plagiarise" Wallace. Would this affect the science of evolution? I say no, but Darwin being the academic equivalent of common thief kind of puts a damper on Darwin Day celebrations, eh?
(HT to David Tyler @ ARN)
... but Darwin being the academic equivalent of common thief kind of puts a damper on Darwin Day celebrations, eh?
ReplyDeleteScience is not hagiography, nor is evolutionary theory a religion. I do understand the necessity for adherents to a religion to believe that the founder of their religion was perfect (even a deity). I do understand the fascination that leads religionists to study the lives of their saints and luminaries. But science is about ideas.
For example, by all historical accounts Mendeleev was a cad, but we haven't tossed out the periodic table, nor do we denigrate his scientific achievements simply on the basis of his private life. We respect the ideas, even if the man (or woman) who was the source of the ideas was less than perfect. So perhaps you can quit applying this inappropriate ad hominem standard to science and evolutionary theory.
Thanks.
"So perhaps you can quit applying this inappropriate ad hominem standard to science and evolutionary theory."
ReplyDeleteDave, I honestly have no clue how you arrived at the above statement from reading the post. Perhaps you missed this statement:
"For fun, let's pretend Darwin did "plagiarise" Wallace. Would this affect the science of evolution? I say no..."
I agree Darwin's character does not affect the status of the Modern Synthesis (MS).
If anyone is being religious in this specific case, it is (some of) the celebrants of Darwin Day.
"...by all historical accounts Mendeleev was a cad, but we haven't tossed out the periodic table, nor do we denigrate his scientific achievements simply on the basis of his private life."
And yet there is no Mendeleev Day celebrations. Thanks for helping to prove my point.
I think it is the evolutionary biologists who are insecure in needing a Darwin Day to celebrate.
Dave, I honestly have no clue how you arrived at the above statement from reading the post.
ReplyDeleteAnd I honestly have no clue WHY you felt that this seemingly trivial item deserved its own blog post,unless you (consciously or unconsciously) think that Darwin's personal characters were important. Can you give me that explanation? Especially since you ended with this ad hominem swipe?
"I think it is the evolutionary biologists who are insecure in needing a Darwin Day to celebrate."
Think of Darwin Day as a tongue-in-cheek response to the massive propaganda machine devoted to discrediting him, and, in the minds of the unscientific, thus discrediting his ideas. Perhaps if Mendeleev was the subject of persecution by religious folks who willfully misunderstand and mischaracterize his theory, there would be a reason for having his own day. As a response, not as a primary sign of "insecurity".
Then consider my "ad hominem attack" a tongue-in-cheek response to the tongue-in-cheek response.
ReplyDeleteAs for relevance of the post, I think it is necessary to get history right. It has NOTHING to do with science and will have NO effect on science. However, if the historical record needs to be set straight, then so be it.
As for relevance of the post, I think it is necessary to get history right. It has NOTHING to do with science and will have NO effect on science. However, if the historical record needs to be set straight, then so be it.
ReplyDeleteExcellent. But...
From David Tyler's review, linked in your opening post: Clearly, if Davies' argument is correct, the iconic Darwin needs to be dethroned. When this is accomplished, we will be in a better position to reappraise his significance as a scientist.
Perhaps you can share your sentiments with Mr. Tyler...
IMO, Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" probably entitles him to most of the credit for founding evolution theory. However, Darwinists are not going to be objective about Darwin because they have invested so much in Darwin worship: there are "I love Darwin" items (T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc., and even a doggie shirt), Darwin Day celebrations, "Friend of Darwin" certificates (distributed at a reunion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover plaintiffs team), the Darwin-Lincoln birthdate coincidence nonsense, etc..
ReplyDeleteDave said:
ReplyDelete"From David Tyler's review, linked in your opening post: Clearly, if Davies' argument is correct, the iconic Darwin needs to be dethroned. When this is accomplished, we will be in a better position to reappraise his significance as a scientist.
Perhaps you can share your sentiments with Mr. Tyler..."
If by "reapprais[ing Darwin's] significance as a scientist" Tyler means that Darwin may lose credit for ideas currently accredited to him, then I'm in agreement with said statement. If Origins has to be re-written to properly give credit where it's due (Blythe, Wallace, etc.), then doesn't that mean that Darwin's significance as a scientist would be re-appraised?
Your defense of David Tyler is admirable. And yes, it is possible that he could have meant that he thinks Darwin's brilliant ideas may not have been original with him, and that the credit for the success of those ideas might need to be shared with someone else.
ReplyDeleteBut that is disingenous. From reading Mr. Tyler's other contributions to the YEC literature, it is quite clear that he wants to discredit the IDEA of evolutionary theory, and thus it is acceptable in his worldview to engage in ad hominem attacks on the man himself. One cannot simultaneously hold the view that the earth is 6000 years old and also accept that Darwin got it right. It is also interesting that Tyler's credentials as a critic of either biology or history are quite modest.
From here - "Textbooks have perpetuated myths about Darwin and his work... Maybe Darwinism is actually not as significant for biology as many would like to make it?"
Here he bludgeons the dead horse that the peppered moth observations were faked, and thus "Darwinism" must be false.
Here he is quoted, as the secretary of the Biblical Creation Society, as believing that there are "a number of academics working in the biological sciences in British universities who believed evolution was a theory with little evidence to support it." Naturally he give no evidence for this assertion, but one suspects that as a member of the Biblical Creation Society, he shares those doubts.
A simple google search for his name coupled with "darwinism" reveals many other interesting articles, all of which lead to the conclusion that Mr. Tyler doesn't much care for the IDEAS of Charles Darwin, and thus it is not unreasonable to conclude that he, like lots of other YECS (e.g. Sal Cordova) feel that bashing on the character of the man will somehow diminish the power of his ideas.
But yes, technically speaking, I could be wrong about this. I'd feel better if Tyler and his ilk spent their time doing experiments and publishing papers, but if bashing Darwin is the best that they can do, I guess I'll have to live with it.
In 1844 Darwin prepared a manuscript outlining his theory of evolution by natural selection, with his wife instructed that the manuscript was to be published in the event of his premature death. That manuscript has much of the argument that was in On The Origin of Species 15 years later. What was added to the 1859 book was considerably more evidence from several fields of study and a greater appreciation on Darwin's part for the amount of variability within species in the wild, the latter appreciation gained from 8 years of work dissecting and classifying Cirrepedia (barnacles).
ReplyDeleteIn 1844 Wallace was 21 years old and a school teacher in Leicester.
Anyone who believes that Darwin plagiarized Wallace must also believe in time travel.
RBH said...
ReplyDelete>>>>>>In 1844 Darwin prepared a manuscript outlining his theory of evolution by natural selection, with his wife instructed that the manuscript was to be published in the event of his premature death. . . .In 1844 Wallace was 21 years old and a school teacher in Leicester . . . . Anyone who believes that Darwin plagiarized Wallace must also believe in time travel. <<<<<<<
I don't think anyone is saying that Darwin "plagiarized" Wallace -- what people are saying is that Wallace independently discovered the ideas of evolution and natural selection, and furthermore that it was Wallace's discovery of those ideas that prompted Darwin to write "The Origin of Species," so Wallace deserves credit as a co-discover of those ideas. A NY Times article by Olivia Judson says,
By 1858, Darwin had spent more than 20 years studying plants and animals and thinking about evolution. He had filled notebook after notebook with his thoughts on how evolution works; he had, in 1844, written a short manuscript on the subject that was to be published in the event of his untimely death; and he had discussed evolution with a few close friends. But he had published nothing. (He had, however, published books on several other subjects, including an exhaustive study of barnacles, both living and extinct.) Then, in June of that year, Darwin received a package from a young man named Alfred Russel Wallace; in the package, Wallace enclosed a brief manuscript in which he outlined the principle of evolution by natural selection.
What happened next is famous in the history of biology. On July 1, 1858, Wallace’s manuscript, as well as a couple of short statements on natural selection by Darwin (a segment of the 1844 manuscript, and part of a letter he’d written in 1857), were read at a meeting of the Linnean Society in London. The meeting had been organized by some of Darwin’s scientific friends to establish his priority in the discovery.
Of the material presented that night, the manuscript by Wallace is, in some respects, the more impressive: it is clearer and more accessible. Yet it is Darwin we celebrate; it is Darwin who, like a god in a temple, sits in white marble and presides over the main hall at the Natural History Museum in London. Why?
The reason is the “Origin.” Without the publication of the “Origin” the following year, the meeting at the Linnean Society could well have passed unnoticed,. . . . .We see that meeting as important now because of what happened next: it galvanized Darwin into writing and publishing the “Origin.”
And the “Origin” changed everything. Before the “Origin,” the diversity of life could only be catalogued and described; afterwards, it could be explained and understood. Before the “Origin,” species were generally seen as fixed entities, the special creations of a deity; afterwards, they became connected together on a great family tree that stretches back, across billions of years, to the dawn of life.
In the mid-1840's, two mathematicians, Urbain Le Verrier and John Couch Adams, independently made calculations predicting the location of Neptune, then an unknown planet. Though Le Verrier's predictions were more accurate and only his predictions were actually used to find Neptune, both men are credited as co-discoverers of Neptune.
Also, Darwin and Wallace were not even the first ones to conceive of evolution and natural selection -- Judson's NY Times article says,
He [Charles Darwin] wasn’t, after all, the first person to suggest that evolution happens. For example, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, speculated about it towards the end of the 18th century; at the beginning of the 19th, the great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck made a strong case for it. Lamarck, however, failed to be generally persuasive because he didn’t have a plausible mechanism — he could see that evolution takes place, but he didn’t know how. That had to wait until the discovery of natural selection.
Natural selection is what we normally think of as Darwin’s big idea. Yet he wasn’t the first to discover that, either. At least two others — a doctor called William Wells, and a writer called Patrick Matthew — discovered it years before Darwin did. Wells described it (admittedly briefly) in 1818, when Darwin was just 9; Matthew did so in 1831, the year that Darwin set off on board HMS Beagle for what became a five-year voyage around the world.
>>>>>> What was added to the 1859 book was considerably more evidence from several fields of study and a greater appreciation on Darwin's part for the amount of variability within species in the wild, the latter appreciation gained from 8 years of work dissecting and classifying Cirrepedia (barnacles). <<<<<<
Barnacles have a lot to tell us about evolution?
Larry Fafarman wrote
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is saying that Darwin "plagiarized" Wallace -- what people are saying is that Wallace independently discovered the ideas of evolution and natural selection, and furthermore that it was Wallace's discovery of those ideas that prompted Darwin to write "The Origin of Species," so Wallace deserves credit as a co-discover of those ideas. A NY Times article by Olivia Judson says,
And who has denied that? In fact, Darwin, in the 1st edition of On the Origin of Species, wrote
My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three more years to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this Abstract. I have more especially been induced to do this, as Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the natural history of the Malay archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions that I have on the origin of species. Last year he sent to me a memoir on this subject, with a request that I would forward it to Sir Charles Lyell, who sent it to the Linnean Society, and it is published in the third volume of the Journal of that Society. Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my work—the latter having read my sketch of 1844—honoured me by thinking it advisable to publish, with Mr. Wallace's excellent memoir, some brief extracts from my manuscripts. (pp 1-2)
What Darwin did in his 1844 memoir and his 1859 book that Wallace did not do in his 20-page paper was provide the array of evidence from disciplines ranging from paleontology to comparative anatomy to embryology. Darwin's book founded a research program that is still in progress.
However, the book described in the OP apparently charges Darwin with plagiarizing the idea of natural selection from Wallace, and that, as I noted, would require time travel. It claims
But did Darwin really come up with the idea of evolution himself or did he take it from a young researcher trying to impress him?
The Darwin Conspiracy examines how Darwin struggled for years in scientific dead-ends until he was presented with the solution to the greatest scientific puzzle of his day by a naïve naturalist collecting beetles in a tropical jungle.
and
Using extensive research about contemporary shipping time tables and Darwin's own correspondence, the author challenges the commonly-held belief that Darwin scored a scientific breakthrough when in reality he used another man's insights for his own benefit, and committed one of the greatest scientific crimes in history.
The 1844 manuscript completely refutes that claim that Darwin took the "solution" from "a naive naturalist [Wallace] collecting beetles ...". That "solution," complete with the use of the term "natural selection," is clearly laid out in the 1844 manuscript.
Fafarman asked
Barnacles have a lot to tell us about evolution?
As I wrote above, ... a greater appreciation on Darwin's part for the amount of variability within species in the wild, the latter appreciation gained from 8 years of work dissecting and classifying Cirrepedia (barnacles).
Prior to his work with barnacles Darwin underestimated the amount of variability (the raw material for evolution) in wild populations. After 8 years of dissecting them and classifying them (published in four volumes), he realized that there was great plenty variability in wild populations on which natural selection could work.
There were precursors to Darwin and Wallace, of course. John Wilkins has an excellent overview on TalkOrigins. And through successive editions of OoS as Darwin was made aware of precursors he credited them, even if he was unaware of their work before the 1859 book.
Well, okay. Based on my studies, Darwin's so-called bulldog found in Darwin's theories a club.
ReplyDeleteAnd, without the Bulldog et al., Darwin would perhaps have gone the way of Mendal before him.
That is to say, there might be some value in Darwin's theory, but it was the promotion of the theory by atheists that created Darwinism.
WW wrote: That is to say, there might be some value in Darwin's theory, but it was the promotion of the theory by atheists that created Darwinism.
ReplyDeleteI asked this question of many folks who use that word, and have yet to hear any sort of consistent (or even satisfactory) definition. SO I have to ask - WW, what is "Darwinism"?
Well, it's been a couple of days, and WW, despite his Braveheart pseudonym, hasn't ventured back here to tell us what he thinks "Darwinism" might be.
ReplyDeleteThat's not unexpected; in my two forays on his blog I left comments that have never been allowed to be read by his readers. And I have seen numerous other examples on other blogs (e.g. Reasonable Kansans) where WW avoids the tough questions. I don't understand why he can't answer this one; he can hardly write a paragraph without using that word! One would think that he would be able to readily supply a definition.
Perhaps he just functions better in a forum where he can control the questions...
Thanks jjs, for allowing comments on your blog to go through unmoderated. We may not always agree, but at least I know that you allow debate here, unlike most of the other ID-centric blogs.
Dave said...
ReplyDelete>>>>>>WW wrote: That is to say, there might be some value in Darwin's theory, but it was the promotion of the theory by atheists that created Darwinism.
I asked this question of many folks who use that word, and have yet to hear any sort of consistent (or even satisfactory) definition. <<<<<<<
There are many different kinds of evolution, e.g., theistic evolution, atheistic evolution, guided evolution, unguided evolution, and front-loaded (prescribed) evolution. I use the term "Darwinism" to specifically mean random mutation + natural selection and also to take a swipe at Darwinists for their worship of Darwin. I don't see how Darwinists can complain about being called "Darwinists" so long as they continue to worship Darwin. Darwin worship is evidenced by the following: "I love Darwin" stuff (T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc., and even a doggie shirt), the Darwin Day celebrations, "Friend of Darwin" certificates (distributed at a reunion of the Dover plaintiffs team), and the Darwin-Lincoln birthdate coincidence nonsense.
>>>>>> We may not always agree, but at least I know that you allow debate here, unlike most of the other ID-centric blogs. <<<<<<<
There is plenty of arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments on Darwinist blogs.
Thanks, Larry.
ReplyDeleteSince WW isn't here, I guess I'll try to get some clarification from your "definition".
You wrote that you use Darwinism "to specifically mean random mutation + natural selection and also to take a swipe at Darwinists for their worship of Darwin."
Ignoring your last propaganda bit about "worship" (which was discussed and dismissed upthread), let's look at the rest of that definition.
Do you understand that, by that definition, you are referring to something that no current scientist subscribes to? "Darwinism" by that definition died out in the late 19th or early 20th century! There is a lot more to modern evolutionary biology than those two components (genetic drift, neutral mutations, etc.)
Why do you use an outdated term to refer to modern scientists? Are you deliberately trying to be confusing? Do you not understand that science communication requires precision in terminology, and agreement between the communicating parties about the definition of a word?
One could almost conclude, based on this deliberate misuse of a historically-defined word, that you are not interested in science, or scientific communication...
Dave said,
ReplyDelete>>>>> Ignoring your last propaganda bit about "worship" (which was discussed and dismissed upthread), <<<<<
It was discussed upthread? Where?
And it is not just propaganda -- there is a lot of Darwin worship. I see it all the time.
>>>>> There is a lot more to modern evolutionary biology than those two components (genetic drift, neutral mutations, etc.) <<<<<<
Neutral mutations are random. I presume that the directions of genetic drift are also random. And even gene recombination in sexual reproduction is random.
>>>>> Why do you use an outdated term to refer to modern scientists? <<<<<<
The terms "neo-Darwinism" and "neo-Darwinian evolution" are sometimes used, and I may start using those terms too because of all the quibbling I get about my use of "Darwinism." But I really can't see all that much difference between modern theories of evolution and Darwin's theory -- it is all just random genetic variation and natural selection.
>>>>> Do you not understand that science communication requires precision in terminology, and agreement between the communicating parties about the definition of a word? <<<<<<
Considering Darwinists' constant misuse of the oxymoronic term "intelligent design creationism," Darwinists are not in a good position to lecture others about the importance of using precise terminology in scientific discourse. Intelligent design is based on scientific observation and scientific reasoning whereas creationism is based on religious sources. Furthermore, you Darwinists rewrote the definition of "scientific theory" for the sole purpose of promoting Darwinism. The Florida science standards define the term "scientific theory" as being "well-supported" and "widely accepted," but under the standard definition of the term there can be weak scientific theories as well as strong scientific theories.
Larry wrote: But I really can't see all that much difference between modern theories of evolution and Darwin's theory -- it is all just random genetic variation and natural selection.
ReplyDeleteThen you need to get a biology book and read it with comprehension. Or maybe a history of science book. Because even if you "can't see" it, there are lots of important differences.
Genes had yet to be discovered in 1859. The nature of the genetic material had yet to be discovered in 1859. Genetic drift had yet to be discovered in 1859. Population genetics had yet to be discovered in 1859. Molecular biology had yet to be discovered in 1859. Homeotic genes had yet to be discovered in 1859. I could go on, but hopefully even you get the idea that Darwin generated his "Darwinist" ideas while unaware of all of these currently known facts. All of them provide additional powerful evidence for his theory. But Darwinism had none of this evidence, and Darwinists had no knowledge of these facts.
Larry also opined: "Considering Darwinists' constant misuse of the oxymoronic term "intelligent design creationism," Darwinists are not in a good position to lecture others about the importance of using precise terminology in scientific discourse."
First, if you think that this is wrong, why do you engage in the same practice? Have you heard of the Golden Rule? Secondly, ID is creationism, as documented thoroughly in Forrest and Gross' book, "Creationism's Trojan Horse". So you lose this argument. Twice.
Finally, Larry lied: Furthermore, you Darwinists rewrote the definition of "scientific theory" for the sole purpose of promoting Darwinism. The Florida science standards define the term "scientific theory" as being "well-supported" and "widely accepted," but under the standard definition of the term there can be weak scientific theories as well as strong scientific theories.
Please provide evidence that "Darwinists" rewrote the definition of theory. Please show how this definition does not fit other theories, such as germ theory, call theory, electromagnetic theory, atomic theory, plate tectonic theory, etc. If you can't do that, please quit lying about it.
The fact that there are strongly supported theories and weakly supported theories is irrelevant, and does not constitute a redefinition. Sadly for you, however, evolutionary theory is one of the most strongly supported of them all. Evidence from geology, physics, paleontology, genetics, developmental biology, biochemistry, and other disciplines all support that theory; very few other theories have that breadth of support.
As for the prior discussion of Darwin "worship" upthread, I'll let you find it yourself. It will be interesting to see if you can read with comprehension on an electronic forum.
>>>>>>> Genes had yet to be discovered in 1859. The nature of the genetic material had yet to be discovered in 1859. Genetic drift had yet to be discovered in 1859. Population genetics had yet to be discovered in 1859. Molecular biology had yet to be discovered in 1859. Homeotic genes had yet to be discovered in 1859. <<<<<<
ReplyDeleteI know all that stuff. Duh. My point is that the basic principle of evolution theory -- RM + NS -- has not changed.
>>>>> First, if you think that this is wrong, why do you engage in the same practice? <<<<<<
Are you saying that two wrongs don't make a right? That using the term "ID creationism" is wrong?
What I do is not the same thing. The same thing would be "evolution atheism," "evolution materialism," "evolution dogmatism," that kind of thing. I have already explained why ID and creationism are different.
>>>>>> Secondly, ID is creationism, as documented thoroughly in Forrest and Gross' book, "Creationism's Trojan Horse". <<<<<<
That book is just a worthless conspiracy theory.
>>>>>> So you lose this argument. Twice <<<<<<
Only in your dreams.
>>>>> Please provide evidence that "Darwinists" rewrote the definition of theory. <<<<<<
I just did -- the new Florida state science standards.
>>>>> Please show how this definition does not fit other theories, such as germ theory, call theory, electromagnetic theory, atomic theory, plate tectonic theory, etc. <<<<<<
The definition certainly doesn't fit string theory. A lot of physicists think that string theory isn't even scientific.
>>>>>> The fact that there are strongly supported theories and weakly supported theories is irrelevant <<<<<
It is not irrelevant, because Darwinists are trying to redefine "scientific theory" to mean only strong scientfic theories.
>>>>>> As for the prior discussion of Darwin "worship" upthread, I'll let you find it yourself. <<<<<<
Bibliography bluffing does not win arguments -- it loses them.
Larry writes: I know all that stuff. Duh. My point is that the basic principle of evolution theory -- RM + NS -- has not changed.
ReplyDeleteIf you really "know all that stuff", you would understand that "all that stuff" did change evolutionary theory radically. The fact that you deny it is an indicator or something, but it is certainly not an indicator that you "know" anything substantive about evolutionary theory.
Re Forrest and Gross' "Creationism's Trojan Horse", Larry blusters "That book is just a worthless conspiracy theory.".
You lack of a substantive response is duly noted. Your invocation of a conspiracy, the final refuge of deluded denialists, is also duly noted.
When asked to prove that "Darwinists" rewrote the definition of theory "for the sole purpose of promoting Darwinism", Larry responded "I just did -- the new Florida state science standards."
1) those are not "Darwinists" any more than they are Newtonists or Gibbsists.
2) The definition of theory is unchanged there.
When asked to show how this alleged altered definition did not fit with a number of well-supported and well-known theories, he sidestepped "The definition certainly doesn't fit string theory. A lot of physicists think that string theory isn't even scientific."
Which is exactly why I didn't mention string theory. It currently can't be tested. Larry, if you could focus on one or more of the examples I did list, it would be appreciated.
When I pointed out that the fact that there are strongly supported theories and weakly supported theories is irrelevant to his assertion that "Darwinists" are redefining theory for the sole purpose of promoting Darwinism, he repeated "It is not irrelevant, because Darwinists are trying to redefine "scientific theory" to mean only strong scientfic theories."
No, they are not. And you haven't show either how long-extinct "Darwinists" are doing any such thing, nor have you shown that such a definition would "promote" Darwinism, nor have you shown any evidence of such a redefinition by any major or even moderate-sized scientific organization. Saying something doesn't make it true, Larry. Evidence is required.
Finally, he proved that he cannot even read the posts upthread when he wrote "Bibliography bluffing does not win arguments".
Here's a hint, Larry. If you read what I wrote, and if you understand the English language, and if you have the logical skills of a high-schooler, you would know that my argument was not "bibliography bluffing" (whatever that is). Why don't you try again?
Or give up, since you clearly are getting pwned, and it should be WW rather than you in that uncomfortable position. Where are you, WW?
>>>>>> If you really "know all that stuff", you would understand that "all that stuff" did change evolutionary theory radically. <<<<<<
ReplyDeleteBut it is still basically RM + NS. That's my point.
>>>>>> Re Forrest and Gross' "Creationism's Trojan Horse", Larry blusters "That book is just a worthless conspiracy theory.".
You lack of a substantive response is duly noted. <<<<<<
My response was substantive -- I just did not elaborate. It is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that the ID movement is a plot to take over the USA. Such a theory cannot be taken seriously.
>>>>>> 1) those are not "Darwinists" any more than they are Newtonists or Gibbsists. <<<<<<
Those are Darwinists with a capital D -- they rewrote the definition of "scientific theory" just to promote Darwinism.
>>>>>> When asked to show how this alleged altered definition did not fit with a number of well-supported and well-known theories, he sidestepped "The definition certainly doesn't fit string theory. A lot of physicists think that string theory isn't even scientific."
Which is exactly why I didn't mention string theory. <<<<<<
Of course you didn't mention string theory -- because it disproves your claim. Duh.
>>>>>> Larry, if you could focus on one or more of the examples I did list, it would be appreciated. <<<<<<
Why should I waste my time focusing on your examples when the example I gave, string theory, disproves your claim?
>>>>>> you haven't show either how long-extinct "Darwinists" are doing any such thing, nor have you shown that such a definition would "promote" Darwinism <<<<<<
These Darwinists are living fossils. "Evolution" was changed to "theory of evolution" in a revision to the proposed Florida science standards, so the Florida science standards' definition of "scientific theory" as being well-supported and widely accepted definitely helps promote Darwinism.
Show me one standard reference that says that scientific theories are by definition well-supported and widely accepted. If all scientific theories are by definition strong, then what are we going to call scientific explanations that are weak?
>>>>>> "bibliography bluffing" (whatever that is). <<<<<<
"Bibliography bluffing" is making reference to non-existent material in the literature. It usually refers to giving a long string of references, but I think that the term is applicable here.
>>>>> Or give up, since you clearly are getting pwned <<<<<<
You are getting panned.
Larry wrote re his defense of the use of the word "Darwinist" - But it is still basically RM + NS. That's my point.
ReplyDeleteBut that is incorrect, and bespeaks a profound ignorance about evolutionary theory these days. That's my point.
Larry evaded my request (again) to show how the alleged re-definition of the word theory made it invalid as a description of germ theory, cell theory, electromagnetic theory, plate tectonic theory, or atomic theory. Duly noted.
Finally, he elaborated on his bizarre argument that "Darwinists" had changed the definition of the word theory in the Florida science standards. If he was familiar with that process, he would know that the words "theory of" was inserted before every instance of evolution at the request of the CREATIONIST members of the Florida Board of Education. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot in such a manner, that's fine. But it really can't be blamed on "Darwinists"!
Larry, I really don't care if you and WW and your ilk use that word. I just wondered what you thought it meant. I also thought you might like to know that using an outdated term immediately marks you as an ignoramus in any conversation with normal people. If you want to continue giving that impression, please feel free to do so. I tried to help you, but clearly you prefer to be viewed as an ignoramus. Excellent decision.
>>>>>>Larry wrote re his defense of the use of the word "Darwinist" - But it is still basically RM + NS. That's my point.
ReplyDeleteBut that is incorrect, and bespeaks a profound ignorance about evolutionary theory these days. That's my point. <<<<<<<
Then explain why you think evolution theory is no longer RM + NS. Otherwise you have no point and are just a big bag of hot air.
Modern evolution theory is sometimes called "neo-Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinian evolution" (NDE) -- it has those names because it still bears many of the features of the original Darwinism.
>>>>> Larry evaded my request (again) to show how the alleged re-definition of the word theory made it invalid as a description of germ theory, cell theory, electromagnetic theory, plate tectonic theory, or atomic theory. Duly noted. <<<<<
Duly noted that you are making an ass of yourself. To disprove your point, all I had to do was give an example of a scientific theory that is considered to be weak -- string theory. I am sure that there are lots of others out there.
>>>>>> If he was familiar with that process, he would know that the words "theory of" was inserted before every instance of evolution at the request of the CREATIONIST members of the Florida Board of Education. <<<<<<
I am familiar with that process. And you are a lousy hypocrite for objecting to the D-words Darwinism and Darwinist when you stereotype those members of the Florida BOE by the C-word creationist. And you spelled "creationist" in capitals, yet -- I have never spelled "Darwinist" in capitals! Also, "theory of" was added to all the other theories in the state science standards.
>>>>>> If they want to shoot themselves in the foot in such a manner, that's fine. But it really can't be blamed on "Darwinists"! <<<<<<
Did the "creationists" shoot themselves in the foot, or did sneaky Darwinists shoot them in the foot by adding that incorrect definition of "scientific theory" AFTER the approval of the words "theory of"?
>>>>>> Larry, I really don't care if you and WW and your ilk use that word. I just wondered what you thought it meant. <<<<<
I have already explained in this thread what I think "Darwinism" means and why I use that term -- I will repeat that explanation here:
There are many different kinds of evolution, e.g., theistic evolution, atheistic evolution, guided evolution, unguided evolution, and front-loaded (prescribed) evolution. I use the term "Darwinism" to specifically mean random mutation + natural selection and also to take a swipe at Darwinists for their worship of Darwin.
I have considered switching to "neo-Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinian evolution" (NDE), but I am not going to do that so long as Darwinists continue to shamelessly worship Darwin.
Also, the D-words are like the n-word -- Darwinists often use the D-words themselves but are offended when others use them, just as blacks often use the n-word themselves but are offended when others use it.
You are just a troll and it is past time for me to stop feeding you.
Larry demonstrates his reading-with-comprehension skills Then explain why you think evolution theory is no longer RM + NS. Otherwise you have no point and are just a big bag of hot air.
ReplyDeleteI did explain that a couple of comments upthread. Darwin's ideas have been extended well past "RM+NS" since 1859, as I noted.
Genes had yet to be discovered in 1859. The nature of the genetic material had yet to be discovered in 1859. Genetic drift had yet to be discovered in 1859. Population genetics had yet to be discovered in 1859. Molecular biology had yet to be discovered in 1859. Homeotic genes had yet to be discovered in 1859. I could go on, but hopefully even you get the idea that Darwin generated his "Darwinist" ideas while unaware of all of these currently known facts. All of them provide additional powerful evidence for his theory. But Darwinism had none of this evidence, and Darwinists had no knowledge of these facts.
I won't bother to reiterate his other arguments, because Larry, like all creationists, clearly thinks that repeating a lie will somehow convince others that it is a truth. You need new arguments, Larry. And less projection.
Please do keep using that word in your online screeds. It provides a useful clue that you are woefully ignorant about history, biology, and lots of other things that you claim to be able to debate.
>>>>> Genes had yet to be discovered in 1859. The nature of the genetic material had yet to be discovered in 1859. Genetic drift had yet to be discovered in 1859. Population genetics had yet to be discovered in 1859. Molecular biology had yet to be discovered in 1859. Homeotic genes had yet to be discovered in 1859. <<<<<<
ReplyDeleteYou are still missing my point, which is: has any of this new stuff changed the fact that evolution theory is basically RM + NS, as Darwin originally proposed?
>>>>>> I could go on, but hopefully even you get the idea that Darwin generated his "Darwinist" ideas while unaware of all of these currently known facts. All of them provide additional powerful evidence for his theory. But Darwinism had none of this evidence, and Darwinists had no knowledge of these facts. <<<<<<
You are arguing my case for me -- that the new stuff (though certainly not all of it) just supports what evolution theory was in the beginning, RM + NS!
And I have not heard any Darwinists object to the terms "neo-Darwinism" and "neo-Darwinian evolution."
As I said, I am not going to stop using the term "Darwinism" unless the Darwinists cut out their shameless worship of Darwinism, which doesn't look likely to happen.
>>>>> Larry, like all creationists <<<<<<
And you Darwinists are hypocrites because you complain about the D-words while you stereotype critics of Darwinism as "creationists" and "fundies" and use that oxymoronic term, "intelligent design creationism."
I am done wasting my time feeding this lousy troll, and then some.
Larry whined: You are still missing my point, which is: has any of this new stuff changed the fact that evolution theory is basically RM + NS, as Darwin originally proposed?
ReplyDeleteYes. It does change it dramatically. If, for example, genetic drift (a concept unknown to Darwin and hence unknown to Darwinists) is the primary agent of evolution for a particular species, RM+NS cannot be the basis for the evolution of that species. That seems pretty simple. So do you...
More importantly, let's move the goalposts back to their original position. I pointed out that "Darwinism" (the theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin) essentially died out by the early 20th century. Historians understand this, and use the term "Darwinist" precisely to indicate adherents of this early evolutionary framework. Scientists working on evolution today, taking advantage of a vastly expanded theory of evolution and observations made since 1859, are not Darwinists. That is as absurd as saying that atomic physicists should be called "Democritans", after the Greek who first proposed the notion of an atom 2400 years ago. There may have been real Democritans, but they are as dead as the Darwinists.
Nonetheless, as I said before, it's fine with me if you want to use this word, and even better if you have to work yourself into a froth defending that usage. It serves as a useful clue that you should not be taken seriously, since you can't even get to the first requirement for a debate - agreement on the definitions.
Since you've checked out of this debate, Larry, I'll just sit here and wait for WW/Braveheart to return. I've left him an invitation on another comment thread, but perhaps he has learned from your example that there is no future in your line of argumentation.
>>>>>> If, for example, genetic drift (a concept unknown to Darwin and hence unknown to Darwinists) is the primary agent of evolution for a particular species, RM+NS cannot be the basis for the evolution of that species. <<<<<<
ReplyDeleteBut isn't genetic drift random too? And you are talking here about a "particular" species -- what about other species?
>>>>> So do you... <<<<<
So do I what? What were you going to ask?
>>>>> That is as absurd as saying that atomic physicists should be called "Democritans", after the Greek who first proposed the notion of an atom 2400 years ago. <<<<<<
That is absurd. Democritus just supposed that there were indivisible units of matter. He didn't propose any of the features of modern atomic theory: no nucleus, no electron orbits, no protons, no neutrons, no electrons, no ionic bonds, no covalent bonds, etc.. But I assert that evolution theory, despite later additions and refinements, is still basically just RM+NS, and you have not shown otherwise. You are against the D-words because you don't want to admit how little evolution theory has fundamentally changed.
My engineering specialty is heat transfer analysis. The central concept underlying all analysis of heat conduction in solids is Fourier's Law, which is older than Darwin's theory of evolution. There have been a lot of advances in heat conduction analysis since Fourier's Law was introduced -- new mathematical solutions, analog computer simulations, and digital computer analyses. But the basic principle, Fourier's Law, remains unchanged.
>>>>> Since you've checked out of this debate, Larry, <<<<<<
I haven't checked out -- you have. By presenting nonsensical arguments.
Larry previously wrote: You are just a troll and it is past time for me to stop feeding you.
ReplyDeletethen
I am done wasting my time feeding this lousy troll, and then some.
But now he's back, with the same froth-filled arguments as before, and the additional red herring about his engineering background just for good measure.
Larry, why should we believe anything you say when it is obvious you can't even tell the truth about your own behavior?
And where is WW/Braveheart? Why is he letting Larry be his surrogate here?
>>>>>> I am done wasting my time feeding this lousy troll, and then some.
ReplyDeleteBut now he's back, <<<<<<
Well, bozo, I changed my mind. You made some really stupid statements that I could not resist attacking. Your "Democritans" analogy really takes the cake. Are you going to answer or not?
Larry blusters: Your "Democritans" analogy really takes the cake. Are you going to answer or not?
ReplyDeleteYour "rebuttal" is simply not worth rebutting. My example is merely reductio ad absurdem - taking your illogical position to its illogical extreme.
And you consistently ignore the main point of this discussion. "Darwinist" has a specific meaning in specific contexts. Your febrile notions about what it means to you personally are not going to change that.
Please continue to misuse the word. As noted several times before, it provides a useful clue as to the quality of your other arguments. Agreeing on definitions is the first step in a debate; you haven't even gotten to that first step.
>>>>>> Your "rebuttal" is simply not worth rebutting. <<<<<<
ReplyDeleteWell, that settles it. I win.
>>>>>> My example is merely reductio ad absurdem - taking your illogical position to its illogical extreme. <<<<<<
Wrong -- reductio ad absurdum means refuting a position by taking it to a logical inference -- not an illogical inference as you did -- and then showing that the inference is absurd. I can come up with illogical analogies too, e.g., Aristotle proposed four elements of matter -- earth, air, fire, and water -- and chemists should therefore be called "Aristotleans." Your Wikipedia reference says of reductio ad absurdum arguments,
Such arguments . . . risk degenerating into strawman arguments, an informal fallacy caused when an argument or theory is twisted by the opposing side to appear ridiculous.
BTW, I said,
>>>>> There have been a lot of advances in heat conduction analysis since Fourier's Law was introduced -- new mathematical solutions, analog computer simulations, and digital computer analyses. But the basic principle, Fourier's Law, remains unchanged. <<<<<<
I take that back. Fourier's Law as Fourier formulated it might have been just the one-dimensional steady-state form instead of the three-dimensional transient form that we have today. But my statement still holds in general.
Larry
ReplyDeleteYep. You "win". Aristotle needs to be worshipped too.
Feel better now?
Good. Please continue to use that word as you have always used it, so that every sentient person who encounters your insanity on the internet understands that you don't even have a grasp on the first rule of debate - agreement on definitions.
To the peanut gallary: if you don't know what Darwinism is, it's not my fault.
ReplyDeleteYou could use google.
You could read.
You could even go to liberalpedia.
But, like most words, Darwinism has many meanings.
What do I mean by Darwinism?
Darwinism is the religion of those who celebrate Darwin day.
Dave said,
ReplyDelete>>>>>> you don't even have a grasp on the first rule of debate - agreement on definitions. <<<<<<<
Why should I have to agree with YOUR definitions?
William Wallace said...
>>>>> Darwinism is the religion of those who celebrate Darwin day. <<<<<<
Also those who use "I love Darwin" stuff, give and receive "Friend of Darwin" certificates, celebrate the Darwin-Lincoln birthdate coincidence nonsense, etc.
Thanks, WW, for that response (Darwinism is the religion of those who celebrate Darwin day.)
ReplyDeleteSince I don't celebrate Darwin Day, nor do a lot of folks who I know, and since I don't have a religion, and since I might not be alone in both of those categories, perhaps you can stop slinging that term around as if it means anything specific.
Dave said,
ReplyDelete>>>>>> I don't celebrate Darwin Day, nor do a lot of folks who I know, <<<<<<
IMO Darwin Day celebrations are OK in moderation, as they are opportunities to collectively reflect on Darwin's legacy. However, IMO the "I love Darwin" stuff (T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.), the "Friend of Darwin" certificates (handed out at a reunion of the Dover plaintiffs team), and celebrating the Darwin-Lincoln birthdate coincidence nonsense are cultist and not OK, and if you do not denounce those things, IMO you are nothing but a hypocrite.
Larry, if I denounced everything that you think I should denounce, I wouldn't have time to read your material and marvel at its lucidity...
ReplyDeleteAs you implied in this very thread, I don't have to agree with your definitions, and I don't have to agree with your opinion. Nor do I have to "denounce" those things that you find offensive. It's still a free country, as far as I know.
>>>>>> It's still a free country, as far as I know. <<<<<<
ReplyDeleteAnd I am free to consider you to be a lousy hypocrite. You condone the "I love Darwin" stuff, the "Friend of Darwin" certificates, and the Darwin-Lincoln nonsense, yet you condemn the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist."
Larry
ReplyDeleteThat's another definition that we don't agree on.
"Fail to denounce" is not the same thing as "condone".
And I don't "condemn" the use of the word Darwinist. I've told you at least twice that you should continue to use it, since it provides a valuable clue about your (in)ability to engage in a productive discussion.
So you lose this one. Twice.
Get a dictionary. It's a good book to start with, and should keep you busy for a while.
Yeesh! Turn my back for a week (or so) and look what happens!
ReplyDeleteI have only one comment: please refrain from name-calling (you know who you are). That's a marker for deletion, in my books.
"Since I don't celebrate Darwin Day, nor do a lot of folks who I know, and since I don't have a religion, and since I might not be alone in both of those categories, perhaps you can stop slinging that term around as if it means anything specific."
ReplyDeleteI should stop using a term because you know a lot of folks for whom the term does not apply. Non sequitur--is that biology logic?
I suppose it is easier to take umbrage with the term darwinism than to address the idea that it was Darwin's bulldog and a few others who promoted Darwinian philosophy because most of those saw in Darwinism an inestimable weapon against religion.
WW wrote:
ReplyDeleteI suppose it is easier to take umbrage with the term darwinism than to address the idea that it was Darwin's bulldog and a few others who promoted Darwinian philosophy because most of those saw in Darwinism an inestimable weapon against religion.
A few did, many didn't. Huxley did but Asa Gray, an equally strong supporter of Darwin, didn't. Some Christians (e.g., Charles Kingsley) thought (and wrote) that Darwin's ideas strengthened Christianity.
But that issue is irrelevant to the scientific worth of the theory, and that's immense.
William Wallace said...
ReplyDelete>>>>>>I should stop using a term because you know a lot of folks for whom the term does not apply. Non sequitur--is that biology logic? <<<<<<<
William,
IMO Dave would have a point if the name "Darwinist" were being used to unfairly stereotype him. But Dave has no right to complain, because he refused to denounce the cultist things that greatly contribute to the stereotype -- e.g., the "I love Darwin" stuff, the "Friend of Darwin" certificates, and the silly celebration of the Darwin-Lincoln birthdate coincidence. Dave wants to have his cake and eat it too -- he wants to have the right to act like a Darwin cultist without the risk of being appropriately labeled, "Darwinist."
Also, Dave is very wishy-washy about the term "Darwinist." He asks you to "stop slinging that term around" but has also said that he does not "condemn" use of the term and that I "should continue to use it." The arbitrariness and capriciousness of Darwinists make them look like characters out of Alice in Wonderland.
Also, I often -- though not always -- use the D-words "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" in a non-disparaging way. Since traditional evolution theory -- consisting of hereditary changes plus natural selection -- is basically unchanged since Darwin introduced it, I think it is appropriate to call it "Darwinism."
WW - I should stop using a term because you know a lot of folks for whom the term does not apply. Non sequitur--is that biology logic?
ReplyDeleteNo, the point is that you should stop using a term to describe people when you have no clue if it applies to them. That's pretty simple logic, and common courtesy.
Furthermore, if all you have against Darwin's ideas are ad hominem arguments about some of the individuals who promoted it in the 19th century (Oh nooooo! They're athiestssss!!!!), you have a pretty weak argument. As RBH noted, science is about ideas. Are Darwin's ideas wrong because of the personal characteristics of those who promote (or deny) them? Absolutely not. That's pretty simple logic, too.
As for Larry's bleatings, I'm not being inconsistent at all. I do think that Larry should continue to use the term as an indicator of his level of understanding of the issues. I'd prefer that others such as WW figure out that it is a bad idea to reveal the depths of your ignorance by misusing a term immediately, but I have no confidence that Larry will ever figure that out. He prefers the bluster and the insult, so starting out with an inaccuracy is part of his MO. If you want to be like Larry, that's your choice.
Dave said,
ReplyDelete>>>>> As for Larry's bleatings, I'm not being inconsistent at all. <<<<<<
Isn't your statement that you don't "condemn" use of the term "Darwinism" inconsistent with your other statements about the term?
Larry
ReplyDeleteSince it appears that you can't read English, and since I have explained myself to you multiple times to no avail, I'll just let you figure it out for yourself. I'm not optimistic that will happen, but at least it won't waste any more of my time.
Secondly, I see that you are misrepresenting our exchange on Uncommon Dissent. Over there, where I am banned and cannot defend myself, you wrote: I originally defined Darwinism as consisting of random mutations plus natural selection. But the Darwinists complained that this definition ignores other causes of genetic change, e.g., genetic drift and gene flow, so I redefined Darwinism as consisting of natural genetic variation plus natural selection. However, the Darwinists finagled that this still does not represent Darwin’s theory because Darwin did not know the mechanisms of genetic change. So now I am just going to say that Darwinism consists of heritable changes plus natural selection — IMO that makes clear that basically evolution theory has not changed since it was introduced by Darwin.
But that's not true. I did not say that "this definition ignores other causes of genetic change, e.g., genetic drift and gene flow." The reason why I would not say it is because it is fractally wrong. Those are NOT causes of genetic change; they are mechanisms of evolutionary change, just as natural selection is a mechanism of evolutionary change.
You don't understand basic biology, you don't understand the terms, and your self-admitted biology preparation consists of a high school course you took in the 1960's. Yet you feel qualified to expound on this topic all over the internet, including places where you can misrepresent others without giving them the ability to respond. That's just shameful.
FYI, for the third time, here's what I really wrote about the differences between Darwin's theory and modern evolutionary biology. If you can't read it with comprehension this time, maybe you should just give up pontificating on things you don't understand...
---
Genes had yet to be discovered in 1859. The nature of the genetic material had yet to be discovered in 1859. Genetic drift had yet to be discovered in 1859. Population genetics had yet to be discovered in 1859. Molecular biology had yet to be discovered in 1859. Homeotic genes had yet to be discovered in 1859. I could go on, but hopefully even you get the idea that Darwin generated his "Darwinist" ideas while unaware of all of these currently known facts. All of them provide additional powerful evidence for his theory. But Darwinism had none of this evidence, and Darwinists had no knowledge of these facts.
Dave said,
ReplyDelete>>>>>> Secondly, I see that you are misrepresenting our exchange on Uncommon Dissent. <<<<<<
What I posted on UD was not specifically directed at our exchange here. I made no direct mention of our exchange here.
>>>>>> Over there, where I am banned and cannot defend myself, you wrote <<<<<<
My heart bleeds for you. I have been banned from several Darwinist blogs (as Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me"). I have often been personally attacked on blogs where I cannot defend myself because I have been banned. I used to not post anything on UD because I opposed their practice of arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments, but then decided that I was cutting off my nose to spite my face.
I have decided to just go back to the old definition of evolution theory: random mutation plus natural selection. I explain why in this post on my blog.
Larry wrote: What I posted on UD was not specifically directed at our exchange here. I made no direct mention of our exchange here.
ReplyDeleteMy, what an incredible coincidence that seems to be. Perhaps you can get Dr. Dr. D. to calculate the upper probability bound for that...
then I have decided to just go back to the old definition of evolution theory: random mutation plus natural selection.
That's good. Willingly using an outdated definition will further ensure that you can't ever engage a knowledgeable person in a productive discussion about modern evolutionary theory. That saves time for all of us. Thanks!
>>>>>> Willingly using an outdated definition will further ensure that you can't ever engage a knowledgeable person in a productive discussion about modern evolutionary theory. <<<<<<
ReplyDeleteWell, Dave, you are the one who made a big deal about having agreed-upon definitions, but you won't accept any of my definitions of evolution theory, nor are you proposing any of your own. I think that we can all agree that "natural selection" should be part of the definition, but what else should be added? I suggested "natural genetic variations." There are other possibilities using different combinations of the words "natural," "random," "genetic," "hereditary," "changes," "variations," etc.. And why must there be only one wording? Definitions of the same term in different dictionaries often have different wordings, and sometimes even have different meanings!
Also, though you Darwinists worship Darwin, you are opposed to definitions of evolution theory that attempt to express a common theme between modern evolution theory and Darwin's original theory -- e.g., "natural hereditary changes plus natural selection." Why is that?
Also, though you Darwinists worship Darwin, you not only object to the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist," but you also object to "neo-Darwinism," "Darwinian evolution," and "neo-Darwinian evolution." I can see why you might object to the term "Darwinism" -- it implies a "cult" or "philosophy," but "Darwinian" has little or no such implication. I would have stopped using "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" a long time ago if you Darwinists did not worship Darwin with "I love Darwin" knickknacks, "Friend of Darwin" certificates (handed out at a reunion of the Dover plaintiffs team), etc.. And keeping the same name does not mean that there has been no progress! Consider, for example, Fourier's Law, which is truly the fundamental concept underlying all of the analysis of heat conduction in solids (unlike a similar but false claim about evolution's relation to biology). I don't know if Fourier ever moved past the original one-dimensional steady-state form he proposed in 1822 (according to Wikipedia). But since then we have added a three-dimensional transient form that includes heat capacity as well as thermal conductivity, new predictions of the boundary conditions of convective and radiative heat transfer, new measurements of thermal properties, new mathematical solutions, analog computer simulations, digital computer solutions using discrete nodal models, and new theories of the mechanisms of heat conduction. But the basic law is still called "Fourier's Law" !
You Darwinists don't see the difference between basic principles -- e.g., Fourier's law and evolution theory -- and the additional tools and knowledge that are necessary to apply these basic principles.
Darwinist biologists are crazy -- just plain crazy. They have all these hang-ups that technical professionals in other fields just don't have.
One more thing --
ReplyDeleteDave said...
>>>>> Larry wrote: What I posted on UD was not specifically directed at our exchange here. I made no direct mention of our exchange here.
My, what an incredible coincidence that seems to be. Perhaps you can get Dr. Dr. D. to calculate the upper probability bound for that... <<<<<<<
My post on UD was fairly on-topic there! The topic was the definition of "intelligent design," and I started talking about the definition of evolution theory.
How can someone who doesn't believe in the possibility of coincidences believe in evolution theory?
May I suggest that Larry read John Wilkins' analysis of "Darwinism." He will then at least have an opportunity to see why his shorthand is misleading. I doubt that the opportunity will be taken, but at least it'll be there for him.
ReplyDeleteRBH said...
ReplyDelete>>>>> May I suggest that Larry read John Wilkins' analysis of "Darwinism." He will then at least have an opportunity to see why his shorthand is misleading.
<<<<<<<
Who cares about trying to define "Darwinism" when you Darwinists are even against trying to make a modern definition of "evolution theory"?