Nobody ever calls it “Darwinism” today!

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 17, 2014

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News

1}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

No? Then how come…

In the United States, the term “Darwinism” is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection. – Scott, Eugenie C.; Branch, Glenn (16 January 2009). “Evolution: Education and Outreach (New York: Springer) 2 (1): 90. doi:10.1007/s12052-008-0111-2. ISSN 1936-6434. Retrieved 17 November 2009.

Unless they sense they are among friends when promoting it

Note: These people are key players in the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby

Hat tip: Timothy Kershner

Comments

gpuccio Very clarifying explanation, as usual. Thank you.Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Joe, From what you wrote, Spetner includes design in his arguments, therefore his position is not outside design. I think what gpuccio says is that 'design' and 'n-D e' are the only two gladiators on the arena, and we know which gladiator is the winner at the end. Spetner does not seem to introduce a third option. Even Shapiro's third way is not adding another alternative.Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

OK gpuccio, I totally misunderstood your point in 18. Spetner posits "built-in responses to environmental cues"- that is organisms were designed with the ability to adapt.Joe_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: "Isn’t “the third way” by professor Shapiro and other respected academics another separate attempt, away from design but also away from orthodox Darwinism or its neo- cousin?" Maybe when he explains the 500+ papers that you have piled on him! :) No, really, I don't understand Shapiro. He is a brilliant scientist, and very much aware of the limits of the current evolutionary theory. But I would like to understand what is the real meaning of the "third way". I may be stupid, but apparently the only meaning that I understand is: there are two ways, and the first one does not work, and the second one I don't want to accept. So, if and when some alternative is found, it will be the third. How can we object to that? :)gpuccio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

Dionisio at #22: Indeed the term "evolution" is very generic, and in itself it means nothing. The real "war" is about explaining complex functional information is biological beings. Now, functional information is already extremely high just in the first examples of living beings of which we have cognition (LUCA, prokaryoyes). There is no doubt about that. But there is also no doubt, whatever some strict darwinists mat say, that in the course of natural history there is a growth of functional information is biological beings, with the transition to eukaryotes, and then to metazoa, up to humans. So, in that sense, there is a definite "evolution" of complexity toward ever more complex forms. That is a direction, and we, who believe in design, have no fear to admit it. What is the purpose of that direction? Why should living beings "evolve" toward greater complexity (from a starting point which is already extremely complex)? Certainly the reason is not reproductive success. I have said many times that the most successful beings in reproduction are certainly the prokaryotes. So, why "evolve" from that state? My personal view is that there is only one reason that justifies the transition to greater complexity: the desire to implement new functions. That is the reason in human design, always. We build new and more complex computer operating systems (not always successful) not just to spend time in trying to make them work, but because we want to implement new functions, new possibilities. That is the true, drawing engine of creativity. The same is true for biological beings. They become more complex, because they implement new things. That is the true meaning of "evolution". That's why we call it "evolution", and not "involution" (which also exists), or simply "transition" or "change". Evolution is a growth in functional complexity to implement new functions. And design is the only known cause for that kind of process.gpuccio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Joe at #18: My point was simply that neo darwinism is the only non design theory which tries to explain biological information (without succeeding). Design theories of course can explain biological information, because design definitely has the explanatory power for functional information. I have not read Spetner, but if his position is a design position he is certainly not an example of alternative non design explanation, and therefore neo darwinism remains the only "feasible" non design explanation (in the sense specified above). Could you sum up in brief Spetner's specific ideas?gpuccio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Dionisio:
Apparently some ‘evos’ don’t consider themselves fully Darwinists, as it seems to be the case with the third way group, which includes professor Shapiro and other respected academics.
James Shapiro, of natural genetic engineering fame, thinks that Darwinian evolution gave rise to his NGE. And when people use the word "Darwinism" it should be assumed that NDE (not NGE) is included. IOW "Darwinism" is all inclusiveJoe_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

tintinnid:
Joe, yes there are some evolutionary biologists who refer to themselves as Darwinists (a very small percentage, mind you) just as there are some ID proponents that refer to themselves as creationists.
Are you thick? If Creation is a subset of ID then it is a given that some IDists will also be Creationists.
I do not recall any anti-ID commenter on UD referring to themselves as a Darwinist.
Most, if not all, people posting anti-ID comments on UD are totally clueless.
What are the Darwinian Debating Device series?
Debating devices used by Darwinians, duh. How is that offensive?
But when evolutionary biologists insist that their understanding of evolution has gone light years beyond the original theory, IDists continue to use a term they know to be inaccurate.
Darwinian evolution means that the processes are blind and undirected- ie natural selection and drift. Today's evolution is no different from that. And if you think otherwise I challenge you to demonstrate any differences.Joe_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

tintinnid:
I do not recall any anti-ID commenter on UD referring to themselves as a Darwinist. Could that possibly be because they don’t consider themselves to be Darwinist?
Could that possibly be because they are just being intellectually dishonest?Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Joe, yes there are some evolutionary biologists who refer to themselves as Darwinists (a very small percentage, mind you) just as there are some ID proponents that refer to themselves as creationists. I do not recall any anti-ID commenter on UD referring to themselves as a Darwinist. Could that possibly be because they don't consider themselves to be Darwinist? And you claim to not know anyone who has used Darwinism in a pejorative manner. My only response to this is that you must be wearing blinders. Let's look at the definition of pejorative: expressing contempt or disapproval. What are the Darwinian Debating Device series? They sound like an expression of contempt or disapproval. I am sure that Barry will make some lame comment about them being nothing but statements of fact, but that would just be dissembling nonsense. When IDists insist that ID is not creationism, they get upset when someone persists in calling them creationists. But when evolutionary biologists insist that their understanding of evolution has gone light years beyond the original theory, IDists continue to use a term they know to be inaccurate. Personally, I could care less what I am called. I just find it childish for either side to persist in using a term to define the other side that the vast majority on the other side do not use for themselves. As much as I think the terms dirt-worshippers and IDiots are moronic, at least they are not being dishonest with themselves an others as to their intentions.tintinnid_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Joe, Apparently some 'evos' don't consider themselves fully Darwinists, as it seems to be the case with the third way group, which includes professor Shapiro and other respected academics. I prefer to use the term 'n-D e' to refer to the specific group that relies on that theory. Aren't the third way folks in a separate league, apart from the 'n-D e' crowd? I recall some friendly folks in this site have expressed their opinion that 'n-D e' and the third way is about the same, but is that correct? Aren't the third way folks criticizing 'n-D e'? I think gpuccio is one who has stated that there are not more gladiators on the arena, brides ID and 'n-D e' Do you agree? Thanks.Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Creation is a deep fundamental mystery of Science. Although most Scientists don't call it "Creation". It's called "emergence" or "transition" or "very interesting". Creation Science is a future field of study. Deep Field of Scientific Study.ppolish_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

tintinnid- Creationism is a subset of ID. And I don't know of anyone who uses "Darwinism" in an intentionally pejorative way. As I said Evos use the word "Darwinism" to describe their position.Joe_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

In the USA, "Darwin Day" grows more popular each year amongst the "Humanist" crowd that help create the day in the first place. Mostly a joke really.ppolish_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

"So what? We are talking about ID, not IDists. Also Creation has a specific meaning." Joe, are you seriously suggesting that creationism is not a form of ID? Or at least that the design part of creationism is not ID? If this is true, which is obviously self evident, then there are plenty of IDists who refer to themselves as creationists, and the process as creationism. But it was not my intent to argue whether or not creationism is ID. I was merely pointing out that both sides use the terms Darwinism and creationism in an intentionally pejorative sense, and that it is childish on both sides. In both cases it is an attempt to give the impression of scientific accuracy when, in fact, it is just a more polite way of using the moronic and infantile terms IDiots and dirt-worshippers.tintinnid_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Dionisio- Yes the second book was just released. I have a review of it on the site you linked to.Joe_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Any IDist who believes that the designer is god is, by definition, a creationist.
So what? We are talking about ID, not IDists. Also Creation has a specific meaning.Joe_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Joe: "tintinnid- Evolutionists refer to evolution as Darwinism. IDists never refer to ID as Creationism" Any IDist who believes that the designer is god is, by definition, a creationist. A rose by any other name...tintinnid_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Joe, I see your point now. Thanks. BTW, the second book you mentioned seems pretty new, isn't it? http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Revolution-Thinking-Rethinking/dp/1607631555/ref=pd_sim_b_5?ie=UTF8&refRID=1MPRA6Y5K14CS72AFPHA Thank you for referring to it here.Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Dionisio- Spetner has attempted and succeeded.Joe_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

tintinnid- Evolutionists refer to evolution as Darwinism. IDists never refer to ID as CreationismJoe_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, Isn't the term evolution so general, that it can be used in different situations to mean different things? Isn't its accurate meaning contextual? Isn't the amazing process transforming the zygote into a human being an evolution in certain way? Isn't that why some people add the prefix micro or macro, depending on the case, to refer to evolution in relation to plants or animal species? Isn't the famous Galapagos finch beaks story more related to built in adaptation capabilities than evolution?Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, Isn't "the third way" by professor Shapiro and other respected academics another separate attempt, away from design but also away from orthodox Darwinism or its neo- cousin?Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Referring to evolution as Darwinism is no more pejorative than referring to ID as creationism. They are both inaccurate, and they are intentionally used in a pejorative sense by some IDist when referring to evolution, and by some scientists when referring to ID. Personally, I think this practice speaks to the childishness of the person using the term.tintinnid_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Joe, I'm not sure I understood your post #18 correctly. Did you notice the word 'attempt' in the gpuccio's statement that you quoted?Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

gpuccio:
However, the RV+NS theory is at least an attempt at explaining what we observe. Out of design theories, I am aware of no other attempt.
Then you need to read Dr Lee Sptner, starting with "Not By Chance" and then "The Evolution Revolution", as he lays down his "non-random evolutionary hypothesis which does exactly what you want- in a design perspective.Joe_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @ 12
Yes, surely experience can teach bacteria how to get the right sequence of nucleotides! You just learn to adapt your methylome a little, and the rest comes by itself.
Of course! Why not? Don't we -sometimes, though very rarely- learn from experience too? Why can't bacteria do the same? After all, aren't we all pretty much made of the same stuff as bacteria? Actually, don't we carry gazillion bacteria within our bodies? Could it be that our learning is influenced by the bacteria learning? :()Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @ 13
I don’t know what strange hidden emotions my typo could suggest…
I think the original symbol :() was more appropriate to reinforce the excellent message you were trying to convey in that post:
Why bother about intelligence? There is not much of it around, after all. Better to explain things in non intelligent ways!
After all, isn't that the way many of us feel, when reading the unintelligent explanations we encounter out there these days? Is there a better symbol to represent that feeling than the symbol :() that you used? :)Dionisio_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Hmmm,,, big media is not using Darwinism in a negative way? I wonder why that does NOT surprise me in the least??? ----- Media's bias on evolution becoming more blatant - 2004 Excerpt: But those who believe in intelligent design or find gaping holes in the theory of evolution frequently encounter a hostile press. The Discovery Institute recently provided to Accuracy in Media a thick file of complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the media, especially National Public Radio. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2004/12/we_re_not_paranoid000747.htmlbornagain77_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Humbled #1
I live in the UK, I use the term “Darwinism” often, so does members of my family as well as friends and other acquaintances. We most certainly do use the term in a negative / pejorative manner. We use the term to describe the Darwin faithful and the religion they subscribe to.
I also live in the UK and my experience is the opposite. Most people I talked to would be quite perplexed if I used the word Darwinism except in the context of Social Darwinism. The less scientific would probably ask if I meant Evolution, the more scientific if I meant neo-Darwinism unless they were biologists when they would get more specific. In any case it would not occur to any of them that is was a pejorative term (except in the context of Social Darwinism) I was trying to think of a passably objective way of deciding which of our experiences is more typical. I settled on searching on “Darwinism” on the some of major UK newspaper web sites and noting if the first 10 references were positive or not. Here were the results: Telegraph – for some reason the search engine picks up Darwin as well as Darwinism and I can’t work out how to suppress this. The first page had just one mention of Darwinism as opposed to Darwin. This was in the context of a book review talking about Social Darwinism. Mail – 7 uses of Darwinism to describe the scientific theory – non pejorative – 3 uses of Darwinism as part of the phrase “Social Darwinism” (and therefore pejorative but not critical of the biological theory) Guardian – surprisingly this came closest to having an item using Darwinism pejoratively. There was an article critical of “ultra-Darwinism” – a term I have not heard before – which refers to Darwinism applied in a crude manner to sphere it does not really apply to. None of the other articles used the term pejoratively. Draw your own conclusions.Mark Frank_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply