• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

David Gelernter takes on Darwinism

 
 
 
fromderinside said:
 Darwinism

Oh wait! This is the pseudoscience thread ......
Click to expand...

 Atlantis

The existence of a Wikipedia entry is not evidence of the existence of the thing that entry discusses.

"Darwinism" is an insult - an attempt by creationists to spin the debate by claiming that those who comprehend the reality are using the same wishful thinking techniques that they themselves use.

But it's not a real thing. It's just a baseless allegation - one that bizarrely uses the logic "No, your position is just as stupid and unjustified as ours is!"
 
fromderinside said:
Darwinism is a theory. Facts are something else again. I'd rather discuss support interpreting Darwin's evidence for Theory of Evolution than spout about whether darwinism is a fact. Second hand lions aren't very useful.
Click to expand...

Darwinism isn't a theory, in the same exact way that "nigger" isn't an ethnicity.

The theory of evolution is a theory. "Darwinism" is an insult.

Nobody talks about "Einsteinism".
 
Modern evolutionary theory reflects the evolution of Darwin's theory. So I used this to bring us up to date more or less:
Moderen Evolutionary Synthesis https://www.thoughtco.com/modern-evolutionary-synthesis-1224613

The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution combines several different scientific disciplines and their overlapping findings. The original theory of evolution was based mostly upon the work of Naturalists. The modern synthesis has the benefit of many years of research in Genetics and Paleontology, among other various subjects under the biology umbrella.
Click to expand...


Darwin's theory differs with modern theory in three major ways.

  1. The modern synthesis recognizes several different possible mechanisms of evolution. Darwin's theory relied on natural selection as the only known mechanism. One of these different mechanisms, genetic drift, could even match the importance of natural selection in the overall view of evolution.
  2. Modern synthesis asserts that characteristics are passed down from parents to offspring on parts of DNA called genes. Variation between individuals within a species is because of the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
  3. The modern synthesis of the Theory of Evolution hypothesizes that speciation is most likely due to the gradual accumulation of small changes or mutations at the gene level. In other words, microevolution leads to macroevolution.
Click to expand...

The theories are distinct enough to refer to darwin's model as darwinism and current theory as modern evolutionary theory.

Those who attack evolution by attacking Darwin's sense of evolution are not attacking evolutionary theory IMHO, rather they attack a caricature extant as the skeleton proposed by Darwin which I prefer to call darwinism. I choose this term not as an insult to darwin or TOE, but to insult those who attack TOE with such such simplistic and biblical stuff.

Science has moved on. My rudimentary understanding of TOE centers around gene rather than individual and fitness is a gene population proposition accommodating drift.

I'm pretty sure that anyone attacking Einsteins original theory of relativity as he put it would be considered of attacking Einsteinism rather than modern theory of relativity.

I prefer to keep my powder dry than to throw a blanket over a theory that has matured since it was first presented and I prefer to call out those who do such as frauds.

So fire away.
 
fromderinside said:
Modern evolutionary theory reflects the evolution of Darwin's theory. So I used this to bring us up to date more or less:
Moderen Evolutionary Synthesis https://www.thoughtco.com/modern-evolutionary-synthesis-1224613

The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution combines several different scientific disciplines and their overlapping findings. The original theory of evolution was based mostly upon the work of Naturalists. The modern synthesis has the benefit of many years of research in Genetics and Paleontology, among other various subjects under the biology umbrella.
Click to expand...


Darwin's theory differs with modern theory in three major ways.

  1. The modern synthesis recognizes several different possible mechanisms of evolution. Darwin's theory relied on natural selection as the only known mechanism. One of these different mechanisms, genetic drift, could even match the importance of natural selection in the overall view of evolution.
  2. Modern synthesis asserts that characteristics are passed down from parents to offspring on parts of DNA called genes. Variation between individuals within a species is because of the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
  3. The modern synthesis of the Theory of Evolution hypothesizes that speciation is most likely due to the gradual accumulation of small changes or mutations at the gene level. In other words, microevolution leads to macroevolution.
Click to expand...

The theories are distinct enough to refer to darwin's model as darwinism and current theory as modern evolutionary theory.

Those who attack evolution by attacking Darwin's sense of evolution are not attacking evolutionary theory IMHO, rather they attack a caricature extant as the skeleton proposed by Darwin which I prefer to call darwinism. I choose this term not as an insult to darwin or TOE, but to insult those who attack TOE with such such simplistic and biblical stuff.

Science has moved on. My rudimentary understanding of TOE centers around gene rather than individual and fitness is a gene population proposition accommodating drift.

I'm pretty sure that anyone attacking Einsteins original theory of relativity as he put it would be considered of attacking Einsteinism rather than modern theory of relativity.

I prefer to keep my powder dry than to throw a blanket over a theory that has matured since it was first presented and I prefer to call out those who do such as frauds.

So fire away.
Click to expand...

Yeah, lots of idiots defend their use of the word "nigger" on the basis that they don't think of it as an insult.

But they are horribly wrong, and oblivious to society's expectations, when they do so. If they were even vaguely aware of how they look to others, they would stop. But they aren't, so they don't.

But regardless of how detailed their justification, there's still no good reason to call ANYONE a nigger, or a darwinist - because to do so is a pure insult from the perspective of the audience, regardless of the intent of the speaker.
 
You "analogy" is just an attempt to use taboo language. There is no relationship between your exemplar and the term Darwinism. One directly denigrates while the other describes biblicist attempt to argue about how we got here. I treat any attempt to slander modern Evolutionary Theory with feeble use of dated and just wrong argument as disgusting. So I shall continue to use Darwinism in that context.

I see no expectation by society to put those who take Darwin's statements to make some sort of 'argument' using dated theory about how flatworms became humans in any rational discussion as reasonable. It's not denigrating anybody. They denigrate themselves by so doing.

You lowered yourself when you went for effect when you made the 'comparison' of a slur against a group of humans with those who would use darwinism to put those who attack evolutionary theory based on Darwin's views in their place. You overreact sir. Your use of that particular slur insultes anyone reading it. Those who have a specific view about using words to handle those who would misrepresent the field as important as modern evolutionary theory are justified in calling those arguments darwinist misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.
 
bilby said:
fromderinside said:
 Darwinism

Oh wait! This is the pseudoscience thread ......
Click to expand...

 Atlantis

The existence of a Wikipedia entry is not evidence of the existence of the thing that entry discusses.

"Darwinism" is an insult - an attempt by creationists to spin the debate by claiming that those who comprehend the reality are using the same wishful thinking techniques that they themselves use.

But it's not a real thing. It's just a baseless allegation - one that bizarrely uses the logic "No, your position is just as stupid and unjustified as ours is!"
Click to expand...

In a conversation with a bunch of folk from a church group I am friendly with, someone was blaming "darwin-ism" for "bad science". This was during bible discussion. So I started referring to some of the passages as being a part of "Constantine-ism". When they asked me what I meant... I explained that the choice of passages available to us to discuss was just "Constantine-ism" (from Constantine, the Roman) and not God (from Christianity).
My implication being that Darwin-ism controls Science like Constantine-ism controls Christianity.

One person I didn't know that well said, "I don't know about that", with a negative expression on his face.
I responded, "That is the bravest, most honest thing anyone has ever said about something so beautifully complicated. God bless you".
 
bilby said:
fromderinside said:
Darwinism is a theory. Facts are something else again. I'd rather discuss support interpreting Darwin's evidence for Theory of Evolution than spout about whether darwinism is a fact. Second hand lions aren't very useful.
Click to expand...

Darwinism isn't a theory, in the same exact way that "nigger" isn't an ethnicity.

The theory of evolution is a theory. "Darwinism" is an insult.

Nobody talks about "Einsteinism".
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom