Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

littlegreenfootballs.com — I agree with Olivia Judson; it ’s long past time to get rid of Darwinism. I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it...

Bury

TheHomeOffice 136 days ago

13 diggs
digg it

20 Comments
Who Dugg It?

Varchild, on 07/18/2008, -17/+1I agree Let's get rid of any further discussion on Evolution which is a religious faith based malarky itself. Completely un-observable hogwash. Not one scientist has ever brought any evidence to suggest you can somehow get 2 different species of animal to emerge from 1 or somehow evolution of a single celled organism occured to produce multi-celled ones.
- Varchild, on 07/18/2008, -16/+3Interestingly, by voicing my disagreements with Charles's assault against creationism in science classes my account has been blocked.
  
  *sigh* It won't stop me from reading and enjoying Little Green Footballs though. I've read it for months before applying for an account and I've donated money to LGF before.
  
  So.. whatever.. If Charles want's to be hypersensitive on this issue then that's his perogative.
  
  One has to wonder if Charles is so sensitive on this subject that perhaps there's more to it than simple that Charles believes in Evolution Theory. I'm thinking he has a disdain for "RELIGION" period. But, hopefully I am wrong.
- ChenZhen, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4You got banned for disagreeing? Good grief.
  
  Are you gonna ask for your money back?
- gordonj, on 07/18/2008, -0/+16really? Your claims are ludicrous. Just because you don't have the mental agility to be able to think outside of religious terms does not mean that anyone who believes something is religious. Ignorance regarding evidence for evolution doesn't make it untrue.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/18/2008, -0/+19"Let's get rid of any further discussion on Evolution which is a religious faith based malarky itself."
  Evolution is neither "religious" nor "faith based" in any way. It is an observable, repeatable fact, in addition to being a Scientific Theory, which is a framework for explaining a phenomenon or series of related phenomena backed by a preponderance of evidence and peer review.
  
  "Completely un-observable hogwash."
  Incorrect - evolution has been observed and even repeated. We have seen it in labs most recently with Cit+ E. Coli experiments, in which E. Coli bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, something the population decidedly lacked before. We have seen it in the wild with bacteria that have evolved the ability to eat nylon, a completely synthetic material not found in nature, and then reproduced it under laboratory conditions. We have seen it in the fossil record with the perfect and continuous day-by-day and year-by-year fossil record of foraminifera, going back to the mid-Jurassic. Foraminiferans make up almost an entire phylum of life, meaning they encompass many different species. We can track all these species back to common ancestors.
  
  "Not one scientist has ever brought any evidence to suggest you can somehow get 2 different species of animal to emerge from 1 or somehow evolution of a single celled organism occured to produce multi-celled ones."
  Your ignorance of the evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist. Before you speak out wildly about a topic you do not understand, try to learn about it - you'll look less like an ignorant jackass that way.
Varchild, on 07/18/2008, -14/+1Reading through the comments on these Creationist threads... a awful lot of Evolutionists believe Public School System's Science Classes DO NOT teach Evolution to explain Origin of Life.

That has not been my personal experience at all. It is why creationists take offense with evolutionists regarding science classes.

When a Science Class is basically teaching students that their religion is completely false, that's where I draw the line.

That's why Creationists have come up with MICRO - MACRO evolution as a sorta compromise explanation. We are in AGREEMENT in regards to animals evolving new traits over generations after generations of time to adapt to new environments or whatever.

That's fine.. We are simply not fine with being told that we are not allowed to speak up in a science class whose teacher is telling us evolution and the Big Bang Theory and so on are the only explanations allowed to be discussed in a science class room.

What I find interesting is that Scientists are involved (TODAY) with proving Intelligent Design once it becomes possible that scientists are able to create their own molecular structures and eventually create their own single celled organism. It shows that life can be created.

I don't know anything about this "Institute" Charles keeps bring up. I know very little in regards to "ID" movements. But, I do know that science classrooms should open up the floor at least for sceintific experiments going on where perhaps one day Human Kind can create Life. That's a good compromise on this "over heated" debate.

I mean fine.. Leave GOD out of the Science Classroom. But, I think we can still leave the door open on whether LIFE is something Scientists can one day create.

And I think Charles would agree.
- lydecker, on 07/18/2008, -2/+13The origin of life is outside the scope of evolution. Evolution is the theory about how life changes by generation to make new and/or different species.
  
  If it's been your experience, explain what evolutionary mechanism your personal experiences in Science class have led you to believe is responsible for the origin of life. If somehow the origin of life WAS determined to fit into evolution, that would be incredibly interesting.
  
  Now, you might not be talking about the scientific origin of life, and instead talking about the religious origin of life (of humans), in that evolution says origin of the human species was from it's hominid ancestors. This IS why creationists take offense in spite of evidence supporting such theory, because it goes against religious beliefs in spite of any evidence outside of a religious text.
  
  A science class can not and does not teach that a religion is completely false, it teaches a model of life and a theory that fits with evidence. It can not and does not teach that the theory, like Big Bang Theory, is the only explanation. Other theories can and will be discussed when they fit evidence observed about the universe.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/18/2008, -1/+13"...a[sic] awful lot of Evolutionists believe Public School System's Science Classes DO NOT teach Evolution to explain Origin of Life."
  The Theory of Evolution does not explain the origins of life, but the diversity of life. The origins of life is for the field of Abiogenesis.
  
  "When a Science Class is basically teaching students that their religion is completely false, that's where I draw the line."
  If that's what you read into it, that's your problem - facts trump fiction.
  
  "That's why Creationists have come up with MICRO - MACRO evolution as a sorta compromise explanation."
  Creationists didn't come up with those terms, scientists did - then discarded them 10 years later when the micro/macro model did not fit the evidence.
  
  "We are simply not fine with being told that we are not allowed to speak up in a science class whose teacher is telling us evolution and the Big Bang Theory and so on are the only explanations allowed to be discussed in a science class room."
  Well, do you have actual scientific alternatives? If your alternatives are not scientific, then they don't belong in a science class room.
  
  "What I find interesting is that Scientists are involved (TODAY) with proving Intelligent Design once it becomes possible that scientists are able to create their own molecular structures and eventually create their own single celled organism. It shows that life can be created."
  First off, ID is not scientific, anyone working on it is not participating in a scientific endeavor. Also, showing that life can be created in a lab does not demonstrate that all life on earth was created by a "designer". Finally, the only field of science in which there exists "proof" is math - all other fields are evidence based. Sorry, but there exists no evidence for ID, Creationism, or whatever other label you've slapped onto what is essentially the same idea.
  
  Also, a science classroom is not the proper place for a debate on the subject of the origins of life - students there are learning about methodology and rigor, they do not have the background to properly debate a subject with any degree of accuracy.
  - lydecker, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4Completely, I think science classes would do well to explain what he haven't yet found in evolutionary theory or what doesn't make sense, so hopefully inquisitive minds might iron out the problems with the theory or find it irreparable. There's no harm.
    
    Though I don't see anything in AN's post that mentions we shouldn't point out what we don't know and need to fix or research in regards to evolutionary theory.
  - lydecker, on 07/18/2008, -1/+6Completely. And don't present any non-facts in science, like Creationism or Intelligent Design or God. Those aren't facts nor based upon them.
    
    Many people don't agree, and want unscientific religious-based theories taught alongside evolution as if they are paranoid that not having scientific credibility threatens their religion.
  - ApokalypseNow, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5@lydecker
    Telling the students that "we don't know" may not be accurate, as it may just be the science teacher that doesn't know, but I take your meaning how it was intended: lettings students know that we don't have perfect knowledge of the past is fine, as long as we also establish that we don't require perfect knowledge to build a model and make predictions. For example, we don't need to stare at Jupiter unblinking for 12 years to know that it does, in fact, orbit the sun.
- Dimensio, on 07/18/2008, -1/+11" We are simply not fine with being told that we are not allowed to speak up in a science class whose teacher is telling us evolution and the Big Bang Theory and so on are the only explanations allowed to be discussed in a science class room."
  
  In which science classrooms are evolution and the Big Bang theory the only explanations discussed? I studied a number of scientific explanations when taking science courses in high school, including explanations of atomic theory and of relativity theory.
BlankVerse, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Here are links for the original New York Times article:

Read it:
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/lets-ge ...
Digg it:
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Olivia_Judson_Let ...
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Login or register to add a comment