I am not a Darwinist
Nov 21st, 2008 | By Shalini Sehkar | Category: CommentaryCreationists often love throwing around the label ‘Darwinist’ and ‘Darwinism’ in their attempts to discredit evolution. This tactic is a favorite among the ID creationists who use the term Darwinism to imply that evolutionary biology is on the same level as their religious creation myth.They also try to suggest that scientists are still desperately clinging on to Darwin’s outdated ideas; while being either too ignorant or too dishonest to understand that modern evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond anything Darwin could have ever imagined. As their “theories” are religious myths and not science, they try to portray Darwin as the messiah of evolutionary biology the same way Jesus is the messiah of their particular brand of religion.
(The funny thing is that no creationist ever refers to people who accept the theory of gravitation as Newtonists.)
As most people who accept evolutionary biology would know by now, lot of Darwin’s ideas are outdated and plain wrong. When the IDists trumpet their silly list of ’scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism’, it is clear that they are either liars or people who have no clue about what they are attempting to argue against.
I am not a Darwinist. Darwin is not my messiah - the same way that Newton is not my messiah although I accept that gravity keeps my feet on the ground. I do not believe that natural selection is all there is to evolution. Creationists who starts blabbering about ‘Darwinists think that…..’ or ‘Darwinism is evil…..’ or any variation of the term after being told otherwise over 9000 times (I’m looking at you, UD folks) are simply dishonest liars for their imaginary god.
Last 5 posts by Shalini Sehkar
- Another family destroyed by religion - December 18th, 2008
- “Behold, it was very good.” - December 6th, 2008
- Mental abuse for Jesus - November 11th, 2008
- Stalin, Stalin, Stalin! - November 4th, 2008
- The Burial of Jesus - October 28th, 2008
Loading ...
A few points: First, I think a number of biologists (at least outside of the States) do use the word Darwinism or Darwinian Evolution, to get their point across. In the USA it is a belittling term, but elsewhere I’m not so sure.
Second, we do talk about Newtonian versus Einsteinian (or relativistic) physics, but it’s not considered derogatory. It also refers to whether you’re doing old-fashioned mechanics or involving special relativity.
But I do agree that it’s a bit tiring to hear so many misrepresentations so often.
[Reply]
I see Shalini’s point. In the U.S. Darwinism is used as a term by creationists to make those who accept biological evolution look like disciples of Charles Darwin as their opponents are disciples of Jesus Christ. Its all an attempt to make accepting evolution look like just another faith.
As to the comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, we use these terms to compare, almost as matters of scale.
One represents the math for one set of distances and masses, and the another for the second. We do not compare Darwinian evolution to others, except as examples of the massive failures of Darwin’s predecessors like Lamarck (but don’t get me started on epigenetics).
Many of Darwin’s ideas were revolutionized by Mendel, and later on Avery, Hershey, and Chase. But they did not supplant Darwin, merely added to his ideas. So using Darwinism as representative of a certain scale in evolution does not work.
However saying one is a Gouldian, or Dawkinsian might work on selfish-gene theory and punctuated equilibrium.
Darwin’s name is not a good descriptor for those who accept evolution.
[Reply]
I don’t much care what nutbags like Ben Stein think, or say.
Darwin changed the world in a way they will never be able to do, or even understand.
Someone wants to call me a Darwinist, I’m happy to accept the label.
Don’t let the morons sully a great man’s name by letting them define what it means.
Darwinist means: great thinker and scientist.
Its a bloody compliment.
[Reply]
Yeah I’ve often complained to fellow Skeptics when I’ve seen them use the word “Darwinist” to designate someone who is not a Creationist. It seems to play right into the hands of the opposition. It makes it sound like scientists have just recited as gospel everything that Darwin said without any further investigation, criticism or elabouration. Our understanding of evolution has grown much since his day, and many other people have contributed!
When Skeptical, Humanist etc organisations make such a big deal about Darwin Day etc I think it also adds to this misunderstanding. Sure there are important concepts but he wasn’t some divine being and if he hadn’t done so much to publicise evolution, then someone else would have.
Also I don’t really approve as much of “Darwin Fish” on cars. Yeah some play on the Jesus fish is cool, but it seems too much like “my religion is Darwin”.
[Reply]
Pete Dunkelberg Reply:
November 29th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Have you seen the Cthulhu Fish? I saw it once on the back of a car, and when I realized what it was I burst out laughing.
[Reply]