It can be said that one who consciously lies and deceives others is dishonest; however, one who believes that lie and propagates it isn’t. However, if a person is propagating such a lie, that person is necessarily one of the two: deceiver, or deceived.
Such is the case with anyone who uses the terms “Darwinism” and “Darwinist”.
Why is it? Because those terms are both inaccurate, and loaded.
They’re inaccurate because modern evolutionary theory, much like any science, has itself evolved, and biologists know much more about the workings of evolution than Darwin did, more than 150 years ago. While, say, religious beliefs themselves change and evolve with time (anyone who believes today’s Christianity has anything to do with what Jesus preached is completely deluded, and should someday try to read the gospels as what they really say, without any preconceptions), they don’t do that openly. In other words, there are branches of Christianity which claim to want to “go back to the basics”, but, typically, you don’t see “Christians” claiming that “Jesus was on to something, but we’ve improved over his primitive teachings“. They do that (after all, the apocalyptic, “sell everything you have, the end is near” trappings of Christ’s Christianity couldn’t have lasted long as a religion, at least with any degree of earthly success), but they don’t claim that — or, if they do, then they have to accept that Jesus was just a man, and such a belief can no longer be called “Christianity”. Islam is a popular example of that (to them, Jesus was just a mortal prophet).
Science, however, evolves, and while the founder / discoverer of a branch is honored and respected, scientists don’t treat his or her words as “holy” or as dogma. No biologist would ever say something like “it’s like this, because Darwin said so.” In science, reality is the final arbiter, and no hypothesis or theory is ever sacred. If anyone ever disproves (with evidence) evolution as we know it, science will abandon it and replace it with a better predictive explanation; the fact that nobody has managed to do it in almost two centuries (and it wasn’t from lack of trying) should tell us something.
We don’t call gravity “Newtonism”, because Newton wasn’t the be-all, end-all of gravity — nor did he claim to be. His writings aren’t the final word on gravity. There is no “final word”, but any new “words” must be tested against reality, and must be able to predict new situations as accurately as possible (say, the orbits of planets). “Newtonism” would suggest that modern physicists worship Newton, that they take his word as dogma, that modern physics are just a case of spreading Newton’s word to the unenlightened. You know, much like religion?
“Darwinism” is exactly the same. The implication of the term is that evolutionary biologists worship Darwin, that modern biology is just the study, understanding and spreading of Darwin’s word. That such a belief is dogmatic, and taken on faith. You may not mean it that way, but that’s what the word implies. If you disagree, consider what saying “Newtonism” instead of “gravity” sounds like.
And yet I keep seeing the term tossed around. Especially — of course — by intelligent design advocates. Who, as Expelled has shown, are not necessarily the most honest people around. Now, if you say “Darwinism” instead of “evolution (by natural selection)”, which are you? The deceiver, who fully knows the implications of such a loaded term, but wants to promote the idea of evolution as a Darwin-worshipping cult? Or the deceived, who was fooled by the former?
No related posts.
Subscribe to this blog
Do you have a problem with using the term “Darwinian Natural Selection”?
Nope.
Anyway, it’s not that *I* have a problem with it; it’s that “Darwinism” is what the ID people call evolution so that it sounds like a Darwin-worshipping fringe cult in science. Or, else, they believe that that’s what it is. Deceived or deceived.
Incidentally, “social Darwinism” is also, IMO, a misleading term, but that’s another subject.
Your blog is rather nice reading, and I enjoy skimming over it. Perhaps it’s simply because we as humans enjoy seeing others affirm our shared beliefs, but it’s that and the fact that I know there are others out there like me who seek to spread the truth and dispel the lies of religion.
As a 16 year old who lives with his parents (who are both very strong Christians), being an atheist isn’t easy. The more perplexing thing is that they hold doctorate (Ph.D.) degrees in biochemistry and chemistry (separately). This makes it all the more confusing to me that they’d be religious, but I’ve come to the conclusion that simply being a scientists doesn’t exempt one from the inherent fear of death and need to believe found in humans.
I know I can sound arrogant, but I dislike the pussyfooting around that is forced upon us as atheists (or non-believers in general, such as agnostics) when it comes to religion. I KNOW for a fact that the Christian God (and all other human gods for that matter) are false, because of the contradictions evident in their holy books. The book of Genesis is my favorite target, as it is rife with contradictions both with respect to logic and established scientific knowledge of the day. However, because it’s religion, people are told to “respect” belief and not say anything about it.
I’m sorry that I just hijacked your blog to give my life story, but for some reason I just needed to write that all out, haha. Very good blog though, I’ve bookmarked it for future reference and entertainment. I find logic to be something that can entertain the mind more than any indulgence in the latest celebrity gossip or what have you.
-Obi
Haha yeah the idea that religion actually exists is very hard to believe but since religion is a substitute for proof it is just as easily believable as unbelievable. Hence why you have biologists, chemists and other forms of scientist who are religious. Before you have theories of science versus religion you have faith, afterward its ingrained and it provides purpose…. you don’t have to be faithful. This is seen at Catholic Schools; the teachers are meant to be catholic to teach their and yet they also employ professors and university lecturers to teach the theories of evolution to their senior science students. Furthermore some of these schools even provide a course on ethics which means that religious faith is aimed to be picked apart, torn to pieces and put back together in time for the next religion less those teacher’s may teach next. The idea of religious belief is not so relevant to the ideals of science so much anymore as it is to the theories of marriage, annulment and attitudes to relationships. IN fact for many religious or teachers with a faith they may choose to study and teach a subject against the beliefs of their religion because it provides a basis for them to believe without having to actually explain why. Furthermore were I one of those teachers having extensive knowledge of those opposing subjects would just make arguing more fun not to mention bring some more interesting an original points to the argument….
Then again I’m atheist so I’m prolly not that reliable to seek opinion.