"It is more about that ' Darwinism' rolls off the toungue better than 'modification through descent' and it drags a scientific theory into the realms of philosophy and faith."
No, you're really inventing a dispute here which doesn't exist. The term 'Darwinism' is frequently used in scientific discourse (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=darwinism&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=bio&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&hl=en), as are a host of other such terms. You might have a case in objecting to the historical inaccuracy of associating such things with individual people, but the evolution of language is rarely rational. But there's no creationist conspiracy here.
"I could take Creationists a bit more seriously if they had more people on board who were real scientists doing real science."
Surely they do. No one disputes that, for example, Behe is in fact a scientist and has in fact conducted scientific research. But this isn't a relevant metric. Its abuse in the media and courts notwithstanding, science doesn't in fact work by a principle that X is scientific where you can find a scientist who believes X.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 15/2/11 09:17 (UTC)No, you're really inventing a dispute here which doesn't exist. The term 'Darwinism' is frequently used in scientific discourse (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=darwinism&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=bio&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&hl=en), as are a host of other such terms. You might have a case in objecting to the historical inaccuracy of associating such things with individual people, but the evolution of language is rarely rational. But there's no creationist conspiracy here.
"I could take Creationists a bit more seriously if they had more people on board who were real scientists doing real science."
Surely they do. No one disputes that, for example, Behe is in fact a scientist and has in fact conducted scientific research. But this isn't a relevant metric. Its abuse in the media and courts notwithstanding, science doesn't in fact work by a principle that X is scientific where you can find a scientist who believes X.