There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution'

lol, I was just having a laugh at the posters above me

all hardcore anti-darwin and shit

Yeah there is. Even Atheism's poster-children use those words all the time, like Hitchens and Dawkins. They might be misnomers or "not real words" (like ain't), but they're still accepted terms that everyone knows what they mean.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah there is. Even Atheism's poster-children use those words all the time, like Hitchens and Dawkins. They might be misnomers or "not real words" (like ain't), but they're still accepted terms that everyone knows what they mean.

They should be done away with because because they lead to an incorrect conclusion. This is what the article said, and the article even said that a lot of people who should know better use these improper terms.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They should be done away with because because they lead to an incorrect conclusion. This is what the article said, and the article even said that a lot of people who should know better use these improper terms.

I think "Darwinian Evolution" is a redundancy, since its his theory.

But "Darwinism" makes sense. An "ism" is an idea that people subscribe to. I also like the word "Darwiniac" for someone who subscribes to Darwinism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They should be done away with because because they lead to an incorrect conclusion. This is what the article said, and the article even said that a lot of people who should know better use these improper terms.

There is usually a huge difference between the way things should be said and way people say them. That's part of language and does not hamper understanding by laypeople.

For example in Sci-Fi there are devices called Inertial Dampers but people often call them Inertial Dampeners which technically has a completely different meaning but the phrase is still completely understood. For that matter most native speakers of English use the totally non-existent word "gonna" to say "going to", native Japanese speakers pronounce "desu" as "des", French speakers drop the ends of many words.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think "Darwinian Evolution" is a redundancy, since its his theory.

But "Darwinism" makes sense. An "ism" is an idea that people subscribe to. I also like the word "Darwiniac" for someone who subscribes to Darwinism.

"We don't call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism," Safina points out. "Using phrases like 'Darwinian selection' or 'Darwinian evolution' implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective. For instance, 'Newtonian physics' distinguishes the mechanical physics Newton explored from subatomic quantum physics. So 'Darwinian evolution' raises a question: What's the other evolution?"

There is none, of course.

Scott and Branch, in their paper, delved much deeper into the confusion fueled by these terms, given that evolutionary biology has expanded to include many theories and concepts unknown in the 19th century.

"The term “Darwinism" is, therefore, ambiguous and misleading," they write.

"Compounding the problem of 'Darwinism' is the hijacking of the term by creationists to portray evolution as a dangerous ideology — an 'ism' — that has no place in the science classroom," Scott and Branch argue. "When scientists and teachers use 'Darwinism' as synonymous with evolutionary biology, it reinforces such a misleading portrayal and hinders efforts to present the scientific standing of evolution accurately. Accordingly, the term 'Darwinism' should be abandoned as a synonym for evolutionary biology."

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think "Darwinian Evolution" is a redundancy, since its his theory.

Darwinian Evolution (Darwinism) is Darwin's theory. Lamarkian Evolution is Lamark's theory. Modern Evolution is not the same thing as either one, in technical parlance there is a difference between the current theory of evolution and the one that Darwin came up with.

Nonetheless Darwinism is colloquially the same thing as Evolution and there's rarely a need to refer to Darwinian Evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

You realize we actually do call Newton's theories about gravity . . . . . . Newtonian, right?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You realize we actually do call Newton's theories about gravity . . . . . . Newtonian, right?

But no "ism".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You realize we actually do call Newton's theories about gravity . . . . . . Newtonian, right?

We also use Einsteinian.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But no "ism".

I hear "Newtonism" all the time on The History Channel. Neil de Grasse Tyson uses it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But no "ism".

Which is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is irrelevant.

Not to the point that I am making. Sure, people say the wrong thing all the time. Most of the time there is no problem. However, there is no active religious group that is trying to replace the theory of gravity with an intelligent suction cup.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not to the point that I am making. Sure, people say the wrong thing all the time. Most of the time there is no problem. However, there is no active religious group that is trying to replace the theory of gravity with an intelligent suction cup.

And what they call it would have no effect on their success.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And what they call it would have no effect on their success.

They thrive on confusion.

ya, but they will promote confusion anyways

Its not like they understand evolution in the first place

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, but they will promote confusion anyways

Its not like they understand evolution in the first place

But why should we (the supporters of evolution) give them any fuel? I think that is what the author of the article was trying to get across. 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But why should we (the supporters of evolution) give them any fuel? I think that is what the author of the article was trying to get across. 😄

what fuel?

"evolutionists" didn't come up with the term "evolutionist"

Originally posted by inimalist
what fuel?

"evolutionists" didn't come up with the term "evolutionist"

As posted above, people who should know better, use these incorrect terms. This usage legitimatizes their wrong interpretation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
As posted above, people who should know better, use these incorrect terms. This usage legitimatizes their wrong interpretation.

I'd agree with that, other than to say it only legitimizes them to those who have something against evolution.

Many people use "evolutionist" to inaccurately describe anyone doing any research in genetics or evolutionary biology. Coming out against these terms is just as likely to alienate the layman who probably couldn't care less about what the the actually is.

In a lot of ways its like me trying to explain to my friends that I study neuroscience and not neurology.