Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Darwinism Must Die So Evolution Can Live

Posted by kdawson on from the not-all-isms-created-equal dept.

Pickens writes "MacArthur fellow Carl Safina, an adjunct professor at Stony Brook University, has an interesting essay in the NYTimes that says that equating evolution with Charles Darwin opened the door for creationism by ignoring 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution — Gregor Mendel's patterns of heredity, the discovery of DNA, developmental biology, studies documenting evolution in nature, and evolution's role in medicine and disease. Darwinism implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates, like Marxism, says Safina. He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism, and that by making Darwin 'into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching.' By turning Darwin into an 'ism,' scientists created the opening for creationism, with the 'isms' implying equivalence. 'By propounding "Darwinism," even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one theory,' writes Safina. '"Darwinism" implies that biological scientists "believe in" Darwin's "theory." It's as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.'"

6 of 951 comments (clear)

  1. neodarwinism by tomtomtom777 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is why most biologist refer to Darwins theory plus all the addition thoughts of the last 150 year as neodarwinism

    Darwins basic idea still stands so it doesn't seem illogical to use his name for the theory

    1. Re:neodarwinism by Excors · · Score: 5, Informative

      there was a pretty good David Attenborough programme on BBC TV last week about Darwin and Evolution that showed many of the subsequent discoveries

      Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life?

      There's also an interesting quote from David Attenborough in response to people asking "why he did not give "credit" to God" for the subjects of his nature documentaries:

      They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Re:How to Falsify Evolution by jackbird · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lungfish? Manatees? Feathered dinosaurs? Egg-laying marsupials? Darwin's own Galapagos Finches? That argument is silly, because it glosses over the fact that these processes happen on a timescale we can't observe.

  4. Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks by rdnetto · · Score: 5, Informative

    That might be because the USA is one of the largest Protestant-majority countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_by_country). Catholics (and most of the groups which split from them prior to the Protestant Reformation) aren't fundamentalists. i.e. they don't take the Bible literally, seeing Genesis as symbolic rather than historical. This enables them to reconcile evolution (and other scientific principles) with their faith.
    This also demonstrates that it is possible to be both religious and scientific.

    DISCLAIMER: IAAC (I am a Catholic).

    --
    Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  5. Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks by Rhuragh · · Score: 5, Informative

    Allow me to acquaint you with Pete Stark (D-CA-13). He's been openly out as an atheist since January 2007. In addition to Stark, there are ten other current members of Congress who decline to list their religion, opening the possibility that some of them are, at least, closet atheists/agnostics.