Darwinism Must Die So Evolution Can Live

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.'"

Comments

Someone needs

[Dunbal]

You know, I hate arguments like these because they are fundamentally flawed. What I am about to say is politically incorrect (but mathematically true) and if this offends you - piss off because it's the truth.

      Many things in nature conform to the "normal", "bell" or "Gaussian" distribution curve, and that includes human intelligence. Makes sense that a few people will be extremely bereft of intelligence, a few people will be super-gifted, and most of us will be somewhere around the middle. That's statistics.

      However when you look at scientists, most of us have graduate or postgraduate degrees. Most of us were always nerds, studied hard, passed the exams, etc. Most of us can be considered above average intelligence - for a given definition of intelligence (the ability to pass tests, work out problems, etc).

      What does this mean? It means that if we're on the right side of the gauss curve, the majority of people are dumber than us because the 50% population mark is right on the "average" intelligence line (that's how bell curves work) and we are above average. Some are so extremely distanced from us (those on the "other" side of the curve, below the 50% mark) that we fail to understand that it is impossible that they will ever grasp even the simplest concepts. Not unlikely - impossible.

      Now some people like the author think that by changing the words around they can help the less gifted half understand a key concept that for any scientist is really extremely basic, extremely obvious, and unquestionably accurate. This is not true. Darwin and Wallace deserve the credit for the work that they did. We scientists are supposed to be humble, but we delight in exalting the rare few in our field that rise above the rest and point something out that helps us greatly in our daily chore of understanding the universe. Frankly I don't CARE what creationists think. None of them are noteworthy scientists, none of them will ever get published in the magazines I read, and no one but other "less gifted" individuals will listen to the garbage they spit out.

      I think that although it's very human to try to reach out and help those less fortunate, in this case it's a complete waste of time - as much a waste of time as it is for a Jehova's Witness to come knocking at my door to talk to me, a passionate atheist, about God. This time and energy (and paper, in the case of NY Times articles) would be far better used for something else than trying to enlighten the ignorant who are happy in their ignorance. The great thing about intelligence is that it's a hunger that needs to be fed. You don't have to FORCE someone to learn. If they are smart, they will want to learn all on their own. THOSE are the people we have to help - not the ones who refuse to listen.

      Leave the damned language as it is - nothing is gained by changing the words used. Anyone who needs to understand CAN understand, as is. We've been doing ok for the past few generations. By changing the language all you do is take credit away from deserving scientists. No one is made smarter, and no "creationists" will drop their lunatic fantasies by taking the word "Darwin" out of evolution.