They love their Darwin Fish
And their Darwin Dolls
They wear him on their cars
They wear him on themselves
They celebrate his birthday
With yummy Darwin Cake
But no matter what you think
just don't call them DARWINISTS!!!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
September 20th, 2007 at 12:33 am
I guess this means that those who think it is inaccurate to call mainstream physicists Einsteinists is also being mendacious. After all, they put Einstein on shirts and have Einstein parties and everything.
Einstein birthday
Einstein images
Einstein images
Comment by Nick Matzke — September 20, 2007 @ 12:33 am
September 20th, 2007 at 3:18 am
It is pretty pathetic isn't it. Especially when they also revere him as a cornerstone of their religious faith.
Physicists don't do that Nick but those labeled Darwinists do.
Comment by thesciphishow — September 20, 2007 @ 3:18 am
September 20th, 2007 at 8:24 am
If anyone (read: godblogger) is interested, I turned that atheist A logo into an A-bar. You can snag it from my site.
While I see the term "Darwinist" is not accurate, I don't see why it would ruffle feathers as much as it seems to. Especially when some of the same people get upset at the term "evolutionist" too.
Lighten up, already.
On the flip side, people use creationist as a synonym for theist. Same thing: who cares?
Comment by David Heddle — September 20, 2007 @ 8:24 am
September 20th, 2007 at 8:33 am
I don't think all of them go that far for Darwin. Maybe some do, but I don't see a reason why I should believe that the majority of them care any more about Darwin than Issac Newton or Einstein.
The term Darwinist is used to differentiate purely naturalistic evolutionists from guided evolutionists and the like. It isn't as derogatory as IDiot imo.
Comment by WinglesS — September 20, 2007 @ 8:33 am
September 20th, 2007 at 8:43 am
In Brazil, Darwinists are proud to be called Darwinists!:twisted:
Comment by neddy — September 20, 2007 @ 8:43 am
September 20th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I don't think the term is derogatory at all. Not in its general use. I think the reason they don't like the term is two fold.
1. They want to position themselves as "scientists" and everybody who disagrees with them as "anti-science".
2. It gives the game away for them and their smuggled in philosophical pretensions.
Comment by thesciphishow — September 20, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
September 20th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Hi Nick,
If you are going to take the joke that seriously, I'll play.
First, as for the Einstein paraphernalia, I think most of this exists largely because Einstein has become a cultural icon who essentially symbolizes the "crazy genius." Dr. Emmett Brown, from Back to the Future, tapped into this symbolism. In academia, Einstein Days seem to celebrate physics and astronomy more so than the man himself. Turning to Darwin, what does he symbolize to the larger culture? And Darwin Day celebrations seem to focus more on Darwin than biology in general.
If we compare some more, we'd find that Einstein Day turns up 10,000 Google hits while Darwin Day returns 190,000 Google hits. There is a darwinday.org, but no einsteinday.org. There is a sympathetic Wikipedia entry for Darwin Day, but no Wikipedia entry for Einstein Day. Clearly, Darwin Day is being more aggressively promoted than Einstein Day. Why is this?
Wikipedia explains:
So there is a whole network of atheist organizations that actively promote Darwin Day. You've been quite a trail blazer when it comes to detecting when the phrase "˜Intelligent Design' first appeared. Okay, so when did the phrase "˜Darwin Day' first appear? And if Wikipedia can describe such celebrants as Darwin enthusiasts, why not simply Darwinists?
Look at it this way. I don't refer to mainstream biologists, of even ID critics, as Darwinists. But if someone adorns their car with Darwin fish, has a Darwin doll on their desk, and helps organize and promote a Darwin Day celebration, then it would be fair to describe that person as a Darwinist.
Comment by MikeGene — September 20, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
September 20th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Mike, I think the mistake you are making is that Nick is a religious zealot who understands exactly what the price will be when people make the connection that "darwinist == atheist" and that "darwinsim == philosophy != science".
So he has a vested interest in making sure that connection is missed for as long as possible. Heck he used to work for an organization that promoted this misdirection. His constant harping on "intelligent design == creationism" is just more of the same in the other direction.
Comment by thesciphishow — September 20, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 2:30 am
That, and he revolutionized physics.
This is bogus, I have been to many Darwin Day events and have yet to see one focus on Darwin, unless one says that anything about evolution is about Darwin, which is the whole problem with the term "Darwinist." The general pattern is to get evolutionary biologists to give talks about their work.
There is more to consider than just having a day named after someone. 2005 was one big rolling series of Einstein events in celebration of the 100th anniversiary of his famous papers. Time Magazine named him the Man of the Century. Heck, Einstein even wins in a googlefight. Yet, inconsistently, you are not sitting here patronizingly calling for the physicists to lock themselves to the Einsteinist label.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a feeling that Darwin has been getting unfairly dumped on by the creationists/IDists.
That must be why 10,000 clergy signed onto the Evolution Sunday letter project, also derived from Darwin Day.
Wikipedia says the Darwin celebrations go back to 1909, the 50th anniversiary of the Origin of Species. Such things happen with famous scientists. Darwin is on the face of 10 pound note in England, I guess that is an atheist plot also.
Fine with me as long as you are consistent and call the physicists Einsteinists also.
Look, we all know the game here. You and the creationists (like Jason Rennie) try and portray modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism", and "Darwinism" as a narrow, crude, 19th-century, atheistic view. This is just a cheap strawman tactic. It is helped along by the fact that a few scientists, mostly British population geneticists, still use the term "Darwinism" as a residual product of various academic battles that have been fought over the years. In reality, the term "Darwinism" has no consistent meaning, it has been adopted as a label by those both defending or attacking all sorts of different positions over the years, ranging from dispersalist biogeography to the Modern Synthesis to gradualism in the fossil record to adaptationism — and half the time the allegedly "Darwinist" isn't even something that Darwin himself adhered to.
What is really going on in the evolution/creation wars is this. In the 1989 version of Of Pandas and People, the terms "evolution" and "evolutionist" were used throughout. But in the 1993 edition, these were systematically switched out for "Darwinism" and "Darwinist." This plus Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and the ID leadership's excellent ability to frame issues cynically led to the term "Darwinism" becoming virtually a verbal tic for ID guys, such that they (and now you) feel the need to defend their egregiously misleading usage when someone deigns to point out that in real evolutionary biology in real biology departments, "Darwinism" is rarely spoken of except in historical contexts. Darwin is oft-discussed, sure, just as Einstein is in physics, but everyone knows that Darwin's contribution is just a piece of the modern picture which has been supplemented by thousands of additional contributors.
Wow, you've really drank the ID coolaid, haven't you Jason? Why don't you start quoting Phillip Johnson at me for old times' sake? Thanks for giving me a perfect example of exactly how creationists abuse and exploit the term "Darwinism" for their own goal of fundamentalist Christian apologetics.
I mean, really. Do you think I haven't heard the old "evolution is a religion" claim before? It's only the oldest, most stale creationist claim ever. Go visit one of those Darwin Day events next year, you might actually learn a little bit about how evolutionary biology actually works for once, instead of just spouting uninformed rhetoric about a field you know virtually nothing about.
That's right, in my quest to promote atheism I'm trying to trick people into thinking that evolution doesn't lead to atheism. Great plan, that one. The ID guys do have a kind of mirror image of this, but because they really were trying to promote their religious view, they continually said "we are promoting our religious view" in friendly publications and before friendly audiences, which sort of messed up their plan. I defy you to find an example of me doing the same sort of thing, starting from evolution/Darwin and arguing for atheism.
Comment by Nick Matzke — September 21, 2007 @ 2:30 am
September 21st, 2007 at 7:26 am
Nick Matzke:
Nick, if this is abuse you are are a perpetrator of it yourself. I have yet to see Jason argue that scientific evidence exists for the virgin birth or any of the many miracles attributed to Christ. Instead his comments about science are directed at biological specimens. I recall us debating such things as the origin of life, DNA etc. not Christian theology. You've made some good points about the exploitation of terms but you would be well advised to refrain from exploitation too. Arguing a case for creation according to scripture is not to be equated with linking physical data to design. In conflating creation with intelligent design you are doing what you are arguing against- exploiting the English language.
Comment by Bradford — September 21, 2007 @ 7:26 am
September 21st, 2007 at 8:21 am
Nick Matzke already responded in some detail, but I want to emphasize that the term "Darwinist" is often directly conflated with "atheist" and "materialist" in order to create a strawman argument.
Comment by Zachriel — September 21, 2007 @ 8:21 am
September 21st, 2007 at 8:30 am
Darwin was a scientist of the first rank. Even without the Theory of Evolution, he would have been considered one of the greatest and most prolific scientists of his age. With the Theory of Evolution, he revolutionized biology. Celebrating his birthday is more than appropriate"”especially in light of the social movement to denigrate him and his work.
Comment by Zachriel — September 21, 2007 @ 8:30 am
September 21st, 2007 at 9:47 am
Quick… what was Darwin's most popular book? If you answered The Origin of Species, you were wrong.
Comment by Zachriel — September 21, 2007 @ 9:47 am
September 21st, 2007 at 10:00 am
Zachriel, is it that simple? Or might it be because of folk like E.O. Wilson, Dennett, Dawkins, etc using the theory of evolution as ground to attack the validity of religious thought and experience that might have caused some to respond back critically?
Haven't Darwin and his work been used to denigrate the beliefs of many religious folk - and religious folk in general?
Comment by Doug — September 21, 2007 @ 10:00 am
September 21st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
The most popular personal Darwin reference, by far is those ubiquitous little Darwin fish plastered on the back of cars.
And it is beyond any rational argument to say that those fish symbolize anything other than an "in your face" to Christians. To attempt that argument is to completely discredit yourself.
Case closed.
Comment by mcromer — September 21, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Case open.
Comment by Chris Harrison — September 21, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Why is this posted in "˜humor"˜? This is serious because people need to separate the "˜Darwinist Movement' from the actual theory. If people don't understand the "˜politics' they might equate ID with theism (or even creationism). Heck, people might even research the "˜X-Club' and think that there was an actual political agenda during Darwin's day (that he helped to promote) in order to rid science of "˜any' opposing beliefs to naturalism. People might look at Darwin Day speeches that promote atheism in the name of Darwin or the alienation of scientists' with an opposing view and equate this to religious fundamentalism/persecution.
This needs to end now! Separate the 'crazy' movements!!!
And the only way I think we can do this is with a little dance from Dawkins and Dennett "¦: )
Comment by Good ID — September 21, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Nick Matzke:
Nick, you seem to be wound a little too tight here, causing you to once again misrepresent me.
I do not portray modern evolutionary theory as a crude, 19th-century, atheistic view. Neither do I find the need to defend the way others use the term "˜Darwinist.' I truly do find it humorous to see people adorn their cars with Darwin fish, themselves with Darwin shirts, and celebrate Darwin Day, only to get red-faced when others dare think of them as Darwinists. And, er, that was the whole point of the thread.
I also think WinglesS is correct in noting that most IDists often use the term "˜Darwinist' to differentiate purely naturalistic evolutionists from guided evolutionists and the like. But because of the sensitiity out there, I don't use that term (I use "ID critics" and "non-teleologists).
Yet some of your complaints strike me as being somewhat hypocritical. For example, you write:
Given that you are one of the lead barkers behind the "ID= creationism" meme, whether terms have consistent meaning never seemed to concern you before. So here we have you insisting that all IDers be painted with the broad brush of "˜creationism,' yet complaining loudly when others paint with the "˜Darwinism' brush.
Here's another strange twist. I asked you when then phrase "˜Darwin Day' first appeared.
You replied:
This reminds me when I informed you of the fact that design arguments extend far back into history, yet you insisted on focusing on the term "˜intelligent design,' who coined it, and why it was coined. So why abandon that investigatory logic? Who coined the phrase "˜Darwin Day?' A movement of atheists. Why was it coined? Hmmm. Could it be a Trojan Horse effort by a network of atheists trying to bring about cultural change? Hey, but I have been over this before .
Comment by MikeGene — September 21, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I agree. But we are still left with the fact that Darwin Day (Darwin + Day) was spawned by a network of atheist organizations who seek to use this event as one means to bring about cultural change. If you are worried about Darwin being denigrated, perhaps we should also focus on the way atheists have used Darwin as their poster boy all these years (a tradition carried out starting with Huxley and continuing to this day in Dawkins and his movement for cultural change). Here's the advisory board for the Darwin Day Celebration. Every name I recognize is an atheist. Are there any theists on this board?
Comment by MikeGene — September 21, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Your implication is that many religious leaders won't recognize the importance of Darwin's contribution and the centrality of the Theory of Evolution to an understanding humanity's origins. Perhaps that is true of some religious leaders, but not all. In any case, the closed minds of some are irrelevant to a recognition of Darwin's contribution and a retelling of one of the greatest stories of adventure and scientific exploration in history.
Comment by Zachriel — September 21, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Several of those people are exactly the "compromisers"/"appeasers" that the Dawkins and Dennetts have been bashing lately…
Comment by Nick Matzke — September 21, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 11:06 pm
But that's a debate among atheists and it is a dispute of tactics, not goals. In their minds, they ask, what's the best way to eradicate religion? Seduce people with Darwin or bash people with Darwin?
Again, are there any theists on that board?
Comment by MikeGene — September 21, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Darwin's contribution and the centrality of the Theory of Evolution are only important in a scientific, mechanistic sense. I don't see how any of this would be all that important when it comes to the questions religions ask.
Like I said, I couldn't agree more. But I suppose I have been partly shaped by the critics over the last several years. For years, they have strongly insisted that we focus on the political angle and thus I don't see how they can suddenly change course and expect everyone to ignore the origin of "Darwin + Day" and what it represents to a network of highly motivated and increasingly organized agents for cultural change. After all, the act of "retelling of one of the greatest stories of adventure and scientific exploration in history" sounds a little religious to me. Just as I have long been troubled by the way the ID movement has stepped all over the concept of ID, shouldn't we all be troubled by the way so many are trying to use Darwin and his story as a means to reach their own cultural ends?
Comment by MikeGene — September 21, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
But hey, if we are going to celebrate Darwin's birthday - let's do it right and remember the fun times:
Man, I bet this guy was a hoot to hang out with"¦ Too bad "˜Fear-Factor' was a few years later"¦ I can hear them cheering him on now - Chuck, Chuck, Chuck"¦
Comment by Good ID — September 21, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 am
MikeGene,
Troubled, maybe, but not very surprised. For all the faults of some in the ID movement - and I'd agree there certainly have been a number of faults - their cardinal sin really seems to be that they used science to play the same game as their political opposities. Waxing philosophically about what nature seems to indicate is only acceptable so long as you quote the right lines, repeat the expected dogma, and refuse to question.
Comment by nullasalus — September 22, 2007 @ 12:04 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Stephen J. Gould on Darwinian Fundamentalism,
Comment by Jehu — September 22, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 1:11 am
That's crap, the "appeasers/Chamberlains" do not have the goal of eradicating religion. Here's the dispute:
Dawkins & co ("Churchills"): The root of the creationism problem is religion so we should go after religion directly, attacking everyone who is religious including pro-evolution theists.
Scott & co ("Chamberlains"/"appeasers"): Religion is not the root of the creationism problem, we should assemble a broad coalition of diverse religious points of view to resist the creationists.
Comment by Nick Matzke — September 24, 2007 @ 1:11 am
September 24th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Well it can never be said that Nick is not a hypocrite. So it is surprising he does this ?
Comment by thesciphishow — September 24, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Hi thesciphishow,
You wrote…
So you quote Bradford in order to bash Nick.
Ok, whatever.
But you might want to be careful about pushing the "hypocrite" button too many times.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Bash Nick ? He seems to revel in it. Don't see why he would consider it bashing him.
Comment by thesciphishow — September 24, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Hi Nick,
Sorry, but you are wrong. Dawkins and fans are not a reaction to creationism; they are a reaction to 911. Can we agree that people like Dawkins and Myers are culture warrior who do indeed want to eradicate religion?
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2007 @ 11:24 pm