Darwinism Must Die

February 10th, 2009 | 16 Comments

Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution. Such as: Gregor Mendel’s patterns of heredity (which gave Darwin’s idea of natural selection a mechanism — genetics — by which it could work); the discovery of DNA (which gave genetics a mechanism and lets us see evolutionary lineages); developmental biology (which gives DNA a mechanism); studies documenting evolution in nature (which converted the hypothetical to observable fact); evolution’s role in medicine and disease (bringing immediate relevance to the topic); and more.

By propounding “Darwinism,” even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one “theory.” The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” The point is that making a master teacher into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching. So let us now kill Darwin.

via Essay – Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live – NYTimes.com.

Related posts:

  1. Clash of Titans: Christianity vs. Dr. Mohler’s theology The fireworks continue between BioLogos and the esteemed Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology and President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, God’s chosen...

February 10th, 2009

Tags: , , , ,

  • Pete

    I totally agree. (Quick qualification: here in the US) the term Darwinism is used almost exclusively by creationists as a label, I suspect for several reasons. One, it seemingly isolates “Darwinists” from good wholesome honest God-fearing biologists, as well as all other scientists. I think this is a bit of a PR move for the their general laymen audience, completly oblivious to the fact that what they consider evolution (which includes the Big Bang and an Old Earth as well as common descent) pretty much includes all physicists, geologists, and biologists, indeed, pretty much all scientists. Second, because just as this article suggests, it removes evolution from an testable empiracle body of knowledge and instead assigns it to the whims of one man. Not only can it then be discredited by the scientific or moral failings of that one man, but also because that is the only way they think. They only work on authority, so they cast scientists as subscribing to authority as well. I’m sure you are aware of all the buzz around the New Scientist magazine which had the cover “Darwin was Wrong!”. What he turned out to be wrong about in this case was that there was one single tree of life, when no such definition can exist at the earliest single cell stage because of horizontal gene transfer. As one blogger said, “it should have been title, ‘More evidence that Darwin didn’t know everything about evolution’”. Might just as well have a title, “Galalao was Wrong!” and why, because he only recorded four moons of Jupiter, not the 60+ we know of today. But then even National Geographic had to get into the sensationalizing, with the title, “What Darwin didn’t know.”. My wife brought it to me with this look that suggested I had better read this. My flipped through without much expectation and my low expectation were confirmed, it seemed the big secret they were know revealing that Darwin didn’t know about . . . genetics.

    Okay, now to explain my qualification, it appears the term Darwinist is not strictly contained within creationist propaganda. It seems British authors tend to self identify as Darwinists, especially Dawkins. I think in doing so they are emphasizing they they think Natural Selection is still the best explanation for most of the patterns of life we see today.

  • Pete

    I totally agree. (Quick qualification: here in the US) the term Darwinism is used almost exclusively by creationists as a label, I suspect for several reasons. One, it seemingly isolates “Darwinists” from good wholesome honest God-fearing biologists, as well as all other scientists. I think this is a bit of a PR move for the their general laymen audience, completly oblivious to the fact that what they consider evolution (which includes the Big Bang and an Old Earth as well as common descent) pretty much includes all physicists, geologists, and biologists, indeed, pretty much all scientists. Second, because just as this article suggests, it removes evolution from an testable empiracle body of knowledge and instead assigns it to the whims of one man. Not only can it then be discredited by the scientific or moral failings of that one man, but also because that is the only way they think. They only work on authority, so they cast scientists as subscribing to authority as well. I’m sure you are aware of all the buzz around the New Scientist magazine which had the cover “Darwin was Wrong!”. What he turned out to be wrong about in this case was that there was one single tree of life, when no such definition can exist at the earliest single cell stage because of horizontal gene transfer. As one blogger said, “it should have been title, ‘More evidence that Darwin didn’t know everything about evolution’”. Might just as well have a title, “Galalao was Wrong!” and why, because he only recorded four moons of Jupiter, not the 60+ we know of today. But then even National Geographic had to get into the sensationalizing, with the title, “What Darwin didn’t know.”. My wife brought it to me with this look that suggested I had better read this. My flipped through without much expectation and my low expectation were confirmed, it seemed the big secret they were know revealing that Darwin didn’t know about . . . genetics.

    Okay, now to explain my qualification, it appears the term Darwinist is not strictly contained within creationist propaganda. It seems British authors tend to self identify as Darwinists, especially Dawkins. I think in doing so they are emphasizing they they think Natural Selection is still the best explanation for most of the patterns of life we see today.

  • http://cliff-martin.blogspot.com/ Cliff Martin

    While I agree with the essay about the confusion caused by the term Darwinism, he is mistaken if he things there is only one brand of evolution (“Darwinian evolution” raises a question: What’s the other evolution?). I use the term “Darwinian Evolution” to refer to evolution that includes common descent, natural selection, etc. Most I.D.ers adhere to a “non-Darwinian Evolution”, as do many YEC. How else to distinguish the natural evolution Darwin conceived? I don’t care for “Naturalistic Evolution.”

    Cliff Martin´s last blog post.."Christianity Benefits Africa," Declares an Atheist

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve

      Hi Cliff,

      This seems akin to the “theistic evolution” terminology problem. Why should I.D. advocates, creationists, geocentrists, flat-earthers, etc. be allowed to dictate the terminology used by mainstream science? What’s wrong with “evolution” as defined by actual science, and letting those who question it for non-scientific reasons redefine it as they need to with their adjectives?

  • http://cliff-martin.blogspot.com/ Cliff Martin

    While I agree with the essay about the confusion caused by the term Darwinism, he is mistaken if he things there is only one brand of evolution (“Darwinian evolution” raises a question: What’s the other evolution?). I use the term “Darwinian Evolution” to refer to evolution that includes common descent, natural selection, etc. Most I.D.ers adhere to a “non-Darwinian Evolution”, as do many YEC. How else to distinguish the natural evolution Darwin conceived? I don’t care for “Naturalistic Evolution.”

    Cliff Martin´s last blog post.."Christianity Benefits Africa," Declares an Atheist

    • http://undeception.com Steve

      Hi Cliff,

      This seems akin to the “theistic evolution” terminology problem. Why should I.D. advocates, creationists, geocentrists, flat-earthers, etc. be allowed to dictate the terminology used by mainstream science? What’s wrong with “evolution” as defined by actual science, and letting those who question it for non-scientific reasons redefine it as they need to with their adjectives?

  • http://cliff-martin.blogspot.com/ Cliff Martin

    I agree with you in principle. But whether we like it or not, everybody accepts evolution of some kind. Most of my fundamentalist friends say they accept “micro-evolution”. Thoughtful YEC people acknowledge that evolution occurs. In fact, their views relating to the Flood of Noah compel them to stipulate a brand of evolution accelerated to unbelievable rates. Most I.D. adherents do not deny evolution. So, while we should not need to qualify our acceptance of scientific evolution, it seems that we must, at least at times. And maybe the term I just used, “scientific evolution”, works. At least it lays claims to the higher ground.

    Cliff Martin´s last blog post.."Christianity Benefits Africa," Declares an Atheist

  • http://cliff-martin.blogspot.com/ Cliff Martin

    I agree with you in principle. But whether we like it or not, everybody accepts evolution of some kind. Most of my fundamentalist friends say they accept “micro-evolution”. Thoughtful YEC people acknowledge that evolution occurs. In fact, their views relating to the Flood of Noah compel them to stipulate a brand of evolution accelerated to unbelievable rates. Most I.D. adherents do not deny evolution. So, while we should not need to qualify our acceptance of scientific evolution, it seems that we must, at least at times. And maybe the term I just used, “scientific evolution”, works. At least it lays claims to the higher ground.

    Cliff Martin´s last blog post.."Christianity Benefits Africa," Declares an Atheist

  • http://cliff-martin.blogspot.com/ Cliff Martin

    And I should say it again: I do agree with the main thrust of the essay. It has always bothered me to say “I believe in evolution” as though it were some statement of faith. I actually don’t say those words, and it grates me when people say “Cliff believes in evolution”. It is as though I woke up one morning and decided to become a believer. And the term “Darwinism” adds to the notion that evolution is tantamount to religious belief.

    Cliff Martin´s last blog post.."Christianity Benefits Africa," Declares an Atheist

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve

      Your points are well taken all around. I do not have a problem with clarifying our position as “scientific evolution”, as long as we don’t give in to their reduction of evolution as a personality cult built around Darwin.

      Steve Matheson, PZ Myers, and others have objected to the article above because they say its intent is to criticize scientists for referring to “Darwinism” or “Darwinian” too much, whereas Matheson et al. maintain that it almost never happens. I took the article as chiding anti-evolutionists who caricature “scientific evolution” by calling it “Darwinism”. (Dang it if I don’t hear that insufferable voice of Ben Stein’s saying that word every time I read it: “Daaarwinism”)

      I feel the same way as you do about saying I “believe in evolution”. Another unfortunate expression that implies a religious dogma.

  • http://cliff-martin.blogspot.com/ Cliff Martin

    And I should say it again: I do agree with the main thrust of the essay. It has always bothered me to say “I believe in evolution” as though it were some statement of faith. I actually don’t say those words, and it grates me when people say “Cliff believes in evolution”. It is as though I woke up one morning and decided to become a believer. And the term “Darwinism” adds to the notion that evolution is tantamount to religious belief.

    Cliff Martin´s last blog post.."Christianity Benefits Africa," Declares an Atheist

    • http://undeception.com Steve

      Your points are well taken all around. I do not have a problem with clarifying our position as “scientific evolution”, as long as we don’t give in to their reduction of evolution as a personality cult built around Darwin.

      Steve Matheson, PZ Myers, and others have objected to the article above because they say its intent is to criticize scientists for referring to “Darwinism” or “Darwinian” too much, whereas Matheson et al. maintain that it almost never happens. I took the article as chiding anti-evolutionists who caricature “scientific evolution” by calling it “Darwinism”. (Dang it if I don’t hear that insufferable voice of Ben Stein’s saying that word every time I read it: “Daaarwinism”)

      I feel the same way as you do about saying I “believe in evolution”. Another unfortunate expression that implies a religious dogma.

  • http://theisticevo.blogspot.com/ Angel

    I agree a lot with that article. I really hate for someone to ask me if I believe in evolution. To me it’s a lose/lose situation. If I say yes it sounds like a belief system and not a scientific theory. If I say no the assumption is that I believe in creationism. But to me terms like “evolutionists” “Darwinists” give a false impression that evolution is something we have to believe in or have faith for it to be true. I liked the part of the article that said “Darwin didn’t create a belief system. He created an idea not an ideology. The idea spawned a discipline, not disciples.”

    Angel´s last blog post..Trip to the Library

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve

      Angel,

      As I said above, I agree. I typically answer the question, “Do you believe in evolution?” by something like the following: “What I believe is that the Bible wasn’t intended to tell us the scientific or historical particulars about the creation of the world or the diversification of life. So when I want to know those particulars, I ask the people who have devoted themselves to studying those things. As it happens, they believe the theory of evolution is the best explanation, and I’ve yet to see credible evidence to the contrary.”

  • http://theisticevo.blogspot.com/ Angel

    I agree a lot with that article. I really hate for someone to ask me if I believe in evolution. To me it’s a lose/lose situation. If I say yes it sounds like a belief system and not a scientific theory. If I say no the assumption is that I believe in creationism. But to me terms like “evolutionists” “Darwinists” give a false impression that evolution is something we have to believe in or have faith for it to be true. I liked the part of the article that said “Darwin didn’t create a belief system. He created an idea not an ideology. The idea spawned a discipline, not disciples.”

    Angel´s last blog post..Trip to the Library

    • http://undeception.com Steve

      Angel,

      As I said above, I agree. I typically answer the question, “Do you believe in evolution?” by something like the following: “What I believe is that the Bible wasn’t intended to tell us the scientific or historical particulars about the creation of the world or the diversification of life. So when I want to know those particulars, I ask the people who have devoted themselves to studying those things. As it happens, they believe the theory of evolution is the best explanation, and I’ve yet to see credible evidence to the contrary.”