RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Can someone help me with "Neo-Darwinism"?, ID has its own secret language!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Faylen



Posts: 19
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,19:38   

It's hard enough for a non-scientist to do enough research to see where the line really is between reality and tard, but everyone here has been really helpful.  As I was pondering some tard the other night, it suddenly occurred to me that I had no idea what constituted "Neo-Darwinism".  I mean, I know that they've misconstrued "Darwinism" into an ideology with a structure just like a religion, Darwin as a deity, and a moral code that involves barbecueing babies.  But what got changed or added when they coined the term "Neo-Darwinism"?  How does it differ from standard grade Darwinism?  UD often invents new terms, sometimes goes straight from inventing the terms to referring to them only by their initial letters (to weed out the nonbelievers?) but those usually get exposed for what they are pretty quickly.  Help me understand!!!

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,19:41   

start here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2007,19:47   

Quote (Faylen @ July 18 2007,19:38)
It's hard enough for a non-scientist to do enough research to see where the line really is between reality and tard, but everyone here has been really helpful.  As I was pondering some tard the other night, it suddenly occurred to me that I had no idea what constituted "Neo-Darwinism".  I mean, I know that they've misconstrued "Darwinism" into an ideology with a structure just like a religion, Darwin as a deity, and a moral code that involves barbecueing babies.  But what got changed or added when they coined the term "Neo-Darwinism"?  How does it differ from standard grade Darwinism?  UD often invents new terms, sometimes goes straight from inventing the terms to referring to them only by their initial letters (to weed out the nonbelievers?) but those usually get exposed for what they are pretty quickly.  Help me understand!!!

It means "anything an IDer doesn't like".


It can also serve as a code word for "atheism", just like "materialism" does.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Faylen



Posts: 19
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,08:28   

From the Wiki, it seems to me that Neo-Darwinism describes the basic mechanism that Darwin described, plus the information scientists have discovered about genetics.  Am I right?  It doesn't sound like a word that should be uttered with a scowl or a sneer, and it's still not some kind of moral ideology.  But if it is referring to a current scientific knowledge, howcum they still use "Darwinist" by itself?

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,08:47   

Evolution is not really referred to as "Neo-Darwinism" very often, as far as I know.  The word "Neo" literally means "New", but creo's like to use it because it sounds like a negative connotation, as in "Neo-Nazi's".  And since they hate Darwin, just the use of the term "Darwinist" in their eyes is a negative connotation.  Of course, evolution has come a long way since Darwin's time.

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,09:01   

Quote (Faylen @ July 19 2007,08:28)
From the Wiki, it seems to me that Neo-Darwinism describes the basic mechanism that Darwin described, plus the information scientists have discovered about genetics.  Am I right?  It doesn't sound like a word that should be uttered with a scowl or a sneer, and it's still not some kind of moral ideology.  But if it is referring to a current scientific knowledge, howcum they still use "Darwinist" by itself?

Because they like to argue that "darwinism" is just a religion, and that "-ism" brings it closer to words like Protestantism or Catholicism or Zoroastrianism or Paganism. And as we know, "darwinism" is a synonym for the dreaded Atheism.

Note that they don't refer to gravitational theory as Einsteinism, or Cell Theory as  Schleiden-Schwannism, simply because those scientific theories don't threaten their religious superstitions. The "-ism" suffix is specially created for the purpose of confusing science and religion.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,17:09   

Quote (Faylen @ July 19 2007,08:28)
From the Wiki, it seems to me that Neo-Darwinism describes the basic mechanism that Darwin described, plus the information scientists have discovered about genetics.  Am I right?  It doesn't sound like a word that should be uttered with a scowl or a sneer, and it's still not some kind of moral ideology.  But if it is referring to a current scientific knowledge, howcum they still use "Darwinist" by itself?

You need to understand that creationist/IDers have a penchant for taking standard scientific terms (such as "macroevolution" or "random" and giving them their own private definitions which do NOT correspond in any way to the accepted emaning of the standard scientific term, and then implying that scientists are using the standard scientific term with the creationist/ID private definition.

In other words, they lie.  

I knw that comes as a shock to everyone . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,17:45   

Gosh, Lenny, that revelation of yours was such a shock that I needed CPR.

...Fortunately, I live in Seattle.

Unfortunately, the DI's resident lackwits reside here as well.

Well, not every Seattleite knows how to correctly administer CPR.  Maybe Casey Luskin will get "lucky," in the Eastwoodian sense of that word.

Just kiddin', "Case."

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2007,17:52   

To me the definition of neo-darwinism allows the slippery IDers to duck and weave when cornered. It allows them to separate the science of evolution from the religion of neo-darwinism.

Ftk is a prime example, she will start by saying that evolution sucks and is wrong, but when presented by actual science will say that she has nothing against evolution, except that the neo-darwinists will not consider any alternatives.

In time this can change to they (the tards) knowing that evolution was always correct and they (the tards) were just pointing some holes in the theory which the Darwinists refused to considered, and that though the holes were eventually filled in it meant that they (the tards) were always correct as they were pointing out problems that needed to be filled and actually not saying the science was wrong it was just the darwinists (damn them) making out that they were saying the science was wrong. In short Tards correct, science correct, scientists (darwinists) wrong as always.

Sorry for the convoluted sentence but that's what happens when I put my tard hat on. The same has already happened in Australia with politicians and global warming.

Michael

  
Faylen



Posts: 19
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,21:07   

It's pretty easy to root out terms that IDiots have created to support their agenda, but I had just wondered if they actually differentiated between "Darwinists" and "Neo-Darwinists" and how.  They seem to use the terms interchangeably.  Not surprising, since they don't seem to know much about Darwin's theory, anyway.  Or about Darwin - he seemed like a really nice man.

I laughed really hard, Rev. Dr. Lenny, when I first learned about Micro- and Macro-evolution, and how they could believe in one but not the other.  Right away I knew it was so they could deny coming from apes, but still get good antibiotics.  All the explanations and posturing really comes down to that, I think.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,21:32   

Quote (Faylen @ July 20 2007,21:07)
 Right away I knew it was so they could deny coming from apes, but still get good antibiotics.  All the explanations and posturing really comes down to that, I think.

Indeed, for most of them, I think, deep down inside, they're really OK with evolution for anything and everything at all whatsoever ------->  so long as HUMANS didn't evolve.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
  10 replies since July 18 2007,19:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]