sl0wdjin, There aren't many that doubt evolution. What is doubtful is Darwinism - The premise that all life evolved from a common ancestor. People like you that want to confuse the issue really do not do much to further your case and we end up with comments like :

" First of all, they certainly don't insult the intelligence of American
taxpayers who are Darwinists. They also don't insult the intelligence
of taxpayers who don't necessarily know what to believe but respect the
rights of others to believe what they want. When people make such
overreaching statements like this, it totally negates the credibility
of their message for me."

Here som...

sl0wdjin, There aren't many that doubt evolution. What is doubtful is Darwinism - The premise that all life evolved from a common ancestor. People like you that want to confuse the issue really do not do much to further your case and we end up with comments like :

" First of all, they certainly don't insult the intelligence of American
taxpayers who are Darwinists. They also don't insult the intelligence
of taxpayers who don't necessarily know what to believe but respect the
rights of others to believe what they want. When people make such
overreaching statements like this, it totally negates the credibility
of their message for me."

Here someone willing to put aside the work of people like this reknown embryologist that says emphatically evolution does not fit in the realm of embryonic science. Also Michael Behe, PHD in Microbiology at Lehigh University, famous for his cell research and biochemestry, says Darwinism fails Darwin's own test of irreducible complexity. ( The Origin of Species,New York University Press, sixth edition pg 154. Then you have Stephen Meyer in thr field of DNA research that states specific genes are not responsible for isolated characteristics, that genes work in unison to create characteristics and adaptations he goes on to say Darwinism does not explain this complexity. Nor does it explain the emergence of information in a living system.

Darwinism is more of a philosophy than it is a science.

willhelm - People like you that want to confuse the issue really do not do much to further your case

Well, please don't confuse what you've decided you heard with what I know my position is... Actually, I don't want to confuse anything, but it may confuse you to hear that until now I've been unaware of any differentiation between evolution and what I presumed Darwinism to mean (so little difference that angels would fall off the head of a pin while searching for it). So I promptly went to about a dozen dictionary sites online and found that they didn't promote a distinction, either.

Then I hit Wikipedia:

Darwinism is a term for the underlying th...

read more»

willhelm - People like you that want to confuse the issue really do not do much to further your case

Well, please don't confuse what you've decided you heard with what I know my position is... Actually, I don't want to confuse anything, but it may confuse you to hear that until now I've been unaware of any differentiation between evolution and what I presumed Darwinism to mean (so little difference that angels would fall off the head of a pin while searching for it). So I promptly went to about a dozen dictionary sites online and found that they didn't promote a distinction, either.

Then I hit Wikipedia:

Darwinism is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Discussions of Darwinism usually focus on evolution by natural selection,
but sometimes Darwinism is taken to mean evolution more broadly, or
other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.

The term Darwinism has been used by Darwin's critics to describe the beliefs of those who promote evolutionary biology.

Casting evolution as a
doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments
to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools.

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the
scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from
those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to
differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same
period.

There's more. That's just a sample cutting. It's at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism>;.

So apparently it has come to mean different things to different people.

If here the take is that it's a philosophy (in some manner as maybe described somewhere above...), and not the science of evolution, then for now I'll take a pass. At least until terms start being defined sufficiently to understand what version of "Darwinis

willhelm - sl0wdjin,
There's no need to get hot under the collar about it. I would suggest
books in place of wikipedia, however. I do admire your quest and effort
for clarity. That says a lot to me, even though we may disagree.

No heat under there at all. Surprised you thought that, unless what grabbed your attention was the abrupt termination of my comment...

Second time I've encountered the truncation effect. The CM system will tell me I'm over quota by XX characters, I'll cut back until the running count shows XX characters to spare, send the comment, then find it to be truncated with a system after-message which says I was over by some amount. Must be a conspira...

willhelm - sl0wdjin,
There's no need to get hot under the collar about it. I would suggest
books in place of wikipedia, however. I do admire your quest and effort
for clarity. That says a lot to me, even though we may disagree.

No heat under there at all. Surprised you thought that, unless what grabbed your attention was the abrupt termination of my comment...

Second time I've encountered the truncation effect. The CM system will tell me I'm over quota by XX characters, I'll cut back until the running count shows XX characters to spare, send the comment, then find it to be truncated with a system after-message which says I was over by some amount. Must be a conspiracy...

Anyway, no, I'm not a fan of Wikipedia, but they do indicate a multiplicity of meaning. If none of those dictionaries caught any sense of any new meaning then apparently this is something relatively new. It really sounds suspicious. If evolution is being used in an argument against religion, for example (to pick one example of new meaning), calling that "Darwinism" sounds like giving Logic a new meaning and name if someone uses logic in an argument against religion...

Sounds a little fast and loose. But then:

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll

cniq cniq -

Okay, thanx. Understood, and I agree with the explanatory background of everything in your post.

If you and willhelm are on the same page with this particular interpretation of "Darwinism" (vs. evolution, which neither of you quibble with), then the source article as quoted here seems a bit off. "after 150 years, Darwinists" seems to be using evolution/darwinism interchangeably. Yet, from the source but omitted here (from WorldNetDaily! I think I feel a gentle tugging upon the collective pantsleg...) we find this which is consistent:

The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue i...

cniq cniq -

Okay, thanx. Understood, and I agree with the explanatory background of everything in your post.

If you and willhelm are on the same page with this particular interpretation of "Darwinism" (vs. evolution, which neither of you quibble with), then the source article as quoted here seems a bit off. "after 150 years, Darwinists" seems to be using evolution/darwinism interchangeably. Yet, from the source but omitted here (from WorldNetDaily! I think I feel a gentle tugging upon the collective pantsleg...) we find this which is consistent:

The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism – which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

Sounds like they're saying that further data or further speculation regarding evolution, or a flaw in the construct of evolutionary theory as we play with it wherever the cutting edge is today, proves Intelligent Design correct is like seeing an episode of the Dukes of Hazzard and concluding that automobiles are capable of sustained flight.

However, at this point I'll wander off while subvocalizing "WorldNetDaily!"

Have you been to a museum lately, you know like the one with the GIANT T-Rex exhibits? My question is, why such an attack on evolution and reason? Me thinks that the real targets are not Darwin, but Newton, Galileo and Voltaire. To hurl back us all back to a world where all you need it was the gospel to understand everything (even if you did could not or where not allow to read it yourself in the vernacular).

Back to an age of myth and legend. But I wonder, could the very technology beneath your fingers even exist in a world without Reason?

Oh and a few examples...

Language and Human Evolution...
[url=http://www.mnh.si.e...

Have you been to a museum lately, you know like the one with the GIANT T-Rex exhibits? My question is, why such an attack on evolution and reason? Me thinks that the real targets are not Darwin, but Newton, Galileo and Voltaire. To hurl back us all back to a world where all you need it was the gospel to understand everything (even if you did could not or where not allow to read it yourself in the vernacular).

Back to an age of myth and legend. But I wonder, could the very technology beneath your fingers even exist in a world without Reason?

Oh and a few examples...

Language and Human Evolution...

A rundown of Human Evolution (with pics!)

Some Counter Arguments to Creationism...

Human Evolution, Interactive and on the Web...

I'll collect my money now, please....