Saturday, January 03, 2009

What I mean by 'Darwinism'

As a prelude to some more posts on the issue of Intelligent Design, I thought I might address a question that has come up on this blog several times, which I have answered in bits and pieces, but never, I think, directly. It is the question of why I use the term 'Darwinism' rather than using the term many Darwinists prefer that I use: 'evolution.'

I use the term 'Darwinism' simply because it is more accurate. By Darwinism I mean the belief, not simply that the complex organic world as we know it evolved from simpler life forms (the definition of 'evolution'), but that that process can sufficiently be explained by completely natural processes--the two reigning explanations, as I understand it, being natural selection and modern genetic theory.

Darwinists themselves seem to use this term when they think the rest of us aren't looking, but they don't seem to want the term to be used publicly because it has acquired a somewhat pejorative sense. To that, all I can say is that that's not my problem.

The distinction is important because there are some of us who don't have any particular problem with evolution, but have their doubts about Darwinism.

5 comments:

bobxxxx said...

Your problem is, when you call evolution "darwinism", you are loudly announcing to every educated person that you're a creationist retard.

If you're proud of your stupidity, then please continue to invoke a 19th century scientist. Then everyone will know you're a waste of time idiot.

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting if you would continue your train of thought on this topic by explaining what you mean when you say you may not necessarily have a problem with evolution, but do have a problem with Darwinism

Martin Cothran said...

bobxxxx:

Thank you for your measured and careful response. Are Darwinists who use the term 'Darwinism' "creationist retards" as well?

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

Simply that my problem is with the idea (inherent in Darwinism but not necessarily in evolution per se) that development over time is sufficiently explained on naturalistic grounds alone.

Art said...

"By Darwinism I mean the belief, not simply that the complex organic world as we know it evolved from simpler life forms (the definition of 'evolution'), but that that process can sufficiently be explained by completely natural processes--the two reigning explanations, as I understand it, being natural selection and modern genetic theory.

......

The distinction is important because there are some of us who don't have any particular problem with evolution, but have their doubts about Darwinism."


So, Martin, exactly which steps of evolution require other than "natural processes"? Surely, if you have doubts, you can point to positive experimental evidence that supports your doubts, no?