Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live

[herenorthere]

I think access to this is free - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html?_r=1

 

[Est]

I prefer the title "Educate Yourselves, Dummies!"

 

[seedjar]

Hmm... this feels awfully semantic to me. Maybe it's that I already have a background on this kind of stuff. I think that the term "Darwinism" has been pushed around mostly by the various anti-evolution camps as a way of giving an insubstantial academic discipline a concrete subject to vilify. To contest the author, there are other flavors of evolution that are non-Darwinian; the writings of Baldwin come to mind, as do some of the theories of intelligent design.
I'm a little disappointed to see this coming from the New York Times. It seems just to play on the ignorance of the audience. Here's my pitch for their next science headline; "Did You Know That Newton Wasn't The Only Physicist!?"
~Joe

 

[herenorthere]

I like looking at comments posted for articles and a number of them take the same path as Joe. It's a valid criticism and I'm not sure I agree, but it seems to strike the same chord with a number of people. Or with the same person, who uses a number of different names.

 

[Fryster]

After reading that article it sounds as if some evolutionists are embarrassed by Darwin. Is that the general consensus then? Weird.

So they're denying their own founder. wow. That would be like modern physicists denying the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton just because they’re "old dead guys with early/crude theories."

Throwing Chuck under the bus is rather cowardly I think… They should be big enough to go down with the ship.

Charles Darwin might be considered one of the "skeletons in the closet" for the modern theory of evolution, but at least he shouldn't be treated like the 'ol monkey-skeleton in the closet..................

That's my 2¢ anyway...

 

[ktulu]

I have to say its sad that things even get to the point where people want "Darwinism" to die. Though I have agree with Joe, I think the only people who refer to evolution as Darwinism are those who want to deny it, and they use Darwin to create a straw man argument they can tear down. I dealt with these attacks on "Darwinism" when I was growing up, as I am from an extremely conservative part of the country, and when I compare the way they presented Darwin and his theory then proceeded to tear it down it reflects nothing of what I have learned about modern evolutionary thought. I think scientists just want to stop giving ammunition to the anti-evolution people. As for denying the founder all together, if all people did was go on about how Newton stuck needles in his eye and used it to say we shouldnt believe in physics well physicists wouldnt be so keen on him.

 

[Finch]

Darwinism is the term that opponents use to bash the theory when they can’t grasp the concepts it contains. More enlightened opponents of the evolutionary theory will use the contents of the theory itself to argue their case rather than using a bust of the founder to hit you over the head with.

 

[seedjar]

I don't think it's the scientists at all that are calling for the removal of Darwin. If anything, I think most scientists educated in the field would only argue that Darwinism is a bad name. I doubt that evolutionists object to Darwin's contributions at all - just the trivial slurs that get tossed around in his name. Which is why this article really made me scratch my head. It's so editorial; exactly whom is the author representing, and who is the target audience?
~Joe

 

[Finch]

It is an essay by someone [it says so itself], not a reserched article. More of an opinion peice. I don't really put any weight on it. But the term "darwinism" can die and I would be happier for it. Not that I debate evolution anymore with random people. It's not worth the effort usually, but the term itself is really annoying and makes it sound akin to a dogmatic religion instead of the theory it has become. (and it will always be a theory- if the theory of gravity has not make it out of the theory state, dont expect this to. But remeber this when you fall down- gravity is just a theory!)

 

[Capslock]

People get so weird about Darwin. He was a scientist with a theory. He saw himself as a contributor to the science of evolution, not a prophet or philosopher. So it's a mistake to make reference to "Darwinism" because there is no doctrine there. There is only an ongoing understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. That's it.

He is far from a "skeleton in the closet", but rather a revolutionary scientist who is the father of modern evolutionary theory. He made incredible strides in the science, and there is nothing there to be anything but proud of. He is to be celebrated, but the continued use of the erroneous term "Darwinism" can end at any time, because it's usually used disingenuously.

 

[herenorthere]

It's an opinion piece aimed at an audience that probably hasn't had biology since high school.

There seems to be a widespread belief that evolution is all about Darwin, just like a lot of people think physics is all about Einstein. People are conditioned to believe that great achievements result from heroic individual accomplishments, without recognizing that thousands contribute to the piece-by-piece development of scientific knowledge. It would be nice if evolutionary theory could lose its popular connection to a 19th Century eccentric (as terrific as he was) and instead be associated with scientists toiling in the trenches of numerous different fields and challenging each other's findings.