Thursday, November 11, 2010

What Is Darwinism?

Allen MacNeill at The evolution list asks What is "Darwinism" and am I a "Darwinist"?.

Read his posting to see what real modern scientists actually think about evolution and Darwinism. For more information you can read my own thoughts on the matter at: What Is Evolution, The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution, and Why I'm Not a Darwinist.

Now, here comes the fun part. Over on Uncommon Descent Barry Arrington asked the Intelligent Design Creationists to define "Darwinism". The contrast between what they're saying in the comments and what the modern textbooks say about evolution is truly astonishing.

And amusing.


  1. Good topic.

    I'm guessing that MacNeill's post is partly a response to an Uncommon Descent post on defining Darwinism. I would prefer to see the term "Darwinism" dropped, as outdated. I am not a Darwinist, though I am an evolutionist (to the extent that a non-biologist can be one). I can recognize Darwinism as historically important and a good first attempt. But science has advanced beyond that.

  2. The debates and conversations IDers have amongst themselves are both sad and funny. They always seem to me to basically come to the same conclusion: Act as if ye have science, and science shall be granted unto you. (At least by FOXNEWS and the Republican Party).

  3. Defining Darwinism seems sort of pointless to me. It has been used so many ways that I don't see any profit in arguing about what is the right definition. It is just a short hand way to summarize one person's view of what that person thinks Darwin said.

    I think it is more useful to discuss how new species form. That seems like the proper target.

  4. There is a new peer-reviewed paper out on the subject of Darwinism that criticizes the "opportunism" of natural selection as a mechanism for substantial change.

    Here is the link:

    Natural selection as a paradigm of opportunism

    Looks interesting.

  5. Darwinists and evolutionists are the flat earthers of today, committed to an out dated relic, but have so much invested in their "theology" they cannot let it go.
    they are smart but not wise. heads so stuffed with nomenclature they cannot see the light. and like medieval bishops tenacious in their adherence to their futile abstractions.