We can stop using the term Darwinist and Darwinism when the evos stop calling creationism a religion.
47 comments
"We can stop using the term Darwinist and Darwinism when the evos stop calling creationism a religion."
Well since evolution has nothing to do with Social Darwinism and Creationism IS religious, I'd say you're out of luck and you're a fucking moron.
(Jack)
"Evos? So... now they believe in talking cars, too?"
*steps up onto the soapbox and turns on his bullhorn*
Let it be known that, to the best of my recollection, it was I who made this "evo = car" reference first.
*steps down, turns off the bullhorn, then looks at the camera and shrugs*
What? I've never actually been the one to set a meme in motion before now...so sue me.
Neither the ToE nor creationisms are religions, however, creationisms are almost always part of a religion. Biblical creationism is by definition a belief of persons who believe the Bible version, or their warped version of the Bible version, of creation. The ToE is based on evidence not fairy tales, and is, therefore, not a religion.
Darwinist and Darwinism are stupid terms only used by idiot Fundies.
fine its not religious, it still doesn't make it science, at most its a falsified hypothesis that failed from the start.
hell most christians before the 1800's would have thought it was wrong.
O.K., I will stop calling creationism a religion.
After all it might be unfair to real religious people.
Of course it also is no science ;)
Maybe we should call it just a bunch of fairy tales instead ;)
Of course it's not a religion.
It's a silly, unsound hypothesis that's a critical component of many religions, but it's not technically a religion by itself.
In the same way that Linux isn't really an operating system.
Creationism cannot exist without a god, therefore it is religious dogma.
Evolution does not need the existence of a god, therefore it is science.
Simple, no?
And yet all your leaders (Hovind, Ham, Comfort, etc ) all use the Bible as part of their "proofs". They're all knowingly liars too that spent most of their "science" time lying about what science says.
Science marches on, and most of what was believed when the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" were coined has been superseded by new discoveries. The words still crop up from time to time, and not just in a historical sense, but for all intents and purposes, "Darwinism" is an obsolete term that is too imprecise to refer to anything but a deliberately eclectic subset of modern biology. Mostly, it is now a lazy synonym for the neo-Darwinian synthesis (i.e. mutation and selection).
It'd by like me calling Christians "Jewish", yes the origins are right and much of the core is still there, but it would be to ignore an immense and important amount of subsequent development.
Creationism is not a religion. it is a religious myth.
You don't like that definition any better? Okay, just eliminate the supernatural entity whose existence cannot be validated from the idea and we'll stop attaching the "religious" label to creationism.
You don't like that idea either? Oh man, you're running out of options quick here.
At the Dover trial the advocates of Intelligent Design stood fast that ID wasn't religious and had scientific evidence.
They spent weeks standing on this premise without providing a single piece of evidence. Eventually (I believe after their ID textbook was proven to be origionally written as a Christian Creationism book) the judge insisted they quit refusing to answer the questions of where the ID concept began and who that Intelligent designer could be and, since they had no scientific or historical evidence to name the source of this "theory"
He finally caved and refered to the Bible and Christian God, after weeks of lying repeatedly in court.
The reason you need to stop using terms like Darwinist and Darwinism is because his work is over 150 years ago and was outdated about 50 years ago by scientific consensus in biological fields.
Can we start calling you guys Falwellists or Haggardites due to your closer connections to their sermons and beliefs then Biologist share with Darwin? I think we should actually.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.