Re: [asa] Re: Ditch Darwin ....and The Arty Side Of Creationism

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Thu May 31 2007 - 15:53:49 EDT

The problem is that some forms of Darwinism are 'ideological worldviews.' So it thus helps to write 'Darwinian theory' or 'Darwin's views' of origin(s) of species, instead of using the word 'Darwinism' with a broad brush. When I hear/read the word 'Darwinism' I certainly don't refer only to OoS.
  This linguistic distinction does not detract from your argumentitive point with Matthew about common descent, bacteria and multicellular organisms.
  Please excuse that I highlight this only because it helps with inclusiveness to be clear with meanings, especially on the topic of 'evolution,' which I consider to be one of the most interdisciplinary concepts in use in today's academy.
  G.A. wrote:
  I am not sure exactly how you are using the word theory
then if we are going to be rigorous in our definition. I
do not mean Darwinism in an ideological worldview sense.
I am only to referring to the origin of species.

On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:52:33 -0400 (EDT)
Gregory Arago wrote:
> Hi Jack,
> For sake of clarity, would you consider using
>'Darwinian theory' instead of 'Darwinism'? It sometimes
>confuses people (including me) when an ideology is
>substituted in one's language for a theory.
> 'Evolutionary biology' does not equal 'Darwinism'
>(despite what some eVo biologists might say).
> Thanks for considering the linguistic/semantic
>dimension for the sake of coherent discourse.
> G.A.
>"You also clearly do not understand what Darwinism is
>saying. Darwinism does not say that a bacteria begat a
>fungus, or some other multicellular organism. What it
>says is..."

Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 31 15:54:26 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 31 2007 - 15:54:26 EDT