Is "Darwin" a strawman for creationists to beat up on?

[hexola]

I seem to remember being taught that Darwin was only responsible for a small part of modern evolutionary theory. And that much of what he wrote was, indeed wrong. However science seems to agree - he did prove to be on the right track.

Here's where I'm going with this...

Creationists seem to take great zeal in proving "Darwin was wrong" in "Origin of a Species" - and then go on with charts, maps and scientific sounding stuff that shows some flaws in his work. Thus "proof" that evolution is "nonsense" or "doesn't hold water"

So - they are basically discrediting dated research - much of which has been proven wrong long ago and dismissed...by actual scientists...now its being dressed up as some newly discovered flaw in the theory.

Any of you anthy majors hear anything like that?

[opiate69]

1. Pretty much..

As my Anthro professor told us in 101.. "Darwin is the author of the theory of Natural Selection.. others after him developed ToE.. While he didn't come up with the ToE, those that did stood on his shoulders".

[longship]

2. Correct.

Indeed, the way they treat Darwin would be a straw man since no biologist adheres to the theory as it was stated by Darwin. But facts never got in the way of creationism anyway, so it doesn't matter.

I'm no biologist, but off hand, Mendel and Crick/Watson come to mind as major modifications to the theory.

Others?

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Why are you debating with people

who think that we were created by supernatural powers out of mud 6000 years ago and are attacking a 150 year old treatise for its scientific flaws?

[opihimoimoi]

6. Really.... the creationists offer nothing to support their theory of

Instant Earth/Universe through ID......Nothing, Nada, Nai, Puka, Zero.

[wurzel]

4. "Creationists" do not know what science is.

Darwin's theory of evolution, right or wrong, is a scientific theory because there are means of proving it wrong. "Creationism" is not a scientific theory because there is no means of proving it wrong. It is that simple.

[Cocoa]

7. they are fundamentally (no pun intended) misrepresenting what science is

they make it seem like finding flaws in theories is proof the theory is "wrong," when in fact no theory is ever meant to be the final word.

They know this of course, they simply don't care about science, they just care about politics.

[wurzel]

14. Exactly. They give themselves away.

When they say no one has ever disproved creationism, they are, of course, absolutely correct. That is because there is no way of disproving "creationism". Ironically that is the precise reason it is not science.

[JHB]

5. That's one of their tactics.

It's only one of a number of debating tricks they have up their sleeves, but yes, they do pull that.

One of the hallmarks of creationists is the lawyerly way they argue.

[Cocoa]

8. NYT graphic: a think tank rethinking Darwin

[KittyWampus]

9. the greater point is- science must move beyond its de facto philosophy

of Materialism which its adherents, the Science Fundies, insist on shoving down Humanity's throat.

And the Religious Fundies need to move beyond their literalism which is a sort of Materialism in itself.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Uh - I'm sorry

but science and religion are separate realms of human thought. There is no need for science to 'move beyond materialism' as to do so it would cease to be science.

Faith based philosophical systems such as religion may ground themselves in physical reality or not, as they choose. Science has no such luxury.

[nuxvomica]

11. I see the issue a little differently

I don't think science can, or should, move beyond materialism but I agree that science should not be used to restrict all aspects of human endeavor to a materialistic point of view. Both science and religion are tools and both must be applied with caution.
I think the Scopes Trial is a classic example of the battleground that arises from such misuse. The "social Darwinists" of the time gave evolutionary teaching a bad name by using it to promote pro-corporatist social policy, pushing progressives like Bryant to see science as the enemy, much like a person attacked by a badly trained pit bull would see the dog as his enemy rather than its master. Bryant used religion as a defense. Another misuse, of course but probably expeditious for him at the time. What a mess!
It's all too bad considering that both science and faith have the power to free the human mind of it's basest tendencies but all too often they are misused to restrict human potential. As much as I agree that the fundies in both realms are real stinkers, I try not to blame the dogs for their masters.

[Bridget Burke]

12. Please offer an example....

Of science restricting all aspects of human endeavor. Science does not have that power.

[nuxvomica]

13. I never said it did have such a power

I said it could be used in that way, as when materialism is applied to social policy. I think social Darwinism is such a misuse or, or to be more precise, a misuse of the terminology and therefore the positive regard in which science is held. The same occurs with religion.