It isn’t just IDiots who use the terms “Darwinism” and “Darwinist” as pejoratives. Indeed, this is common practice throughout much of the creo “literature” if you do some digging. Creos – including IDiots – do this because they contend that “belief” in evolution is a religious theology. It is for this reason why NCSE has devoted a substantial amount of its resources in combatting, especially via its strategic alliances with organizations like the Clergy Letter Project. For espousing such a strategy, militant atheists like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers etc. etc. have made the risible accusation that NCSE must, therefore, have an “accomodationist” stance against religion, when I have not seen anything posted on NCSE’s website that would suggest such a policy.

I think the reason why we can correctly refer to something known as “Darwinian” thought because of Darwin’s own voluminous writings on evolution, and the fact that he came up not merely with one theory of evolution, but several, as the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr has observed. But of course, Darwin’s most important contribution is having discovered – along with Wallace – a plausible mechanism for evolution, namely, Natural Selection (Again, to be technically correct, one needs to refer to it as the Darwin – Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.).

Finally, last but not least, I concur completely with Skepacabra’s excellent observations.

Sure, we should be polite and respectful at first. But once it becomes clear that someone is unwilling or incapable of being moved by sufficient evidence and they become hostile towards you and others who present evidence that disagrees with them, I see no reason to not bluntly and unapologetically call them on it. I believe we shouldn’t be basing our position on what is strategically convenient but on the truth. If a biologist truly sees a conflict between religion and science, it is dishonest to not say so merely because that’s what is practical. That’s what creationists do. That is not how scientists and skeptics should behave. We’re better than that.

I believe that the use of the term “Darwinism” by Intelligent Design advocates is strategic. I think that their purpose is to frame Evolution as a belief, with an advocate who sounds like a prophet who has had what appears to be a revelation.

This makes the decision of the public one of: Do you believe this or do you believe that? This segues into their understanding of Evolution as “only a theory”. It helps Intelligent Design sound credible and equal in standing.

I think that scientists need to get the public to understand that science is about evidence and then get them to examine that evidence and get them to try to understand it. There are Great Scientists, but the advancement of science takes place in many steps and is not totally dependent on any one individual. (We might have been labeled Wallacites).

Connecting back to Chris Mooney’s post at the top of this thread, if we delineate the distinction between what is religious faith and what is science, and refrain from attacks, we can improve the scientific literacy of the public and increase acceptance of Evolution and other scientific theories.

Even if you did strike the words “natural selection” from your sentence, you would still be factually incorrect with respect to implying that there were scientifically valid theories of biological evolution prior to the 1858 Royal Society of London presentation of Darwin and Wallace’s ideas. Because no one could conceive of a plausible mechanism, evolution was rejected as valid science, even though, as you’ve indicated, there were others, like for example, Darwin’s grandfather, physician Erasmus Darwin, who had a notion of evolution back in the 1790s.

I will agree with you that evolutionary bioiogy has made substantial progress since 1858 and that Darwin did not envision all that would spring forth, such as for example, population genetics, molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology (more popularly known as “evo – devo”). But, regardless, it is still amazing how much Darwin got right, and the clarity of his thinking and the predictive power of many of his ideas, are among the reasons why he is still acknowledged as one of the greatest scientists of Western Civilization.

I’ll agree with your assessment of Erasmussimo’s comment (# 80), but sadly, such diplomacy hasn’t proved effective in ongoing battles against Intelligent Design advocates – I don’t think to call them IDiots is either harsh or misleading, especially for the reasons I have noted, referring to Richard Fortey’s rationale for that term – or, for example, in ongoing online discussions as to whether science advocacy /scientific organizations like NCSE, NAS and AAAS, should have an “accomodationist” stance with respect to mainstream religions.

I don’t know how much you’ve read of my own comments elsewhere online, but I will observe that it’s sometimes useful to be sarcastic, and have that laced with humor, as I have done, for example, in asserting that there is more proof for Klingon Cosmology than there will ever be for any form of creationism (or in referring to IDiots as members of the Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective). I think enough people on both sides have noticed that I’ve tried to be funny while also attempting to make some valid points too.

Some words close off discussion. Erasmussimo in #80 has done an excellent job in expressing this with regard to attacking others.

I still like the idea that evolution is about a theory not an individual person of whom I am to be deemed to be an adherent.

I don’t think it really matters how you refer those who believe in Intelligent Design, but I think that in dealing with the middle ground, separating out belief from science is crucial.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Darwin was the first to develop a comprehensive theory of evolution with a plausible mechanism for it, Natural Selection, which he did in the late 1830s through mid 1840s. Independently, Wallace would discover the same evolutionary theory while working in the East Indies from 1855 to 1858. I realize you’ve been inspired by Matt Young’s laudable contest over at Panda’s Thumb, but even he would concur with my analysis.

I would refute the use of the term “Darwinsim” with a slightly different tone than that used by John Kwok above. I do not consider myself to be a “Darwinist” because I recognize that Charles Darwin was not the first person to attempt to describe natural selection and evolution, nor were his ideas anywhere near being the last word on the subject.

A scientific theory is not a dogma.

Yes, that did enter my mind. But Obama’s remarks pale in comparison to, for example, Elie Wiesel’s voluminous writings. Any credible person who has seen the photographs and videos of Allied soldiers being welcomed as liberators at the Nazi death camps like Buchenwald and Dachau should understand immediately that the Holocaust was real, and should never, ever, be regarded as myth.

@ barry -

Even if you are not Barry Arrington from Uncommon Dissent, your observation is rather pointless. As I noted earlier, eminent British paleontologist Richard Fortey was quite correct in declaring that Intelligent Design creationists and their fellow intellectually-challenged acolytes (whom I have dubbed sarcastically as members of the Dishonesty Institute Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture’s IDiot Borg Collective), given the sad facts that again, and again, they have aimed as epithets, “Darwinism” and “Darwinist”, at both the mainstream scientific community and those of us in the general public who recognize that evolution is valid science and Intelligent Design is religiously-derived pseudoscientific nonsense (though again, I have gone further by referring to it – and I believe quite correctly – as mendacious intellectual pornography.).