It's the beginning of the school year here, I've got obligations that will prevent me from completing any of the posts I have in process today. I will try to post either tonight or tomorrow.
Looking over what I've written the past two weeks, I've got to repeat one of the first things I learned when I took up online writing,
a man who acts as his own editor has a blogger for a client.
I wrote about "Darwinism", a term that was given its modern meaning by Thomas Huxley, which was used by Darwinists during Darwin's lifetime in both English and German "Darwinismus" to no objection by Charles Darwin - I seem to recall him noting that before then it had been used to refer to those who believed in Erasmus Darwin's theory of evolution.... "Darwinism" has been in constant use by Darwinists for the entire period after Huxley reinvented it, including such ultra-Darwinists today as Richard Dawkins.
ReplyDeleteI am not going to stop using a word on the authority of that eminent etymologist IHOM, Orac.
As for it not being a faith, I think you should look at those books by Haeckel that Darwin knew and cited, where he explicitly presents Darwinism as some kind of new religion. He wasn't the only person who referred to Darwinism as a doctrine. I seem to recall Huxley did, as well.
Perhaps in your sciency education no one ever told you that historical evidence, in the form of primary source material, is evidence. It is every much a valid form of evidence as that which science is supposed to use, far more so than a lot that has been used to produce stuff that is temporarily considered to be science, before it is junked, evo-psy natural-historical fiction, the prime contemporary example.
As compared to the physical evidence that science is supposed to use, documentary evidence articulates its intended meaning, that meaning is the only reason the evidence is produced. That is why I have relied on primary source material in this argument, trying to avoid the common use of secondary materials that are a, sometimes, ideological presentation. I've avoided the tertiary crap that the mythical Darwin and much of creationism rests so unsolidly on.
You can't credibly hold that what Darwin, himself said, what those who actually knew him said, when Darwin, in his own words reveal he read and approved, the things he cited to support his own contentions, don't constitute evidence. When Darwin was citing Galton, Greg, Fick and Haeckel, he was supposed to be presenting information that had the reliability of science. There is no way to ignore his approval of what they said. You can, though, either pretend those don't exist or you can lie about it. In which case, you'll have the support of other ignorant and/or dishonest people.
No idea why people don't post comments. There's no evidence to base a hypothesis of tacit comments on. Maybe my statement about comments in the sidebar scare them off.
Rkt, go lecture Richard Dawkins and dozens of others who use the word "Darwinism".
ReplyDeleteAs I told someone at Sandwalk, there isn't any requirement that an answer has to make you happy. You should see what I've got in production.