Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 4
ICR also states that Darwin lacks credibility because of allegedly racist statements he made in his book The Descent of Man.

I recognize that these aren't your words, fmNh, I'm just glad you brought up this quote because it highlights an aspect of this debate which I find quite troubling.

It's bothersome when people try to equate Darwin the man with his scientific work done regarding the theory of evolution. I resent being referred to as a "Darwinist" because nothing could be further from the truth. I think many on the "faith-based" side of this argument try to shape the debate (perhaps unintentionally) because it further muddies the facts of the issue.

The theory of evolution is just one of many scientific theories which are all interdependent and support one another. Evolution is not a cult of personality and Darwin, the man, is not a facet of the veracity of the details of Evolution.

If David Duke or Ann Coulter came up with a proof for Fermat's last theorem it wouldn't matter a lick how loathsome they may be in other aspects of their lives -- all that would matter (insofar as the the theorem was concerned) would be if other mathematicians could validate that published proof.

If Darwin overcooked his eggs, juggled kittens, and painted vulgar grafitti on highway overpasses none of those things could be used as legitimate critique of his scientific work. Either the science bears out under the scrutiny of experimentation and peer review or it does not. The man is not the matter.

Acceptance of evolution is not predicated on any aspect of Darwin himself making the label "Darwinist" either misguided or belittling depending on your perspective. Neither still is the term "Evolutionist" meaningful.

Personally, I think this language is used intentionally to further blur the lines between science and religion in an effort to promote this newer notion that "faith in science is just another religion." Perhaps this is done as an intentional "wedge" to discredit scientists or perhaps it's done because from the religious perspective it's simply challenging to conceive that a viewpoint can be based on something other than mere dogma.

In either case it's disturbing to me. If Darwin was a racist that's regrettable but it does not invalidate Evolution. Science alone has that charter and seems to have weighed in quite strongly in favor of the theory.

There's no such thing as a "Darwinist." Neither does the term "Evolutionist" have any real meaning. "Scientist" is the word you're looking for. HTH. HAND.
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.