Help on flaws in "Shattering the Myth of Darwinism"?

[mamakosj]

I found this book a while ago, and managed to read most of it. It challenged my ideas at the time but, looking back with an analytical approach, I find that some thing don't seem to sound quite right. If anyone else has read this book, please tell me what you think.

 

How much of what is said is true at face value, and how much is made up of facts that have been specifically worded to create the wrong impression? Also, how much of the 'facts' are merely oppinions stated as facts? I would like to know how reliable this information is.

 

Click on this link to Amazon.com to view the book.

[Mokele]

Just a quick note before class; I moved this from another forum and altered the title a bit so it would be truer to the OP's intent.

 

While there is a general policy here at SFN against creationism, since the OP is asking about the suspicious methods known to be used in the promotion of such (rather than pushing an agenda), I think it would be a valuable thread.

 

For the OP: this link should help a lot in answering your questions, as every creationist argument ever has been indexed and rebutted (there are surprisingly few, most of what they do is just repettition)

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 

Mokele

[mamakosj]

From what i read of this book, it bears no mention of creationism or any other similar aspect. It mearly tries to undermine the theory of evolution through natural selection (Darwinism) by disproving many aspects of the theory's evidence. It is the opposing ideas, facts and theories that i am questioning. All the evidence and reaoning in the book is entirely scientific with no mention of and god. This is why i orriginally went along with it.

[Mokele]

From what i read of this book, it bears no mention of creationism or any other similar aspect.

 

It uses the word "darwinism". Nobody uses that word except creationists, who hold the idiotic belief that if they somehow find a flaw in evolution, everyone will accept their magic sky god.

 

It mearly tries to undermine the theory of evolution through natural selection (Darwinism) by disproving many aspects of the theory's evidence. It is the opposing ideas, facts and theories that i am questioning. All the evidence and reaoning in the book is entirely scientific with no mention of and god. This is why i orriginally went along with it.

 

The link above should be able to rebut any and all of the arguments of that book, if you look. If you can't find a rebuttal there or in the link below, post it here and we'll be happy to analyze it. Creationists are sneaky bastards, and their arguments can *seem* very solid if you don't know enough about biology.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

 

Mokele

[mamakosj]

I don't mean to be rude, but have you read the book yourelf? I do not know whether the author is a creationist in his believes, but i do know that he does not state any creationist views in the book itself. The title's wording does not immediately point to a creationist author; it could have been used as an eye-catching title that was related to the topic of the book.

 

(the following paragraph is based on my understanding of the book and is not to be taken as definite fact)

The reason he is attempting to 'shoot down' the current theories on evolution is because he disagrees with the dating system used (different forms of carbon-dating), saying that it is inaccurate. He then expliains this, and gives different dating methods which provide a whole range of answers to the earth's age, many of which are nowhere near the current estimate.

 

When analysing this book, one has to remember that it was written a while ago and so the author did not have access to all the information we now know.

 

He written several books on the topic, two of which are:

"The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism"

"Alternative Science: Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment"

 

I thank you for the site link; it has proved to be very interesting in its context.

[the tree]

Honestly, yes, the title does point to creationism. Why? Because of the word "darwinism".

This stuff does get predictable after a while, you only need to see so much of it to know what's going to come next.

[Mokele]

I don't mean to be rude, but have you read the book yourelf? I do not know whether the author is a creationist in his believes, but i do know that he does not state any creationist views in the book itself. The title's wording does not immediately point to a creationist author; it could have been used as an eye-catching title that was related to the topic of the book.

 

Honestly, I have better things to do, and yes, as tree said, the title *does* point to a creationist. Nobody except creationists use the word 'darwinism'.

 

The reason he is attempting to 'shoot down' the current theories on evolution is because he disagrees with the dating system used (different forms of carbon-dating), saying that it is inaccurate. He then expliains this, and gives different dating methods which provide a whole range of answers to the earth's age, many of which are nowhere near the current estimate.

 

You've just proven he's a moron: carbon dating is *not* used on fossils, because they don't retain original carbon and the method only works up until 14,000 years ago. Other radiometric dating methods are used, and we *KNOW* these are accurate, both from dating things of known age and from the fact that different methods produce the same dates for the same items.

 

When analysing this book, one has to remember that it was written a while ago and so the author did not have access to all the information we now know.

 

We've been doing this for over 50 years; he's got no excuse.

 

Mokele

[CDarwin]

Honestly, I have better things to do, and yes, as tree said, the title *does* point to a creationist. Nobody except creationists use the word 'darwinism'.

Mokele

 

Stephen Jay Gould uses "Darwinism" quite a bit. It's a kind of evolution: evolution driven purely by selection, as opposed to deterministic evolution or random things like genetic drift and mutation (which natural selection can then act upon, but their effect on the gene pool is evolution in itself). The term is used a lot outside of biology too, but that's not very important.

[PhDP]

When a scientist say "Darwinism", it means "evolution by natural selection". When a creationist (or Dawkins) say "Darwinism", they mean "the theory of evolution". It's an important distinction, it shows that creationists either don't know evolutionary biology very well, or they're not brave enough to launch an attack on the whole field, they prefer to attack a watered-down version of evolution. Probably a little of both.

 

In my knowledge, Milton don't call himself a creationist, but his "arguments" are so similar I wouldn't be able to make a dinstinction... and like creationists, he's attacking some form of evolution that doesn't really exist ("Darwinism").

[mamakosj]

In my knowledge, Milton don't call himself a creationist, but his "arguments" are so similar I wouldn't be able to make a dinstinction... and like creationists, he's attacking some form of evolution that doesn't really exist ("Darwinism").

 

Point accepted. So he has creationist views. I was fooled into thinking they were scientific. I admit that his book is unreliable, and i cannot argue for or against it effectively since it was a few years since i last read it. I appreciate everyone's comments. Thank you.

[lucaspa]

It uses the word "darwinism". Nobody uses that word except creationists,

 

Mokele, that isn't true. Read Gould's essays and he uses the word "darwinism", as does Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea. No one can accuse Dennett of promoting a "magic sky god". BTW, that you use such a term shows YOU are "pushing an agenda". Science is agnostic, not atheistic.

 

Creationists are sneaky bastards, and their arguments can *seem* very solid if you don't know enough about biology.

 

That is true. Or about the geology, either. Much of the book seems concerned with geology, not evolution.

[lucaspa]

I don't mean to be rude, but have you read the book yourelf?

 

No, I'm trying to get my information from you and from the Amazon site. So we need your help about exactly what claims Milton is making.

 

I do not know whether the author is a creationist in his believes, but i do know that he does not state any creationist views in the book itself.

 

This is quite a common tactic of creationists. For instance, Jonathon Wells is a well known creationist, but his book Icons of Evolution only attacked evolution; it did not mention creationism. The assumption of creationists is that the only possible alternative to evolution is creationism. So, if you destroy evolution, then that means creationism is correct (in their minds). IN reality, of course, it doesn't work that way. Each theory has to stand or fall on its own.

 

(the following paragraph is based on my understanding of the book and is not to be taken as definite fact)

The reason he is attempting to 'shoot down' the current theories on evolution is because he disagrees with the dating system used (different forms of carbon-dating), saying that it is inaccurate. He then expliains this, and gives different dating methods which provide a whole range of answers to the earth's age, many of which are nowhere near the current estimate.

 

Carbon 14 dating only goes back 50,000 years. It can't be used for dating longer than that. So Milton made a strawman. Are some of his "dating methods" the amount of salt in the ocean or the human population?

 

I find at the amazon.com site a review says Milton says "the evidence for humankind's own evolution is actually nonexistent" If you look at the sticky thread here about "evidence for common ancestry of humans and chimps", you will see a post of mine toward the end about transitional individuals linking us back thru 2 intermediate species to A. afarensis.

 

One review says:

"The evolution scenario described above is merely selective breeding, with nature doing the selecting. We know that selective breeding can never lead to a new species. Humans have been practicing artificial selective breeding on plants and animals for centuries, probably millenia, without ever having bred a new species."

 

That isn't true. This book details how selective breeding has led to a whole new genus of plants:

 

Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

 

Notice the date: 1979. This was long before Milton wrote his book.

 

"As Milton points out in Chapter 14, "Of Cabbages and Kings," no one has ever observed a spontaneous inheritable genetic mutation that resulted in a changed physical characteristic, aside from a small group of well-known and usually fatal genetic defects. "

 

Again, totally wrong. Here are just a few references:

 

Beneficial mutations

1. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dup_favorable.html

Accelerated evolution

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html New apo-lipoprotein mutation that adds antioxidant activity.

3. Sequence of favorable mutations in E. coli http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3807

4. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513 Mutation giving extra dense bones

[Phi for All]

I do not know whether the author is a creationist in his believes, but i do know that he does not state any creationist views in the book itself.

Creationists are using a technique used by many industries these days. I don't know if it has an actual name yet, but the technique goes like this: set up an agency or an authority figure though third parties that seems removed from your agenda and then point to them for support. The major car insurance agencies set up just such a group to rate aftermarket car parts as an excuse not to use more expensive factory parts. They have this "independent" agency give the green light for cheaper parts and then say, "We abide by the rulings of the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) in determining if these parts are just as good as factory parts".

 

I'm sure this author is very careful to avoid creationism. That way creationists can point to him as an independent source for undermining evolution. These authors are often self-styled "scientists" who have no agenda other than pointing out "the truth", usually with a minimum of actual science involved.

[lucaspa]

I'm sure this author is very careful to avoid creationism. That way creationists can point to him as an independent source for undermining evolution. These authors are often self-styled "scientists" who have no agenda other than pointing out "the truth", usually with a minimum of actual science involved.

 

Yes, it's a common tactic. After all, ID touts that Berlinksi is an "agnostic" and I have often seen Lee Spetner described as an "atheist" or at the least "non-Christian" I see that Spetner has cited Milton on the amazon.com page.

 

Milton was a science correspondent for an English newspaper for 20 years. So he's not a "scientist", but supposedly has the "objectivity" of the news correspondent. But, of course, if you repeat an argument long ago shown to be flawed, then you are not "objective" but pretending to be while you promote an agenda.

[mamakosj]

fair point... thank you

[lucaspa]

fair point... thank you

 

You are welcome. As I said, if you find a claim in Milton that you think is valid, let us know. Be specific so that we know exactly what Milton claimed. The overall claim "evolution is disproved" is vague and can't be specifically addressed. Altho you could go to PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term, and look at the sheer number of articles that support evolution.

 

You can refine your search in such ways as "evolution, speciation, artificial, selection" and look at Milton's claim that no new species has been produced by artificial selection.

[PhDP]

Mokele, that isn't true. Read Gould's essays and he uses the word "darwinism", as does Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea. No one can accuse Dennett of promoting a "magic sky god". BTW, that you use such a term shows YOU are "pushing an agenda". Science is agnostic, not atheistic.

 

No, Mokele is right. I've heard scientists (Dennett isn't a scientist) using "Darwinism" to talk about evolution by natural selection, and sometime, to denotes selectionists, but they're not referring to the theory of evolution as a whole. Dawkins is an exception.

[lucaspa]

I've heard scientists (Dennett isn't a scientist) using "Darwinism" to talk about evolution by natural selection, and sometime, to denotes selectionists, but they're not referring to the theory of evolution as a whole. Dawkins is an exception.

 

Mokele's claim wasn't about scientists. He said "It uses the word "darwinism". Nobody uses that word except creationists,"

 

Now, would you like to tell me Dennett is a creationist?

 

Please tell me the difference between "evolution by natural selection" and "the theory of evolution as a whole".

 

Science. 2005 Aug 12;309(5737):996-7. Evolution. Vatican astronomer rebuts cardinal's attack on Darwinism. Holden C.

 

Harv Ment Health Lett. 1998 Jan;14(7):5-7. Darwinism and psychiatry.

Nesse R.

 

Silverstein AM.

Darwinism and immunology: from Metchnikoff to Burnet.

Nat Immunol. 2003 Jan;4(1):3-6.

 

2: Flemming C, Goodall J. Dangerous Darwinism.

Public Underst Sci. 2002 Jul;11(3):259-71.

PMID: 12430530 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

3: Mayr E. The philosophical foundations of Darwinism.

Proc Am Philos Soc. 2001 Dec;145(4):488-95.

 

Notice the author of that last one: Ernst Mayr himself.

 

Here's a recent paper. It's a review of cancer, but look at the bold in the abstract:

 

Cancer Lett. 2007 Jan 22; [Epub ahead of print]

 

Variation, "evolution", immortality and genetic instabilities in tumour cells.

 

Bignold LP.

 

Division of Tissue Pathology, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, P.O.

Box 14, Rundle Mall, Adelaide, SA 5068, Australia.

 

The pathological characteristics of tumour cells often include variation of

their histopathological features (i.e. "degrees of de-differentiation") between

cases of the same tumour type and between different foci within individual

tumours. Usually, only a few cell lines from tumours are immortal. Currently,

somatic mutation, replicative infidelity of DNA and aneuploidy are suggested as alternative mechanisms of genomic disturbance underlying tumours. Nevertheless, apart from Hansemann's ideas of "anaplasia" and "de-differentiation" (proposed in the 1890s), and supposed "evolutionary themes" in cancer cell biology, little has been published concerning how histopathologic variation and immortality in tumour cells might arise. This paper reviews applications of the concepts of "variation" to tumours, including concepts of "evolution" and "cellular Darwinism". It is proposed that combinations of somatic mutation, DNA replicative infidelity and aneuploidy may explain the variabilities in tumours, and provide immortality in occasional tumour cells. A possible model involves (i) an initial somatic mutation causing reduced replicative fidelity of DNA, which could be variable in intensity, and thus give rise to variations between cases; (ii) a phase of replicative infidelity of DNA causing daughter cells lines to develop various abnormalities to different degrees, and hence provide for variation between areas of the same tumour. As a last event (iii) occasional

asymmetric chromosomal distributions (aneuploidy) might "refresh" the ability of a daughter cell to replicate DNA faithfully causing them to become immortal. Thus extensively mutant and variable, hyperploid, and occasionally immortal cells might arise.

 

J Math Biol. 2006 Jul;53(1):15-60. Epub 2006 Apr 24.

 

A theory of Fisher's reproductive value.

 

Grafen A.

 

St John's College, Oxford, OX1 3JP, United Kingdom. alan.grafen@sjc.ox.ac.uk

 

The formal Darwinism project aims to provide a mathematically rigorous basis for optimisation thinking in relation to natural selection. This paper deals with the situation in which individuals in a population belong to classes, such as sexes, or size and/or age classes. ...

 

This is just a few citations I got back just from a quick search of PubMed using the search term "darwinism".

 

"The rise of modern genetics, built on the foundations laid by Mendel, added considerably more to Darwinism than the solution of this difficulty about the preservation of variety. " C.H. Waddington, "Theories of Evolution" in A Century of Darwin edited by S.A. Barnett, 1958 pp. 9-10

 

12: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999 Oct 12;96(21):11904-9 Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: how shall we name and generalize the unit of Darwinism? Gould SJ, Lloyd EA

 

If scientists don't use the term Darwinism, would you like to tell me how the editors of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science let the term stand in the title?

 

Phil, creationists often use "Darwinism" as a synonym for "atheism". They are misusing the term. However, that creationists misuse the term is no reason for anyone to say that only creationist or only non-scientists use the word "Darwinism".

[PhDP]

Now, would you like to tell me Dennett is a creationist?

 

I said Dennett wasn't a scientist, that makes him a creationist ? And it's true, most people that misuse the term "Darwinism" are creationists. Mokele knows very well "Darwinism" can be used to mean "evolution by natural selection", but it shouldn't be used to describe evolution as a whole.

 

Please tell me the difference between "evolution by natural selection" and "the theory of evolution as a whole".

 

Simple, natural selection is only one of the mechanism of evolution, it's simply part of the theory of evolution. Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, Susumu Ohno, Masatoshi Nei, and many others, they don't consider themselves Darwinists/Selectionists because they don't think natural selection is the most important mechanism of evolution (they don't think darwinian evolution doesn't exist. however). It's as simple as that. Also, I never said words like "Darwinism" or "Darwinian" were not used by scientists.

 

If scientists don't use the term Darwinism, would you like to tell me how the editors of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science let the term stand in the title?

 

Phil, creationists often use "Darwinism" as a synonym for "atheism". They are misusing the term. However, that creationists misuse the term is no reason for anyone to say that only creationist or only non-scientists use the word "Darwinism".

 

You just don't read what I say. I never said scientists don't use the term "Darwinism", in fact, I started a phrase with "When a scientist say "Darwinism"...", and I often quote one of my favorite book, "Evolutionary Game Theory, Natural Selection, and Darwinian Dynamics".

 

I said very clearly (post #9, it's not very far); When a scientist say "Darwinism", it means "evolution by natural selection". When a creationist (or Dawkins) say "Darwinism", they mean "the theory of evolution". It's an important distinction.

[CDarwin]

Please tell me the difference between "evolution by natural selection" and "the theory of evolution as a whole".

 

In addition to what Phil said, there are outmoded ideas about evolution based on internal drives and laws of development that are non-Darwinian. I really think that contributes to your major point. Evolution ≠ Darwinism, so the Creationist use of the term not only to describe all ideas about biological evolution, but the various bits of geology, cosmology, and philosophy they don't like as well is abusive and misleading.

 

Phil, creationists often use "Darwinism" as a synonym for "atheism". They are misusing the term. However, that creationists misuse the term is no reason for anyone to say that only creationist or only non-scientists use the word "Darwinism".

 

Exactly. Why should we let Creationists rob of us of a perfectly useful term?

[lucaspa]

I said Dennett wasn't a scientist, that makes him a creationist ? And it's true, most people that misuse the term "Darwinism" are creationists. Mokele knows very well "Darwinism" can be used to mean "evolution by natural selection", but it shouldn't be used to describe evolution as a whole....Also, I never said words like "Darwinism" or "Darwinian" were not used by scientists.

 

Phil, you are moving the goalposts. Again, let me remind you of Mokele's original statement: ""It uses the word "darwinism". Nobody uses that word except creationists," Notice that Mokele said "that word", not a particular defintion. If Mokele "knows very well", he didn't state it! I think, instead of defending Mokele, your time would be better spent advising him to be more careful in his statements.

 

You certainly implied that use of the words "Darwinism" or "Darwinian" was not used by scientists. After all, what was your criticism of my use of Dennett as an example that people other than creationists use the term "Darwinism"? Let me remind you: "I've heard scientists (Dennett isn't a scientist)" as though that made a difference in light of Mokele's "Nobody uses that word".

 

Simple, natural selection is only one of the mechanism of evolution, it's simply part of the theory of evolution. Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, Susumu Ohno, Masatoshi Nei, and many others, they don't consider themselves Darwinists/Selectionists because they don't think natural selection is the most important mechanism of evolution (they don't think darwinian evolution doesn't exist. however). It's as simple as that.

 

That's splitting some hairs. For one, you are moving the goalposts again by introducing the term "Darwinists/Selectionists". Where did that "selectionists" come from? It sounds like the people on the list are making their own definition of "Darwinist". Which is, of course, what we complain about creationists doing! Sauce for the goose.

 

Darwinism doesn't say that natural selection is the ONLY process in evolution. It does say that natural selection is the only way to get adaptations. And quite frankly, none of your list disagrees with that.

 

Evolution is "descent with modification". That was Darwin's definition and the one the National Academy of Science still uses.

 

"Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on Earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species. Darwin called this process "descent with modification," which remains a good definition of biological evolution today." Appendix and Frequently Asked Questions Science and Creationism, A View from the NAS, the section "What is Evolution?" pg 27

 

So, even your list are adhere to Darwinism.

 

I said very clearly (post #9, it's not very far); When a scientist say "Darwinism", it means "evolution by natural selection". When a creationist (or Dawkins) say "Darwinism", they mean "the theory of evolution". It's an important distinction.

 

1. No one has anything other than Darwinism to account for adaptations. What's more, Darwinism does refer to the theory of evolution.

2. When creationists say "Darwinism", they do NOT mean "the theory of evolution". They mean atheism. They also include within "evolution" such things as abiogenesis, origin of planets, geology, and cosmology.

 

So your problem is that you are misrepresenting Darwinism, its use by non-creationists, and its use by creationists. Three swings, three strikes.

[lucaspa]

Evolution ≠ Darwinism, so the Creationist use of the term not only to describe all ideas about biological evolution, but the various bits of geology, cosmology, and philosophy they don't like as well is abusive and misleading.

 

Among scientists, evolution = Darwinism. All those other theories have been falsified.

 

And I fully agree that creationists misuse the term! Never said otherwise. My initial post was in response to a specific claim by Mokele -- a claim that is mistaken.

 

The arguments within Darwinism are about the relative importance of genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection, and endosymbiosis to the "modification" within "descent with modification". For instance, in Kimura's "neutral theory", the idea is that many (if not most) characteristics of living organisms come about thru genetic drift.

 

Also, much of the argument is against a strawman version of neo-Darwinism. The strawman version is that neo-Darwinism only accepts accumulation of minor changes in individual alleles as being responsible for "modification". Neo-Darwinism never stated that, but that's another story.

 

So, many of the objections in print are because the scientists are also misuing the term "Darwinist".

 

Exactly. Why should we let Creationists rob of us of a perfectly useful term?

 

We shouldn't. That is a major part of my objection to Mokele's post: he would let the creationists set the terms.

[PhDP]

You certainly implied that use of the words "Darwinism" or "Darwinian" was not used by scientists.

 

You're really trying very hard to misunderstand, when I said that Darwinism meant "evolution by natural selection", you think that I was implying scientists don't use the word "Darwinism" ? It's just ridiculous.

[foodchain]

You're really trying very hard to misunderstand, when I said that Darwinism meant "evolution by natural selection", you think that I was implying scientists don't use the word "Darwinism" ? It's just ridiculous.

 

Maybe the hot water over Darwinism is because creationists engage Darwinism as biology understood it at the time of Darwin. When creationists say Darwinism they are in fact attempting to engage a dead person in debate on some scientific fact that has evolved since then.

 

I mean biology has grown significantly on the theory of evolution as put forward by Darwin, and physically speaking the study of such in the real world has put evolution as the backbone or unifying theory for biology to exist through, at every level, from a molecule to mammal. Yet for the purpose of creationists they don’t debate this, they debate Darwin, and neglect the rest with empty or ignorant arguments such as the misuse of entropy.

 

So at the door when you hear a term like Darwinism, you have to check on what’s being used or what the term Darwinism is composed of from the user, is it debating a dead guy about the theory of evolution at that point in time, or is it debating the theory or evolution now and how the term Darwinism can still be attached to it very much?

 

More then anything else is in science, evolution is contested by people at large because it contradicts with there perceptions, as such various groups have formed basically intent on destroying evolution, even though take away evolution and not much in biology can make sense anymore, it does not matter to them because its not on science but rather deep emotional issues that such draw from. In every engagement I have had to endure with creationists, religious types bent on killing evolution, or intelligent designers, its not so much about evolution being right or wrong as much as its about simply wanting it out of the way so they can be comfortable with themselves and the universe because of a belief they hold. This is why ID exists, it has to conform evolution to a super natural deity in order to or be fit…

 

In all these engagements Darwin is typically hated I find, and typically evolution the word is not used as much as say Darwinism. Moreover factually the engagements I have had to endure with such people don’t concern themselves with fact again as much as simply wanting to denounce evolution because it brings emotional confliction, and in term of ID its Darwin and the current means through which evolution occurs that has to be destroyed to make way for a creator to be behind it all, but the brunt of it all rests on Darwin, and Darwinism more then anything else. Which is flawed but such is how it is.

[lucaspa]

You're really trying very hard to misunderstand, when I said that Darwinism meant "evolution by natural selection", you think that I was implying scientists don't use the word "Darwinism" ? It's just ridiculous.

 

Yes, I did. And I gave you the reasons why. You didn't address those reasons, just resorted to "ridiculous". I may have been mistaken, but the reasons show I was not being "ridiculous".

 

These are science forums, after all. If the Moderators can't discuss rationally without resort to ad hominem, how do you expect the rest of the participants to do so?