Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, oversight, protect, ratelimit-exempt, rollback
19,940
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: − + + +
→suggestion: good thought
Misuse and ambiguity of the word "evolution" harms understanding and honest debate. Often a definition of "change over time" is given for this term (that I and nearly every person accept). Then, in a slippery, unacknowledged bait and switch acceptance of '''change over time''' becomes belief that "the Cosmos is all there is and of that we are certain." In today's world "evolution" is an ambiguous term with each of these definitions considered valid (and therefore as imprecise a term as you could get). The suggested remedy is to use only "Darwinism" when discussing Naturalism or its stepchild Methodological Naturalism.
Misuse and ambiguity of the word "evolution" harms understanding and honest debate. Often a definition of "change over time" is given for this term (that I and nearly every person accept). Then, in a slippery, unacknowledged bait and switch acceptance of '''change over time''' becomes belief that "the Cosmos is all there is and of that we are certain." In today's world "evolution" is an ambiguous term with each of these definitions considered valid (and therefore as imprecise a term as you could get). The suggested remedy is to use only "Darwinism" when discussing Naturalism or its stepchild Methodological Naturalism.
Comments?
Comments? --<small> unsigned comment by [[User:Snoopy2|Snoopy2]]</small>
:Your argument makes sense. I would add to that the fact that there is a difference between macroevolution and microevolution. There is empirical evidence that microevolution takes place--this is obvious. Everything is designed to adapt to its environment, but this is within the confines of its species. (i.e. Darwin's finches adapt their beak lengths, but they never loose their beaks.) I dislike the usage of the term "evolution" in reference to Darwinism because it lumps both real and fake evolution together in an attempt to make the fake more credible. Starting a war over verbiage (i.e. "you mean macroevolution not evolution, right?") is not going to help the ignorant, so using a term like Darwinism or at the very least evolution'''ism''' is probably the best option. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 14:36, 12 October 2017 (EDT)