|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinists? and other names for "evos" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I am afraid your illogical claims are off topic. Please start a new thread if you wish to discuss them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Personally I don't find anything basically wrong with the term Darwinist,although I appreciate the point that it suggests some affiliation to the person rather than their theory, but I do have a problem with the usual corollary assumption that there has been no new work done or significant changes in evolutionary biology since Darwin's work was published, not to mention the frequent usage of arguments which are at least as old as Darwin's work, the argument from design being mostly what I'm thinking of here.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4540 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
Ditto that. It connotes a cult of personality and a static devotion to an original concept. While Darwin took a huge leap forward in the understanding of natural history, he was part of a collective movement that preceded him and continues long after him.
How would creationists feel if people went around calling them all Hovindites?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I'd like to reply to this, because you have made some serious errors, but it is off topic.
Perhaps you can join one of the existing threads discussing punk eek, or propose a new punk eek topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4426 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
ROFLMAO
I'm going to call every creationist who refers to scientists as Darwinists or evolutionists a Hovindite now. {edited to change admin ID} This message has been edited by AdminIRH, 11-29-2004 08:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4904 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
IrishRockhound writes: I'm going to call every creationist who refers to scientists as Darwinists or evolutionists a Hovindite now. I don't know about other people here, but if I was forced to be dogmatically associated with a particular person Darwin would be several billion places further up the list than Hovind! I really don't envy the rational creationists on this board having to put up with that man in their camp
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Yeah, I guess Hamite is already taken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I have never met a professional Evolutionist i.e. an academician who was merely an "advocate for evolution" and not a full-fledged "dogmatic believer in evolution". I haven’t met many amateur Evolutionists who fall in the former category either. Really? Fascinating. I, on the other hand, have met and worked with both professional field and theoretical evolutionary biologists, and conversed with a fair selection of "amateurs" both live and on the net. In additiion, I read extensively in both the professional and open-published literature. I'll freely admit I've seen a lot of occasionally quite acrimonious debate among this crew over the details of evolution. In fact, I've engaged in some myself (an argument over the long-term ecological stability of the Cerro Kum concession, and another over the ultimate causes of the Posoltega lahar spring to mind). In my own field, there continues to be an often nasty argument between the advocates of Wilson vs Brown vs Whittaker concerning ecological equilibrium (I'm a dynamic disequilibrium-ist myself). The point being that IF your contention that we all adhere dogmatically to a "belief in evolution" is true, then there shouldn't be any argument at all, n'est-ce pas? Every single piece of evidence or bit of theory someone presents is argued over, fought over, dissected, and - sometimes - grudgingly accepted. Doesn't sound very dogmatic, to me. Even if you choose to not to persue a career in biology following on your degree, I would urge you to attend at least one symposium where a controversial paper is presented, for entertainment value if nothing else. I'd be surprised if you can come away from one of those still considering "evolutionists" to be dogmatic...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I know this is slightly off topic but
I read extensively in both the professional and open-published literature. seems to be making a distinction which is rapidly becoming redundant, perhaps proffesional and amateur would be a better pairing since there is so much professional peer reviewed material being released as open-access now. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-29-2004 10:45 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You're probably right. I was trying to draw a (perhaps unecessary) distinction between the peer-reviewed literature such as Nature or Conservation Biology, collections of essays and other scientific writings, such as Wilson's (ed) "Biodiversity" and "Biodiversity II" or Mayr's "Evolution and the Diversity of Life", and more "popular" writing such as Dawkins' books, etc. Maybe there isn't a need.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
No, there is certainly value in that distinction, but it isn't the distinction suggested to my mind by professional Vs. open-published, open published to me suggests things like PLOS orBiomed Central or Arxiv. The distinction you seem to be drawing is between peer-reviewed and popular science.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6465 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
I can second this...I just recently published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, the open access evolution journal of BMC. The submission process, peer review, revisions etc. was identical to non-open access journals where I have previously published. The only differences are that 1) I had to pay to publish (my institute did at least) 2) it went waaaaaay faster than any other publishing experience I have ever had 3) as soon as the paper was accepted, the non-revised version was available for anyone to read as a pdf file.
But peer review etc was no different.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024