Talk:Darwinism/Archive 1

Old talk
The following terms (pages?) need consolidation to remove redundancy and straighten out essential distinctions: Darwinism, Darwinian evolution, "the" theory of evolution, evolution. --Ed Poor

The definition of Darwinism was (until LDC changed it):
 * all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

This definition (a) does not say where the variations come from but (b) implies that natural selection *causes* the variations.

I thought that natural selection just determines which variations persist.

So a better definition would be:
 * all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. How these variations come into being is anyone's guess.

--Ed Poor


 * No, that wouldn't be a better definition, that would be a lie. We _do_ know what many of the causes are.  The fact that there might be others isn't really relevant, and if we find them we'll add them to the picture.  If we don't find them, there's little reason to blindly speculate about them.  --LDC


 * Okay, so is Darwinism the theory that speciation is caused only by natural processes such as radiation mutating the genes and NOT by God? This would make his theory just as scientific as a Big Banger saying the universe was created by some force other than God. Both ideas seem a bit philosophical to me, but maybe I'm getting confused by not knowing the meanings of the various words. Anyway, I'm trying not to trash the articles and keeping (most of) my quibbles in the Talk sections. How am I doing? :-) --Ed Poor

Please tell me, someone, if the following idea is merely a quibble or is actually significant.

Evolution occurs through (a) an unknown cause making new species and (b) the weeding out process (natural selection).

My question is the identity of the unknown cause. Is it background radiation, such as cosmic rays, causing random mutation? Could it be God?

Is it any more scientific to say it's not God than that it is God?

Maybe God put gravity on automatic, so to speak. If God exists and God created gravity, He might not be performing a miracle everytime something heavy falls to the ground.

But maybe God created each species of life miraculously. It apparently took millions of years, and He might not have found it boring to tweak His design from time to time and see what came of it.

I think natural selection is an excellent hypothesis and entitled to be called a scientific theory. I'm not sure it's a law like F=MA quite yet.


 * That's called Deism or Theism depending on whether or not you think he interfered after creation.


 * I suppose the scientific answer to that is "Well, I suppose it could be that way, but so what if it is?" If God's actions are indistinguishable from God's inaction (or non-existence), then what's the point of making a distinction? See Philip Henry Gosse. -- Paul Drye

Darwinian evolution requires that species undergo change, that these changes are inherited, and that they affect fitness. The primary causes of change known to science are sexual reproduction (combination of DNA from two parents) and random mutation, usually caused by radiation (for example, we can cause bacteria in culture to evolve faster by irradiating them). There might well be other causes, such as chemical toxins, human genetic engineering, God, whatever.

As I've seen the term used, "Darwinism" most often refers to any Darwinian process, biological or otherwise. I'm removing your definition and placing it here, because I really don't think it reflects actual usage of the word except maybe among creationists, and such a parochial definition of a term used for rhetoric has no place in a general-audience encyclopedia. --LDC


 * It wasn't my definition, I just found it there and quoted it here. --Ed Poor


 * Perhaps a NPOV definition of Darwinism would simply be "the theory of evolution espoused by Darwin." I don't mean anything sinister about it, but if the suffix "-ism" somehow seems derogatory maybe it's not a useful word. Marxism, on the other hand, seems to denote a particular flavor of communist thought. Hmm. --Ed Poor


 * A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.


 * Darwinism is actually a "meta-theory" which encompasses a number of independent sub-theories: natural selection, sexual selection, pangenesis, actualism, gradualism, common descent.


 * I would say that, these days, Darwinism == "Survival of the fitest". Regards, Ben Aveling 01:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Darwinism as a philosophical concept? There is no such thing, so this whole article is totally rendundant. Nobody is talking about quantum-electrodynamics as a philosophical concept either. --213.93.68.194 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed section
I removed the following paragraph because (1) It's about biological evolution, and this article clearly states that its topic is not biological evolution; and (2) It's from a book whose authors are not biologists or otherwise respected scientists, so their opinions on the matter are uninformed, deceptive, and unworthy of inclusion. --Lee Daniel Crocker (10:42, 6 March 2002 (UTC))

Criticism of Darwinist theory
"Although neo-Darwinian theory requires vast periods of time for the step-by-step development of new biological organs and body plans, fossil finds have repeatedly confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance followed by prolonged stability of living forms. Moreover, the fossil record shows a "top-down" hierarchical pattern of appearance in which major structural themes or body plans emerge before minor variations on those themes.22 Not only does this pattern directly contradict the "bottom-up" pattern predicted by neo-Darwinism, but as University of San Francisco marine paleobiologist Paul Chien and several colleagues have argued,23 it also strongly resembles the pattern evident in the history of human technological design, again suggesting actual (i.e., intelligent) design as the best explanation for the data." 

--(unsigned edit: Lee Daniel Crocker 10:42, 6 March 2002 (UTC))

Note to readers of the talk page: see Neo-Darwinism. --Ben 20:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Church
Church position must have a prominent section IMO, creationism being the main opponent.

BTW I stumbled upon the following claim:
 * John Paul II wrote a letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1997 advising Vatican scientists (and Catholics at large) that the Church doesn’t have a problem with the scientific theory of evolution 

Any idea what exactly was this about? Mikkalai 17:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You can read the letter here. The letter expressed a far warmer acceptance of evolutionary theory than Pius XII's original 1950 statement had. ~ Veledan | Talk | c . 14:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Weak points and main criticisms

 * Undoubtedly the main opposition to Darwinism comes from the sustainers of revealed religions that invoke an act of willful creation by a supernatural entity. Thus usually Darwinists responds to criticism to their theories by highlighting the weak point in Creationism - namely the postulation of an ethernal entity, or God, that a certain point of time decides to change its mind to create the world and life. Still rarely the opinion is accepted that both Darwinism and Creationism might, after all, be wrong. If one does that she may note that the same criticism applied to Creationism may also be applied to Darwinism. What pushed, at a certain point of time, nature to evolve? And why there is not any evolution process still in course that may be observed? As a matter of fact Darwinism needs an act of wilfull discontinuity as much as Creationism to make sense. Thus the description of Darwinism as a natural science may not be accepted.

I've chopped this for now, too much speculation. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro line dispute
User:Zeamays thinks that the following line should be in the intro:
 * Charles Darwin was a biologist of exceptionally wide-ranging interests beyond the philosophic area of "Darwinism", including the role of earthworms in soil formation and plant physiology.

I don't think it is useful or necessary. This article is about Darwinism, which has nothing to do with Darwin's work on earthworms of plant physiology, but rather specifically with his evolutionary theory. As the article text explains, Darwinism itself even has very little to do with Charles Darwin himself as a person. I don't think the intro is benefitted by nor requires anything which says that Darwin had "exceptionally wide-ranging interests" (which is just a peacock phrase anyway -- "exceptionally" compared to whom?). Zeamay's edit comment, that this line is useful because "It is important for opponents of evolution to understand why Darwin is so respected by bioscientists" doesn't hold much weight. Darwin is not respected by bioscientists primarily because he worked on earthworms or plant physiology -- these are secondary to the work he is most respected for (evolution by natural selection) and indeed wouldn't even be worth mentioning as being connected with him if it were not for the evolutionary work. I don't think this line would clarify anything to an opponent of evolution at all. --Fastfission 15:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You appear to agree with my point, but deleted the text anyway. In fact Darwin IS respected by bioscientists because of the unusually wide impact he made on bioscience, not just for his theory of speciation by natural selection. The broad-ranging nature of his proofs for evolution by natural selection were possible because of that amazing ability to connect many facts. I will re-instate the edit. You must not be familiar with the importance of Darwin's non-evolutionary studies. The whole field of phototropism and plant hormone research in plant physiology traces to his experiments on plant movements.--Zeamays 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * He would not be in the position he currently is today in biology were it not for evolution by natural selection. Lots of 19th century scientists who also made major contributions to current areas of biology are thoroughly unknown by most biologists. In any case whether he had "exceptionally wide ranging interests" is not relevant to an article on Darwinism, a concept which frankly has not a whole lot to do with him specifically as the article states. --Fastfission 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Darwinism, NOT Charles Darwin
I just read the page, and removed a sentence in the lead section that was about Darwins interest, but has nothing to do with Darwinism, which is a concept named after him. KimvdLinde 03:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at other Wikipedia articles, articles about a specific part of a person's work often refer to that person's other work. This article should be no exception.  Darwin is revered because of the wide-ranging aspects of his interests, many well-beyond evolution.  The pollination of flowers is another example.--Zeamays 16:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is about a concept named after him, and is PART of his work. KimvdLinde 16:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * KimvdLinde: You seem to miss the point of what I am wanting to add:  that Charles Darwin's work included more than "Darwinism".  Yes, "Darwinism" is part of his work, but so are many other topics.--Zeamays 00:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you seem to miss the point that this aerticle is about Darwinisn, not Charles Darwin. As such, it is impropriate to add things that should go under Charles Darwin to the concept of Darwinism which is not about al his work. KimvdLinde 01:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but Darwinism is about the ideas of Darwin, perhaps adding other peoples' interpretations of same. Socialism is about the ideas of socialists, Americanism is about the ideas of Americans, Platonism is about Plato's ideas etc, etc.  That will include other people's interpretations, but does not exclude reminding readers that a particular thinker had ideas in other areas, which was my point.   In one sense, it is about Charles Darwin, sorry.--Zeamays 13:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in the first sentences of the article, it is explained that it is not about all his ideas, but about a specific concept that is word-wide known as Darwinism. (This article is about Darwinism as a philosophical concept). Socialism and Americanism is about the specific ideas of a group, not the general ideas of an individual or group of individuals. Under platonism, you find a specific description about a specific idea, not all Plato's ideas, or a description of his life. KimvdLinde 14:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is here: What you write agrees with what I write, but you object to my samll addition anyway. My addition is intended to indicate that Charles Darwin had many other important contributions for which one must consult the article about him. This is just a single sentence to make that point. It does not detract from the overall article, only adds helpful information so that the reader will know that there is more to Darwin's contributions than what some label "Darwinism". The reader then knows where to look to find that information. --Zeamays 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with yourpoint. It detracts, is not relevant for the tpic discussed, and just confuses. KimvdLinde 06:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've restructured the first paragraph. The material on "non-Darwinism" Darwin shouldn't be 1/2 of the first paragraph.  See if the way I've written it seems better.  The Charles Darwin link is right there in the first line, so I think it works. Ted 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We could also point out that Darwin was a sick man. How about pointing out that he was on the Beagle? Perhaps we should point out that he liked hunting while young? How about that he had a number of dogs? The point is, yes, these things are all true, but they do not belong in an article on Darwinism, the concept. We could clutter the article up with a book's worth of "helpful information" but frankly if the information is not related to the topic at hand it is not helpful. I am surprised, Zeamays, that you would persist in such an endeavor despite the fact that you seem to be the only one here who thinks that this non-sequitur belongs in the article. --Fastfission 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Fastfission: I suggest you scan over a wide variety of Wikipedia articles, and you will see that many of them cross-reference to other articles with more than just links. I am unimpressed by your weak arguments, sorry. Darwin's other work was top notch, even seminal for other fields. It is not "clutter". It is not clear why you won't compromise on just one sentence to point out that Darwin is esteemed for more than evolution. I will not insist on any specific language, but would be glad to compromise somehow. One other comment, Mr. Fastfission: demeaning, ad-hominem arguments have no place here. --Zeamays 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Zeamays, there is no ad hominem up there. Please read up on what ad hominem is before you accuse me of it. In this case, there is no one yet besides you who thinks that this sentence is necessary in the introduction. Please stop inserting it until you can convince at least one other editor that it is a good thing to put there. If you can find at least one person who feels that this non sequitur should be put into the intro, then maybe we can talk about "compromise". Until then, the burden is on you to convince the rest of us that this is a good idea. You've yet to explain at all why this blurb about Darwin -- one which has had doubt cast as to whether it is very accurate, much less very neutral -- belongs in an article about Darwinism. --Fastfission 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reading the intro as now the point that Darwin did other work is properly covered by the statement "in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection", which implies that he had other ideas. At the very most there could be a brief section at the end of the article pointing out, for example, that "Darwinism" does not cover the geological theory of atoll formation which made his name as a theorist, but frankly this is really off topic and is fully covered in the biography articles. ...dave souza, talk 08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

QED. If you wish to convince me, you won't do it by further ad-hominem arguments, such as claiming I am alone in my views. Even if I were, that doesn't make my view wrong. In fact you are wrong: if you will look at the many Wikipedia articles that have a sentence or two directing the reader to other related information. Another example of the ad-hominem is the persistent claim that my view is illogical or a non-sequitur, without a single example of the claimed illogic cited, it must be considered to be intended as personal. --Zeamays 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not ad hominem to claim you are alone in your views. To say that the line is a non-sequitur is not an ad hominem either. An example of an ad hominem might be, "Your views are wrong, because you happen to be a new user." Now in this case I've both engaged your views, which I do happen to think are wrong, and I've also pointed out that your insistence on how the article should be does not seem to agree with any of the other editors here. Now whatever the "truth" of your views, we have ways of working on an encyclopedia, and cooperation with others is part of them. If you are interested in really discussing this, please feel free, but retreating behind false claims of ad hominem attacks is just silly, fools no one, and will get you no where. --Fastfission 16:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no section in this article on criticisms of Darwinism?
every other article in the wikipedia has a criticism section. recently i posted a link on the Darwinism article linking to a book that critiqued darwinism. it was deleted within the hour. isnt criticism important? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cornopeanus (talk • contribs).

This article is on Darwinism as philosophy, not Darwinian evolution. I didn't delete the citation to the book, but it doesn't belong here. It is about evolution and intelligent design. For the most part, people criticize the evolution part, not the Darwinism part. If you can add a good criticism on Darwinism (not evolution), then go for it. Otherwise, it is normally not useful to simply add links to books. Ted 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be too hard to put together a nice little section on critiques of Darwinism as a philosophy, of which there are a few. In any case, we don't paste amazon.com links in as "external links", and pasting links to books is not the same thing as writing up an encyclopedic account of criticism. --Fastfission 03:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It just seems that every other article has a criticisms section. This article doesn't. Don't you people know the major criticisms of Darwinism? Then the intellectually honest thing to do is to either explain them in an impartial and fair way or to post links to those people who do criticize Darwinism. If you look up Marxism or any other such ideology, there will be a criticisms section. Some people accuse Darwinists of being unwilling to subject their theory to criticism. You people are providing exhibit A for such folk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cornopeanus (talk • contribs).

I encourage you to write such a section. In that way, noone can say we created a house of straw to knock down. Ted 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on Intelligent Design has 6 links at the bottom all of which are critiques of this theory. Darwinism has none. Get the point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cornopean (talk • contribs).


 * The Intelligent design article also discusses the nature of the criticism in the article. Rather than adding external links, discuss the criticism in the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm clueless. I don't see what you are talking about.  Intelligent design has much more than 6 links (either wikilink or external links).  Were these links and the discussion placed there by ID proponents or opponents?  Are they links to online content or books at Amazon?  Again, I encourage you to write a criticism section.  Don't worry about format or sentence structure or grammar.  I'm sure there are editors here (myself included) who will work to polish it.  Find some links to criticism of Darwinian philosophy.  Wikipedia is, after all, a cooperative effort.  I look forward to it.  Cheers! TedTalk/Contributions 02:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I came here actually LOOKING for criticisms and there aren't any and it IS odd for a Wikipedia article.

It strikes me that I can't be the only one to consider this philosophy to be fundamentally incompatible with the reality of civilization, can I? I mean, the notion of the role of the individual articulated herein ignores the fact that "fittest" is an abstraction itself that has no real meaning or measure. The cobbler isn't himself "fittest" in any very significant sense and his shoes protect the feet of stronger and weaker alike against injury, infection and death, helping all those genes remain in the pool.

This philosophy reduces humanity's higher aspirations to a mere incrustation to be scraped off when convenient. Surely, someone somewhere, without reference to religious sources, has considered this weakness of this simplistic, if prevalent, philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * It strikes me that you're upset about "social Darwinism", which is a 1944 term disparaging raw competitive capitalism, certainly a prevalent if rather irritating "philosophy". This article describes the term, which is commonly used for the theories of evolution and natural selection as described by Charles Darwin. That describes natural processes, and only comments on "higher aspirations" to the extent that they're a survival strategy, but Mr. D was certainly very keen on "civilisation" and would be the last to devalue such things. If you want to add "criticism" take care to comply with WP:A and WP:NPOV. ... dave souza, talk 19:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwinism and racism
The article The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist presents interesting evidence on this issue, but at a time when efforts are being made to meet standards of reliable sources removal of the link from the Charles Darwin article on the grounds that "WP is not the place to advertise minor websites of original research" seems well justified. However the 2001 Louisiana "education about racism" RESOLUTION NO. 74 (pdf) which "rejects Darwin’s concepts of superior and inferior races and classes of humans, and condemns the use of these philosophies to justify racist practices." and "requests the state’s public education system... to address... the weaknesses of Darwinian racism" having claimed that "Adolf Hitler and others have exploited the racist views of Darwin and those he influenced" makes it clear that this is a genuine issue, and intelligent design proponents promote the book From Darwin to Hitler to claim that "The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed. Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively explains." -- Phillip E. Johnson. As far as I've been able to find so far the arguments and citations put in the "mis-portrayal" article are accurate, though there are some minor errors in the comments. In my opinion this topic should be mentioned in what effectively would be a "criticisms" section with the "mis-portrayal" link included in footnotes. Comments welcome. ...dave souza, talk 19:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I (the remover mentioned) agree that the issue itself is significant enough to be included in the article. It was a much more important part of anti-evolutionism in the 1920s than it is now (especially because of the blatant racism of many of those, particularly non-scientists, after Darwin who took up the mantle of "Darwinism"), but it has also popped up in the ID movement. I have no objection to the link in a footnote for now, although a more authoratitive source would be preferable; I'll check my bookshelf and see if I can come up with one after the content is added.--ragesoss 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of the "Mis-portrayal" article. I have several comments on this. #1 I have a BS in biology and will soon be going back to school for a Masters in anthropology. #2 You will find that there is no more definitive article on this subject on the Internet than my article, which is partly why I wrote it. I write articles for which there is a need because they don't exist yet. #3 Like many of my articles, this is mostly a string of quotes from original sources, so there isn't a whole lot to dispute. #4 I have been in correspondence with Dr. Weikart for about 2 months arguing back and fourth with him on this topic. #5 I think that this is a very, very important issue, which is easy to misportray and this is a new line of attack by the Discovery Institute that is gaining steam and I believe it is becoming a major strategy by them that they are going to be putting major funding into. This is how these think tanks work. We have already seen a TV special come out of this, and Dr. Weikart tells me that he is now working on a second book (funded by DI no doubt). His work is completely unobjective and he has repeatedly refused to acknowledge majors facts that contradict his claims. I was able, in a matter of days, to turn up major information, such as the "Eugenics and Christianity" book, which completely undercut blatant statements made by Dr. Weikart. This is a paid propagandist who is working for a think tank with millions of dollars in funding in an effort to try and undermine the teaching and acceptance of evolutionary theory in America and the world. So, this is not a matter of "website promotion", this is a matter of trying to take on this issue and combat this growing movement of radically misportraying the life, ethics, and beliefs of Charles Darwin, as well as misportraying evolutionary theory and the social impact of evolutionary theory. Sam Harris has done a little work on this, but for the most part there is no substantial effort by anyone to refute these claims, which are easily refutable, which is where my article comes in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Just an aside, on point #3, there can be much to dispute. It is one thing to string together quotes, quite another to make a real historical argument. As someone who has spent a lot of time as a historian working on the question of Darwin, Darwinism, and race, I find your article to be misleading in a number of ways, though not as misleading as Weikart's work (to say nothing of the other ID people, who are not even worth discussing). Darwin's view is much more conflicted on the race issue than you make it out to be — once you get beyond his essential monogenetic argument (which is very significant given the context of his time), his thinking is largely a muddle (like usual with him). I think you definitely err on the side of under-emphasizing the importance of evolution in places like Germany and within the eugenics movement. I think your apparent methodology of quote mining doesn't help with this — you miss a lot of the context and the big-picture debates. Again, I think Weikart is quite wrong in many respects and quite a sloppy thinker, but I think that attempting to do a categorical denial does not help. The race question was very important to Darwin, but I don't think you quite cover it. I also think you under-estimate what Darwinism meant to people at the time, though it is worth appreciating that "what Darwin thought and wrote" and "what people called and call Darwinism" are not the same thing. I think your conclusion about the "traditional values" of Judeo-Christianity is very sloppily argued, and I think you undercut yourself by over-emphasizing very anomalous tracts (like the pro-Christianity, pro-Sterilization one; it is really without dispute that the largest organized opposition to eugenics came from people basing it on a religious reasoning, and that many prominent eugenicists were avowedly anti-religious). I also think you miss out on what I'd call "conceptual lumping"—when certain groups are bound together not so much because they necessarily agree but because they disagree on the same thing or are opposed by the same people. Just my thoughts.
 * If you'd like a bit more context on Darwin's development of the monogenetic racial theory, check out George Stocking's Victorian Anthropology, esp. the debates between the Anthropological Society and the Ethnological Society which were going on at the time. It's a good read. If you are looking for some more detail on the precise intersections between evolution, eugenics, genetics, and Rassenhygiene, see Robert Proctor's Racial Hygiene.
 * I do agree that better coverage of Darwin's actual views on race is necessary on the web, though I think you'd do better to make some more use of scholarly resources rather than just quote mining. There is a lot of good text out there on Darwin and race already if you are willing to dig it up. --Fastfission 16:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that its very clear that Darwin's view on race was very progressive for his day. I think that any attempt to portray Darwin as a "racist" comes up against the immediate problem of context, to the point that the issue is almost meaningless. How do you describe someone as a "racist" at a time when "racism" wasn't even acknowledged, and when basically every single white person in the world ASSUMED, that whites were far and a way superior to everyone else. So, these are fundamental problems, which I attempted to frame and make clear in my article, something which, of course, Dr. Weikart does not do, and in fact he presents a false image of the world in which Darwin existed.

There are multiple issues, the issue of "race", in which I think Darwin was clearly a progressive and in which the theory of evolution very definitely had a very positive effect in breaking down racial barriers, which had already been very strongly culturally established both on practical and on specifically scriptural grounds.

Then you have the issue of eugenics and euthanasia, which is where Dr. Weikart is trying to shift things more, because his arguments quite clearly fail on the racial grounds.

Here their are several issues, first being that "Social Darwinism" has basically nothing to do with Darwin. "Survival of the fittest" was a phrase coined by Spencer before Origin was even published. You say that eugenics was embraced more by the anti-religious than the religious, and this may be, which is for a variety of reasons, but first of all, this all has to be related back to the Nazis, which is the point of Dr. Weikart's work and my article. The Nazis were not anti-religious, they were ultra-religious. Now, some of them were anti-Christian, but they were still highly religious. Nazi literature and ideas were filled, through and through, with supernaturalism, spiritualism, and pseudo-science. You can't say that this is just propaganda either, because these same views are expressed in the diaries of the Nazis, including, for example, Joseph Goebbles.

There simply isn't any parallel between the ethics of Darwin and of the Nazis, which is the point. In addition, I'm not sure what you mean by "I think your conclusion about the "traditional values" of Judeo-Christianity is very sloppily argued". "Scientific eugenics" could not have existed prior to the late 19th century because there was no scientific understanding of inheritance, so this is somewhat of a false starter when Dr. Weikart tries to point out that "eugenics", meaning scientific eugenics, wasn't embraced prior to Darwin, because their was no such thing prior to the late 1800s, due to ignorance. Its like saying that Christians didn't believe in bombing people and only after the embrace of materialism did people do things like drop atom bombs on Japan. I mean come on. Christians had plenty of laws that regulated marriage and sex. Christian groups did things like separate male and female Native Americans in forced labor camps so that they could not have children and would die out. They had laws against inter-marriage and sex between blacks and whites. If this isn't eugenics what is it? Its eugenics based on the best available knowledge at the time. As I showed they had laws that prevented Christians and Jews from having sex. Now what do you think had an influence on the Nazis, laws that had been in place in Germany for hundreds of years that forced Jews to wear yellow badges so that they could be distinguished from Christians so that Christians and Jews would not have sex and children together, or Darwin, who said that "we should extend our sympathy to people of all races and all nations", and who refuted ideas about race mixing?

You also say that the book that I referenced about Eugenics and Christianity was unimportant, and I disagree. This was a piece of evidence in the Nuremberg trials that was taken from the head of the eugenics program, one out of about 12 books. I think that that makes it significant, and its a lot harder piece of evidence than anything on Dr. Weikart's side trying to link Nazi ideology to Darwin. Again, we are talking about the influences on the Nazis.

As I told Dr. Weikart, Darwin and many other things correspond in time. The publication of Origin corresponds roughly with the discovery of genetics, which is really what eugenics is based on. Regardless of the theory of evolution, genetics makes eugenics a logical conclusion. You also have many advancements in medical technology, the development of capitalism and industrialization, in which children are much more costly to raise as they are expected to go to school, etc., and the rise of social welfare programs, etc., so that there was much more cost in caring for incapable people, etc., you had all of these factors.

Even if there was no Darwin and no theory of evolution, you still have these factors, you still have Spencer, you still have genetics, you still have medical advances, and you still have pressure on societies to shoulder the burden of "unproductive" members, and thus you still have the impetus for eugenics.

Again, what I come back to is "evolution" is not "survival of the fittest". Darwin's theory of evolution has many more implications and aspects to it, NONE OF WHICH appear to have been embraced by the Nazis, in fact they appear to have held the exact opposite beliefs. If anything the Nazis appear to have been "intelligent designers". The Nazis definitely believed that race was sacred, that "blood" carried "spiritual" traits, that their race had a right and a destiny to dominate, that races are distinct and separate, and none of these ideas are compatable with Darwin or Darwinian evolution. All of Darwin's work completely undermines the idea of "racial purity", he was not ambiguous on that.

You can't just point your finger at "survival of the fittest" and then leave the rest of evolutionary theory behind. Dr. Weikart also makes the fundamental claim that the value of life was devalued by Darwin and evolution, as compared to earlier times when culture was dominated by "Christian ethics". I think that the vast majority of historians would completely disagree wiht this. Life is valued much more today then it was in the past, which something, again, that Darwin himself pointed out. Do you really think that people values life more 500 years ago than they do today or in 1880, or whenever? I completely disagree, our value of life has increased with the advance of civilization, it has not decreased, as Dr. Weikart claims. And I also had to point out to him that some of the early arguments against euthenasia by the Church were based on the grounds that suffering was PRIZED by the Church. They argued that suffering was holy and that suffering brought people closer to God, so the idea of euthenasia, sympathic killing of termially ill people, was opposed by Christians, because they FAVORED suffering! This is a well known aspect of Catholocism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Ambiguity of the term
"Darwinism" can mean Darwin's old views, or it can mean "evolution with a tinge of atheism" (roughly speaking).

If an ID advocate like Wells (writer) says that he wants to "destroy Darwinism", we have to wonder what he's talking about. Does he mean every aspect of evolution, including the fossil record and common descent? Or is he focussing on the idea that forms of life including people appeared without any intervention by God (which 11% to 15% of Americans believe)? --Uncle Ed 13:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure I get where you're going with this, Ed. What is the point of speculating what Wells thinks? If its not spelled out in a verifiable source, its OR. And your parenthetical commentary on statistics of how many Americans believe in a specific religious belief has even less relevance than your idle speculation on Wells. If you have a comment about the article, please make it. If you wish to muse and wonder about ID proponents' deeper meanings, or discuss American religious beliefs as statistics, this is hardly the place. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously it's getting us nowhere, although I thought it was related to Wells. But I'm going to take my nose out of his business for the rest of the month, to avoid annoying everyone. --Uncle Ed 03:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwinism is not pejorative in the UK
This article is currently misleading, wrongly suggesting that the word "Darwinism" is used pejoratively everywhere. As any educated person knows, the word "Darwinism" is used positively in the UK. The fact that Dawkins uses it positively reflects this. In fact, it seems that the word "Darwinism" only has bad press in America. I dont have the time or any interest in going through the net to find verification of this that will satisfy the few people editing this wikipedia page that dislike the word "Darwinism". So can somebody else do the homework and add it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.82.54 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the post-Expelled era, Dawkins has given an undertaking to try to stop using the term. The evidence presented dates back to around 2003, and need not apply to other British scientists – science is international, as indeed is creationism to a lesser extent. I've rephrased the lede to be less "misleading". . dave souza, talk 04:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is so, then why have I just read this morning an interview by Dawkins where he uses terms like "Darwinian heritage"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.82.54 (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me how "Darwinian heritage" is anywhere close to the same as "Darwinism". The reason that "Darwinism" has acquired negative connotations is that the religious fundamentalist fringe (which is a majority in some places, particularly the United States), has used it to identify acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution with a religion, rather than some evidence-based explanation. The same is true of the discredited term "evolutionism" or "evolutionist". Darwin is not being rejected, but his original ideas have been long since superceded.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 12:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you cant see how "Darwinian heritage" is similiar to "Darwinism" then you need help. And if you think Dawkins has abandoned the term "Darwinism" then you're wrong. There's a new TV programme on Channel 4 in the UK tonight by Dawkins called "The Genius of Charles Darwin". I predict here and now, 30 minutes before it airs, that he'll use the word "Darwinism" for "evolutionary theory" more than once. Of course, evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin - that's why we also sometimes call it NeoDarwinism. Darwinism is a shorthand for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.82.54 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As predicted, Dawkins used the word "Darwinism" on the new TV series "The Genius of Charles Darwin" aired on 4th August 2008 at 8.00 pm to 9.00 pm British time. Specifically, during the last minute where he said "Next week: Darwinism applied to society". No doubt that this episode will be uploaded on youtube so you can verify it for yourselves.


 * Look, let's get a little less heated. I understand why some people editing this wikipedia page are uneasy about the word "Darwinism" due to its misuse by the creationists where they live. But over here in the UK we usually use Darwinism, or NeoDarwinism if we want to be more accurate so as to include genetics, neutrally to mean "evolution by natural selection". Dawkins is just one example. Another example: a TV guide review of the programme said "Sadly, this anti-religious impulse colours the whole enterprise (and is quite unnecessary, as Darwinism poses no real problem to most people of faith)" (Daily Mail Weekend TV Guide, 02 August page 41). Notice again the neutrality of the use of this word.


 * What a wikipedia page says is usually what the loudest group editing say. As I've said before, I dont have the desire or the time to get into an edit war. Pages on wikipedia usually significantly change anyway after a time - this page will look very different in a year's time. All I ask is that you be honest. Daily in the UK, whether in class rooms or universities or TV programmes or TV guides or in pubs, the word "Darwinism" is used neutrally to mean "evolution by natural selection". That's simply fact. It might not sit well with your agenda but its a verifiable fact all the same. Now either be honest, swallow your pride, and allow this fact to be mentioned on the page, or edit it out whenever it appears and so mislead people - your choice. Educated people know better than to use wikipedia anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.82.54 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also repeated an hour later on Channel 4+1, so I'm currently watching it for the second time. Not much about "Darwinism", the word itself probably appears about twice in a non-specific way that probably refers to what he calls Darwinian natural selection. An easy prediction, of course, as a trailer was put online by Channel 4. The programme's well done afer a rather shaky start with a rather misleading sequence of events on the Beagle voyage, showing unnamed birds that look like finches and iguanas varying by island as inspiring him, before showing the fossils he'd discovered early in his explorations in South America. Will have to look for evidence that he related iguanas to islands. Anyway, that's it viddied and well worth rewatching. As for the situation, find verification from reliable sources of the point you want added, and take care to avoid original research. .dave souza, talk 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's being used in its historical context. There's a difference between referring to what Darwin believed as Darwinism, and referring to modern evolutionary theory as Darwinism. Huxley, for instance, uses Darwinism. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Universal Darwinism
This addition is only supported by a self-published source, expressing "hope that the scientific worldview revealed by Universal Darwinism may serve the purpose that Einstein envisioned for Science: 'To awaken the Cosmic Religious Experience and to keep it alive in those receptive to it.'" Looks very much like a WP:FRINGE view and verification from a reliable source is needed to establish that this minority view is notable enough to be included. In the meantime, I've removed the unsupported content. . dave souza, talk 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, it includes within it Social Darwinism, which is more than a little of a misnomer (as it predates Darwin, was not accepted by Darwin himself, and the term wasn't popularised until long after Darwin's death) and Chemical Evolution, which is a dab for two completely unrelated fields -- nucleosynthesis & abiogenesis. This renders the idea somewhat incoherent. HrafnTalkStalk 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

fringe view?

 * Because of its philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings, critics have asserted that Darwinism is essentially a religious doctrine.

Suggestion: mention it, but not in the lead. It's fringe, but if the cite bears out, it's probably worth a mention somewhere. But not in the lead. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Cornelius G. Hunter is a creationist, and not exactly a mainstream philosophical or scientific source, and not reliable in any way shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.31.44 (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides that fact that that is an obvious ad hominem attack, you fail to support your assertion that Mr. Hunter is not reliable. You also fail to invalidate his thesis. Please address content, not engaging in personal attacks which fail to improve the quality of the articles. Thank you. DannyMuse (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, unduly influence on creationism and it's misunderstanding of the difference between Darwin, the theory of evolution and the modern synthesis. This deserves to be on a creationism page, coupled with a reference discussing its myriad failings, but not here.  The only people who use "darwinism" to mean the TOE are creationists.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If only creationists mean the Theory of Evolution (TOE) when they use the term "darwinism", what do others mean when they use it? Please clarify and cite your sources. DannyMuse (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Darwinism is one of the pieces of the TOE, but the TOE is more than darwinism. For eg, without random variation, the effect of Darwinism would be to reduce diversity, not to increase it.  Also, Darwinism is used in many contexts other than the TOE, eg Social Darwinism.  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Darwin biographer James Moore has written that The Origin of Species was the last great work in the history of science in which theology was an active ingredient, and in a radio interview said "Darwin evokes the works of God, the works of natural theology, the greatness of nature at the beginning of The Origin of Species because he really does believe those works in nature are beautiful and astonishing, and the adaptations are there. He's at one with the spirit of natural theology. Just read his prose in The Origin of Species. It exudes wonder of nature, but he can explain how it happened." However, that's not the same as Darwinism, which was coined by Huxley to promote an agressively secular agenda. . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So is this page about Darwin or Darwinism? Obviously it's about the latter as that is the title. As Dave Souza pointed out, Huxley coined the term "to promote an agressively secular agenda." Confirming that fact that Darwinism is essentially a religious/philosophical doctrine. For the sake of anyone that might not see the logic of that conclusion, let me elucidate: to assert there is a god is a religious statement. Correspondingly, to assert there is NOT is also a religious position. DannyMuse (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What "secular agenda" meant was to discuss things using accepted scientific standards, not theological ones. What people mean by "finge" is that a book with views that are different from views appearing in publications in a peer reviewed science journal, is called "finge", no matter how scholarly or well argued the book may be. EricDiesel (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Secularity (adjective form secular) is the state of being separate from religion. Not a religious statement, a statement where science becomes separate from religion in the same way that most businesses and corporations are secular organizations. Removing church dominance and control of a newly professional science. Replacing natural philosophy, the preserve of parsons and wealthy amateurs. You're behind the times, Danny. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

'creationism' is a pejorative term
“in the way that ‘creationism’ is a pejorative term in science departments at most universities” was deleted, as “unsourced opinion stated as fact”, from "‘Darwinism’ is often used by creationists as a pejorative term, in the way that ‘creationism’ is a pejorative term in science departments at most universities”, at the beginning of the article.  Are there any sources for the more general proposition, that "creationism" is a pejorative term in general?  (A similar source is needed for “ 'Hollywood' is a pejoriative term among art film buffs” in another article.)  EricDiesel (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand what you were saying here, but the "creationism is a pejorative term in science departments" statement seems off-topic, as this is about Darwinism not creationism, and perhaps even more importantly, our policy is that we must verify all statements which are or could be challenged, from a reliable source which we cite so that others can verify the statement. No original research means that we don't add our own findings or synthesis, or put facts together to reach a conclusion not shown in a source. The statement about Darwinism being pejorative is a summary of:
 * "The term "Darwinism" is mainly used by anti-evolutionists, "just as a synonym for evolution, because Darwin is a well-known figure," he suggests. "And often they use 'Darwinism' as a synonym for 'atheism.'" In other words, the term has been appropriated by religionists who need a straw dog to burn–a means to pigeonhole and dehumanize scientists and science teachers who don't fall into place behind the Biblical story of creation."
 * Thus the aim is to say concisely what the source article says. We can discuss or negotiate a consensus on the article talk page. If we have a source describing Darwinism that makes a point about Darwinism that involves describing creationism, that's ok, but we don't put things in without a source just because they seem pretty obvious. We don't require citations for everything, but anything non-obvious must have a reference. Hope that clarifies things, any questions welcome. . . dave souza, talk 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that was just my opinion of what those Darwinists say about Creationists like me, when they used the word to describe me at their secular universities, always sneering when they used the word to refer to me and my Bible. EricDiesel (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You have "Darwinists" at your universities? What does that mean, with references please. As for Creationists like you, perhaps in rejecting science you attact a certain disdain from scientists and biologists? Of course other "creationists" in the pre-1929 meaning of the term have no objection to science, and are unlikely to be sneered at for their beliefs. . dave souza, talk 12:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, you're getting sloppy. Creationists don't object to science, they object to individuals making unfounded assertions about things they cannot know or prove, such as the inexistence of God. Frankly, I'm surprised at you, you're usually more careful in spite of your biases. DannyMuse (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My goodness, Danny, you really are lacking in theistic realism. Do try to catch up! . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, I'm not behind you, I'm lapping you! Maybe you should get out of the way. ;)~ DannyMuse (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence from "Our Posthuman Future"
Lampooning the lampoon with facts. EricDiesel (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * huh ? Can we keep this place about the article thanks. Equendil Talk 08:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is "about" the article. It is similar to the picture example of "visual proof" in Mathematical proof.  Some might read that example and have no idea what it is about, some might have problems with the more difficult picture Greek picture.  When these images came out, they were compared, with derision, to the picture in this article.  In the last section, it was questioned whether "creationist" was a term of derision similar to what "darwinism" is asserted to be in this article.  Try clicking on the picture and enlarging it and it will be clear.  "Our Posthuman Future" refers to the relevant content of the book (not the Wiki summary) and the related books on the Singularity.  EricDiesel (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When these images came out, a common remark at Caltech and UCLA was comparison with the "Dariwnism" cartoon of this article. No further discussion was needed, as the images were dispositive in and of themselves.  I almost put the images in to replace the main image of this article, but thought it would be better first on the talk page, given the emotional reaction they are likely to induce.  EricDiesel (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Huh" again, there are articles about creationism and this is not one, the side by side pictures seem to imply an idea that is not immediately obvious and captions refer to "creationist prediction" that is left unexplained. No way this makes it into the article. Equendil Talk 11:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It reads like original research to me, and seems very tenuously related to the article. I wouldn't support it going into the article either. WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 11:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very creative, and obscure to the point of being meaningless. A reference to its publication in a reliable source that states its relationship to Darwinism is needed, otherwise it's unacceptable orignal research. Nice try. . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what makes you think the Hornet cartoon is a "creationist prediction"? Browne is clear that these were affectionate cartoons showing an eminent public figure with an animal body, in the same way that politicians would be portrayed as John Bull with a bulldog body. Part of the sense of humour at a time when Darwin was a prominent and popular public figure, and evolution was generally accepted. . dave souza, talk 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Connotations of 'Darwinism'
In which circles is 'Darwinism' considered a put down? Is it used chiefly by opponents? And more importantly, do they mean anything by it significantly different from the modern Theory of Evolution? I'd like to see something in the article comparing and contrasting the terms Darwinism and Evolution, so I can understand what everyone is talking about when they say they support or disagree with those, um, things. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at TFA, and ye shall find. . dave souza, talk 21:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ROTFL! :-) That one took me a couple of days to figure out. "The Fine Article", with fine assuming the same meaning as the computer man's oft-tossed gibe, RTFM. Touche, mon frere. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Universal Darwinism"?
On January 2006 User:Jockcampbell created Universal Darwinism that was eventually redirected to here (to a section that is now gone). About an hour ago, User:Jockocampbell created a new Universal darwinism. Would someone please take a look-see at these contributions? Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look at it. Doesn't appear to be up to much. Would suggest giving him a few days to try to turn it into something worth keeping, if not, then redirect at that time. I would assume that they're the same person, given the similarity of names & of interests. HrafnTalkStalk 04:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made Universal Darwinism into a redirect to Universal darwinism, until such time as the article is deleted. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Universal Darwinism is a pretty significant idea. See, e.g., Gary Cziko's Without Miracles, which uses the term "universal selection theory" though. --FOo (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but the threads of this idea need to be woven into a coherent narrative. If Cziko calls the expansion of the idea beyond biology "universal selection theory", should that term be used for the wider meaning? Either way, his use of it needs to be woven in. How do the pre-Dawkins references Jockocampbell cites fit into the narrative? There is, as yet, insufficient coherence to make a 'topic' let alone an article. Most probably this means that a secondary source is needed, to link them together. HrafnTalkStalk 07:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)