Thursday, July 31, 2008

A couple of shorts. "Darwinism" / Dominitionsim

This first one is a short read, but a worthy one I think.

Creationists and ID proponents often make it a point to characterize anyone who believes in evolution as an atheist.

As this article points out, the attempt to label evolution as being anyting "Darwinistic," or more specifically "Darwinian" or "Darwinism." It's a code speak subtle attempt to portray that belief-in-evolution as being religious in nature - BUT IN THE ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY THAT RELIGION as being on par with the supposed "atheist religion" of science:
In the US, "Darwinism" is about political power. Evolution is not.

Dr. Kate correctly pointed out recently on the Thoughts From Kansas blog:

Creationists insist on calling [evolution] "Darwinism." If they can get enough people to think that science is a religion, then they can argue that their religion ought to get as much time in the science classroom as "our" religion does.
More information here, and especially here as to how evolution has already transcended so called "Darwinism.":

The test of time

Q: How do you answer the charge that evolution has never been tested?

Miller: Evolution is tested every day in the laboratory, and it's tested every day in the field. I can't think of a single scientific theory that has been more controversial than evolution, and when theories are controversial, people devise tests to see if they're right. Evolution has been tested continuously for almost 150 years and not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.

Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of continuous testing is a pretty darn good theory. We use evolution to develop drugs. We use evolution to develop vaccines. We use evolution to manage wildlife. We use evolution to interpret our own genome. Every one of these uses of evolution is a test, because if the use turns out to be inadequate, we would then go back and question the very idea of evolution itself. But evolution has turned out to be such a powerful, productive, and hardworking theory that it's survived that test of time.

Just something to keep an eye out for in conversations.
Also, an excellent article here by Mel Seesholtz (Jul 24, 2008) on dominionism. If you're unnfamiliar with the threat of dominionism, or need a refresher, it's a thorough read and replete with quotes and hyperlinks.

A couple of my favorites parts:
“Protect traditional marriage.” What does “protect” mean? If gay and lesbian couples marry, will heterosexual couples stop? If that were the case, then prohibiting same-sex marriage would “protect” heterosexual marriage. But that is not the case. Heterosexual couples still marry in Massachusetts and California. In fact, heterosexual marriage in those states has been totally unaffected by marriage equality. So one has to conclude that by “protect” Dominionists mean reserve a civil right to a civil institution for some people and deny it to others: the definition of discrimination.
From Chris Hedges’ American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America: “Dominionism is a theocratic sect with its roots in a radical Calvinism. . . . It teaches that American Christians have been mandated by God to make America a Christian state. . . . America becomes, in this militant Biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan.

“Under Christian dominionism, America will no longer be a sinful and fallen nation but one in which the 10 Commandments form the basis of our legal system, and the media and the government proclaim the Good News to one and all. Labor unions, civil-rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the workforce to stay at home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship. . . .

“The death penalty is to be imposed not only for offenses such as rape, kidnapping and murder, but also for adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, astrology, incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, ‘unchastity before marriage.’ . . .
If interested, more info on dominionism here at Religious Tolerance.


Theo said...

LOL!!! Is this post a joke? Dance Darwinist Dance! For those of us who have actually read Darwin's works and the works of his contemporary followers, however, "Darwinist" is, and will remain, an entirely accurate description of those who ideologically support the theory of evolution by natural selection. But nice try, and thanks for the humor!

Emproph said...

“"Darwinist" is, and will remain, an entirely accurate description of those who ideologically support the theory of evolution by natural selection.”

So be it, but it’s not the label so much that concerns me, it’s the promotion of the idea that the belief in evolution as a means of creating humans that makes one automatically an atheist which I find insulting.

Is this what you believe?