More probably scientists will forget the public claims they made and act as if whatever replacement is found is the consensus…
And turn failure into a virtue of how science self corrects.
Currently, even though Darwinism was falsified long ago, scientists don’t have a marketable story of evolution to take to the masses. As soon as they find one, Darwinism will be taken off the explanatory shelf.
Scientific communication to the public is not science… it’s about prestige and ego and being correct …
Did you read where Todd ALSO SAID he rejects Evolution because of Biblical concerns.
Have you tried to contact Todd? Sounds like he wished there was a way to embrace BOTH Evolution AND Special Creation!
You might as well be attacking Climate Scientists while you are at it.
You seem quite satisfied with the view that scientists have no intrinsic desire to teach truth … or to help the human condition.
Please remember that @swamidass himself is a scientist… and with a more opinion of your career track than you have of his!
This is an unfair comment.Obviously I am talking about scientists who go around talking about Darwinism as if it is accepted science.
How does this apply to scientists like @swamidass who are upfront in denying darwinism?
The modern theory of evolution is the accepted science. “Darwinism” can mean almost anything that people want, so it really isn’t a useful term. If you want to engage the theory that actually matters then you need to engage the theory that scientists actually use instead of the “Darwinism” strawman.
Just to be clear, the modern theory includes many, many mechanisms. These include, but are not limited to, neutral drift, random mutation, horizontal genetic transfer, hybridization, reticulation, niche construction, punctuated equilibrium, gradualism, natural selection, endosymbiosis, and many more.
Strange… then there should be no confusion among the public regarding “Darwinism” or whatever the real theory of evolution is.
Dont see why my comment should bug you.
I have found that the non-scientific public is often confused as to the theories that scientists use. This applies to nearly all fields, from quantum mechanics to cellular biology. This is why con-artists like Deepak Chopra can fool people with his quantum-woo nonsense.
I was simply pointing out that if you want to accurately describe what the scientific community accepts then you should refer to evolution, not “Darwinism”.
He is confused because the two of you are agreeing. Scientists shouldn’t call evolutionary science “Darwinism,” and most wouldnt’.
I think he agrees, but wants scientists engaging the public to follow those rules too. I agree.
Yes blame the non scientific population for how scientists communicate science… somehow people not being aware of anything other than Darwinism as model for evolution has nothing to do scientists.
The information is out there. They just have to seek it out.
Wow… and what about all the information presented to the public?
Interesting take on accountability… but then, scientists are not exactly accountable to anyone other than each other.
This is why I said what is presented to the public is not about science. It’s about pride, status etc.
You mean like this information from Wikipedia?
" However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish the modern evolutionary synthesis, sometimes called “neo-Darwinism”, from those first proposed by Darwin."
The modern synthesis replaced Darwinism in the early 20th century. It only took a quick Wiki search.
I think you have a habit of using the term Darwinism in a sloppy way. Does anyone defend Darwinism? Haven’t we all come to agree that neo-darwinism is the more proper terminology for Un-Guided E volutiin?
I don’t really know any scientist anywhere who teaches Evolution because of Ego.
Do you agree that Global Warming is a crucial human failing?
Funny but true. They will turn the failure into how science self corrects. Its been so long though it will be a hard sell.
I don’t know that its been falsified. I see rather it never had a biological scientific case.
prestige/ego does matter in all human affairs but also doesn’t. Science is just another affair.
Actually, @swamidass has made it clear that neo-darwinism also has been falsified.
What does global warming have to do with evolution? Why do you keep bringing it up?
Because climate deniers say the same mean things about scientists that you say!
If you claim that Neo-Darwinism is also disproven… what are we to call the kind of Evolutionary Science that you and your colleagues practice?
I am not very aware if climate science… I am all for reducing fossil fuel consumption, and reducing carbon footprint. There are a lot of respiratory and other health problems connected to pollution caused by burning fossil fuels…
However, I am not for politics where developing countries pay for the consequences of excessive consumption by developed countries… but then, that’s political and economic stand.
I did. He even says that he may have scientific reasons for rejecting the theory, but he still recognizes the mountains of evidence that need to be addressed. It is rather refreshing to find creationists who are honest about their beliefs and the status of the science, even if there may be disagreement in the end.