The irony is thick. Duplication is not a Darwinian process.
Letâs not forget King and Jukes as well
1 Like
It seems to me naive in the extreme to think that renaming Darwin day will make it more paletable to religious extremists. Does anyone really think the people who oppose evolution really truly care whether you call it Kimura day, Wallace day, Evolution day, or Darwin day, and if you rename it then all this evolution business is just fine and they donât have a problem with it?
I can already see the creationist response: Oh so youâre saying Kimura made evolution less about natural selection, and therefore made it in a certain sense even more random, and supposedly this is a more reasonable idea to a creationist who thinks evolution is already synonymous with âblind random chanceâ and a âtornado in a junkyardâ? Great, now Iâm all in. I always hated old men with white beards anyway.
It seems to me that creationists are working hard at giving that impression.
1 Like
No, but as someone who works with freshman college students and non-science majors a fair amount, I do think it would make a difference to them. If all they ever hear is Darwin = evolution and then someone gives them âDarwin Devolvesâ or any remotely intelligent sounding YEC/OEC/ID literature theyâre going to get the impression that a theory that biologist arenât even using is the main issue. And when they hear that Darwinism has flaws then theyâll know their pastor/parent was right, biology is full of anti-religious bigots who want to destroy their faith and replace it with âtime and chanceâ. Iâm not saying itâs right, Iâm just saying thatâs would be a pretty typical response in my context.
In general, I get the impression that many people here think the battle is between people like Michael Behe and Jerry Coyne. I will guarantee you that less than 1% of my students will have heard of either of them or read any of their arguments. Most have no clue what ID is. They just largely just go with whatever they heard from an authority figure that make sense of other things they care about. But these students will be government leaders, teachers, pastors, pharmacists, doctors, and nurses. They are the ones I care about. I believe if we can continue to work at having deep, empathetic conversations were we can disagree and yet still keep at it and find common ground, then you will find that the extremes will fade away.
2 Likes
But we were just 2 comments in before it started being about atheists vs Christians:
Itâs certainly got a lot of baggage from both sides. I prefer Mole Day, there arenât a lot of controversies there 
2 Likes
Do you think this is really a concern today at secular colleges and universities?
It is. There are religious students at secular schools too.
Sure, there are students not majoring in biology because theyâve been told all kinds of stories about Darwinism. Itâs one thing to take a serious look at a field and say âthatâs not for meâ, but I really struggle with students who avoid what could potentially be an entire career of discovery and productivity because they got hung up on a name.
To be very clear, I am not saying that is entirely or even a majority the fault of scientist or atheists. Iâm just saying it could be worth going more towards Evolution Day or Gene Day or something, just to avoid some of the baggage that many people associate with âDarwinâ.
1 Like
I am not seeing this in my area of the country. Secular Community colleges and universities have a lot of excellent science classes and science majors. The students seem mainly worried about costs and loans and getting a job after graduation.
I couldnât even being to estimate how large of an effect it is (certainly there are other, larger factors) but it is out there. Iâve seen kids going into engineering or medicine rather than biology because they donât want to have to deal with the baggage. Itâs not that they arenât going to college (although there is that too, but thatâs a different, more political, conversation), itâs that some will shy away from biology because of what theyâve heard about âDarwinismâ. I just think if it wasnât quite so much a minefield more would stay with it.
1 Like
Adam and Eve day anyone?
Speaking of ironies, Nathan Lents writing about Darwin Day:
Second, we celebrate Darwin Day because, somehow, his ideas are still controversial in some corners of society. The simple logic of natural selection is under attack daily from the pseudoscientific communities of creationism and intelligent design. Now, to be sure, evolutionary science has come a long way since Darwin, just as physics has come a long way since Newton and philosophy has come a long way since Socrates. A century and a half of biological research has refined, extended, and contextualized natural selection within the larger evolutionary field, but it has not overturned it.
I canât speak for @NLENTS but Iâd say one of part of the simple logic is that natural selection IS NOT THE WHOLE STORY, which is one simple qualifier that seems to be difficult for many people.
@mung, what are you hoping to accomplish with all these quote mines?
It seems to really bother Joshua. And since he knows my identity, but has failed to verify it for some reason, I donât see that posting under my IRL name would at all change the way he treats me. What would be the point?
So you are anonymous for the purpose of bothering me? I hope that isnât what you meant.
Send me your identity over a private message and I will have it verify. And I will treat your information confidential.
Nathan Lents in another article. See esp the caption to Figure 1. Yes, Positive Selection.
Using Darwinian evolutionary theory to discredit Behe. What justice!
Yes, it is justice. Did you track what DI did to Nathan when his book Human Errors was published?