Israeli university snubbed anti-Darwinist Moslem scholars
A fairly old (07-15-08) news item I found says,
Because of its strong religious implications, the evolution controversy is an especially appropriate topic for a conference on religious conciliation. This action by Hebrew University shows extreme closed-mindedness.
Darwin-doubting is very strong in Turkey, as it is in other predominantly Moslem countries.
Some Jews -- particularly orthodox Jews -- doubt Darwin, and I am surprised that we have not heard more from them. [1] [2] [3].
.
A group of Muslim religious scholars arriving from Turkey to participate in a reconciliation conference at the Hebrew University claim that the head of the Social Sciences Faculty refused to greenlight the event, calling it off in short notice. Professor Boaz Shamir, Dean of Social Sciences explained his decision citing the lack of proper coordination between the Students’ Union, which was in charge of organizing the event, and the faculty’s secretariat.
However, the correspondence received by Ynet has Prof. Shamir admitting that “we wouldn’t have hosted an event supporting anti-Darwinist propaganda.”
.
The Turkish lecturers arriving from Istanbul on a joint initiative between the research and scientific foundation they represent and the Interfaith Encounter Association, were planning to speak at the two Jewish-Muslim conferences at the Hebrew University’s campus on Mount Scopus and at Tel Aviv University.
The speakers planned to talk about uniting between the two religions and denouncing Islamic terror – but also against Darwin’s theory about The Origin of Species.
Because of its strong religious implications, the evolution controversy is an especially appropriate topic for a conference on religious conciliation. This action by Hebrew University shows extreme closed-mindedness.
Darwin-doubting is very strong in Turkey, as it is in other predominantly Moslem countries.
Some Jews -- particularly orthodox Jews -- doubt Darwin, and I am surprised that we have not heard more from them. [1] [2] [3].
.
Labels: Islam and evolution
posted by Larry Fafarman | 2/08/2009 12:16:00 PM
10 Comments:
I'm not even going to bother explaining why universities shouldn't host unscientific propaganda, rather I'm going to address "some jews...doubt Darwin".
Evolutionary biologists as well doubt Darwin. It's not hard to doubt Darwin because the theory of evolution has changed quite a bit thanks to the discovery of horizontal gene transfer, genetics, and even the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. If you only knew Darwin's theory you'd fail any introductory evolutionary biology class in any university. You simply wouldn't have a firm grasp on evolution.
So why is it that creationists or "darwin skeptics" seem so stuck on Darwin?? Darwin never spoke or even knew about ERVs or the consistent hierarchical structure of DNA, yet you seem to somehow feel "Darwinism" is the apex of evolution. Tell me, why don't people call general relativity "Einsteinism"? In fact considering that the theory of evolution has changed FAR more than relativity since the creators first proposed their ideas, Einsteinism would be far more apt to describe a belief in relativity than Darwinism to describe a belief in evolution. Hell, the WORD "evolution" doesn't appear ONCE in The Origin of Species, yet "relativity" IS referenced in Einstein's original 1905 paper. "The principle of relativity".
So tell me, why do you call evolution "Darwinism" when it's changed quite a bit from Darwin's time, the word itself wasn't even used by Darwin, and you don't call Relativity "Einsteinism"?
Get off your obsession with Darwin. If you only look at sources 150 years old you really can't comment on the subject at all, take a proper course in evolutionary biology and quit calling the Theory of Evolution "Darwinism". It simply highlights your own utter ignorance in the subject.
By the way, I believe you said "comments aren't moderated". Well lets hope you're not a Venomfangx type.
>>>>>> So why is it that creationists or "darwin skeptics" seem so stuck on Darwin?? <<<<<<<
Darwinists are stuck on Darwin more than anyone -- they celebrate Darwin Day, buy "I love Darwin" knick-knacks, etc..
>>>>>> It simply highlights your own utter ignorance in the subject. <<<<<<<
I am an expert on co-evolution -- see the post-label group "non-ID criticisms of evolution" in the sidebar of the homepage.
>>>>>> By the way, I believe you said "comments aren't moderated". <<<<<<<
Leaving that statement in is a reminder that there are some lousy trolls who see this blog as a big threat to their dogma and who are therefore trying to sabotage this blog by submitting unacceptable comments, e.g.: gossip about my private affairs, lies about objective facts (e.g., repeating over and over again that Judge "Jackass" Jones said that he was going to follow the law, while ducking the fact that he actually said that the school board election results would not affect his decision), and comments that present no arguments or facts but do nothing but scoff.
Defenders of the old conventional theory of evolution, which resembles Darwin's, seem to be so ignorant of the subject that they don't even know that it has long been called "Darwinism:" by such devotees of the conventional theory as Richard Dawkins, and the late Ernst Mayr; and indeed, by "evolutionary biologists" in general. Look up "Darwinism" in the index to Dawkins' book The Ancestor's Tale (2004), and youl'll find Dawkins using it in his text.
Dawkins has constantly referred to the conventional theory of evolution, which he embraces, as "Darwinism." The word is used for brevity, niether as a term of disparagement, nor as implying that Darwinism is an ideology, etc. Mayr used the term Darwinism in the same sense, in his book What Evolution Is (2001.) Haven't these addicts of the conventional theory ever read any of these guys, the very guys who proclaimed, and still proclaim, the theory in question, which they call Darwinism? Apparently not.
What have they read, then? Phoney propaganda hand-outs by Eugenie Scott, the paid lobbyist for Darwinism-as-dogma in the public schools?
In that case, they need to get an education.
A Darwinist lobbyist, Scott,
Declared, "ID is a plot
To get Adam and Eve
In the schools, I believe!
(Or I say, when I'm lying. Why not?)"
Commenters from British Columbia who are too ignorant to know that "Darwinism" is a long-proper term for the conventional theory of evolution espoused by Dawkins and by the late Ernst Mayr, and that Mayr called the theory "Darwinism" (as does Dawkins), may be relieved to learn that they aren't the only clueless boneheads in B.C. Students at the University of Victoria have actually sung "Darwin Carols" on Darwin Day; thus making their mark in the annals of human stupidity. Why would those who believe, or claim to believe, that Darwinism is true science, celebrate old Charlie D. as a sort of religious figure??
So here's a Darwin Carol I composed for them:
Evolving in the snow,
In selection's vicious ways,
Oh what fun
It is to sing
A song in Darwin's praise!
Jingle bells, selection's Hell's
Created me and you,
Oh what fun
It is to shout
Old Darwin's bloody view!
"Darwinists are stuck on Darwin more than anyone -- they celebrate Darwin Day..."
Yes and you got the same thing in 2005 the world year of physics where everyone celebrated Einstein for his 1905 papers. Again, we don't see people calling relativity "einsteinism".
And I'm sorry I don't take your word on your "expertise". If I didn't have midterms however I'd probably read it.
Jim... I'm not ignorant, I just happen to know that we no longer talk about Lamarkism so the entire point of "Darwinism" to be a term is utterly utterly outdated.
You want to argue that specific "Darwinian evolution" is "Darwinism" then you're still stuck with the fact that Darwin's original model is horribly outdated. Darwinian evolution however being called "Darwinism" would still allow it to be used, and especially since the laymen is used to having "Darwinism" become synonymous with evolution it's no wonder in books designed at laymen Dawkins and the like would use it.
However consider for a moment, when was the last time you saw "darwinism" referenced in a biological journal? In fact searching over 200 entries on google scholar I was able to find ONE journal entry citing "Darwinism". Guess what, it said "Darwinism" was itself outdated and evolutionary theory needed to be expanded, conforming to Darwin's basic premises, but not Darwinism. (That was in Nature).
One would think that if the term was actually valid for scientific literature these days, it would be more common.
"Proper" descriptions of the theory of evolution would appear in biological journals, "Darwinism" does not. Or it least it hasn't to describe evolutionary theory for quite a number of years.
And did you even SEE the events from 2005 regarding Einstein? Einstein, Newton, Galileo have all been given just as high regard as Darwin, so the fact that people "sung "Darwin Carols" on Darwin Day" did no more to elevate Darwin to a religious figure as people have done for Newton, Galileo, or Einstein. But do you argue belief in relativity or classical mechanics is religious?
Such celebrated apostles of the conventional theory of evolution as Dawkins and Mayr call the theory in question "Darwinism," in their books. So how can these Darwinists who comment here claim that it is not a proper term for theory in question; or infer, as they try to infer, that intelligent design proponents invented the term "Darwinism," as part of an effort to discredit that "theory?"
That's either ignorant, or simply nuts.
Or, perhaps, we care more about the technical writing than books designed at laymen. Those books are not meant to be actual scientific publications, science no longer gets done in books but rather the peer reviewed journals. And you'd fine remarkably few mentions of "Darwinism" to mean "Evolution" in ANY peer reviewed scientific journal.
Here, here's that Nature article I was talking about.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/216/4544/380
Darwinism is an outdated inaccurate term to describe evolution, Lamarkism is dead, so use of "Darwinism" is a relic from the past because too many laymen still are used to the word. It's a lot like why "survival of the fittest" is still referred to even though that term itself never even was coined by a biologist... or even a truly fitting description of Evolution.
Use of "Darwinism" is antiquated, and I believe it's probably contentiously spouted by creationists only because it serves useful to try to portray evolution as the "dogma of darwin" despite not being what Darwin originally proposed. You're committing the defense mechanism of projection. "If my religion is considered a religion then I have to portray the science as it too, so if I use religious terminology I'll be able to equivocate the two". Equivocation by the way is fallacious logic.
Honestly, if you're going to use "Darwinism", call relativity "Einstienism". If you're going to say we "worship darwin" and paint him as a "religious figure", we do the same with Newton, Einstein, Galileo, and if you're in a physics department, Tesla, Maxwell, Faraday or Schrodinger.
Andrew,
I will stop using the term "Darwinism" when Darwinists stop using the term "intelligent design creationism."
The term "neo-Darwinism" is sometimes used in place of "Darwinism."
>>>>>>> Or, perhaps, we care more about the technical writing than books designed at laymen. Those books are not meant to be actual scientific publications, science no longer gets done in books but rather the peer reviewed journals. <<<<<<
A lot of good technical stuff is still published in books.
>>>>>> If you're going to say we "worship darwin" and paint him as a "religious figure", we do the same with Newton, Einstein, Galileo, and if you're in a physics department, Tesla, Maxwell, Faraday or Schrodinger. <<<<<<
The worship of Darwin has far surpassed the worship of any other scientist.
Post a Comment
<< Home