using the word "darwinism" for evolution as it is currently understood is not accurate. The theory has grown greatly since Darwin’s time.

yeah, i know. i once told the admin to change the name but he seems to have forgot. I definitely agree with you that creationists like the term(from the same reasons that you stated) but there are also some people that use it without noting the subtle but important difference(like the admin did when he wrote the forum descriptions)

Could it be that the time when Darwin’s contribution were compared to others, many and possible related evidences must perplexed a many? and the evidences becomes more interesting, somewhat a puzzle is revealed piece by piece. A great effort must have been given to further investigate Darwin’s work. Results are suprisingly very near in explaining a good concept regarding the origin of different species on earth. And as for evolutionary ideas, what is dominantly remembered is this partly controversial theory of Darwin. Would it be right to say that Darwin’s ideas served as a template to define evolution at the present?

As for his opponents if it is convenience, that would be enough to say that it is the "evolution" thing.

Darwinism is rarely used here in the UK, but then again the Evolution vs Creation debate is not as big as it is in USA so that might be why.

It has been suggested that connecting a widely-accepted tenet of biology to a person from the 19th Century is a way to make it comparable to religious explanations:

– originating in the past. The suggestion is that the idea is passed down without thought or revision, which is of course completely false.

– dependent (supposedly) on an authority figure (Darwin) and a central book (On the Origins of Species). Sometimes it seems that the main problem with a lot of the religious opposition is that, since they base their lives on concepts that draw from an "unimpeachable" authority and a written source accepted verbatim, they tend to assume that that is how everybody else must be doing it. We must worship Darwin, we must have "faith" in evolution, we are "fundamentalists." All wrong, of course, but it’s not easy to understand a very different worldview.

That is all very intresting but I still agree with alex about this, that is why the term Darwinism is rarely used over here because as I mentioned the Evolution vs Creation debate is almost non existant in the UK.

I also doubt the evolution debate will be settled there, I’ve heard about the demands about ‘the great designer’ theory should be taught in biology.

How did the idea of teaching the "designer theory" in a school science class ever arise in the US?
Presumably, science isn’t taught in classes in place of religion, so why isn’t "designer Theory" taught and kept in the religious lessons? Presumably no one would object to that.

I have no idea about why, it was just something that my teacher mentioned in class once.

And so there was the term, "scientific creationism"?

I see the problem. In that case all that a science teacher has to do is to teach the accepted standard scientific version of evolution with references and then outline how the ID version of evolution differs giving the bible as reference and to clearly state that examination marks are given on the understanding and presentation of the standard theory of evolution.

I didn’t understand any of that. Can you explain more clearly?

"a science teacher has to do is to teach the accepted standard scientific version of evolution with references and then outline how the ID version of evolution differs giving the bible as reference and to clearly state that examination marks are given on the understanding and presentation of the standard theory of evolution".-genovese

However, that’s not happening most of the time, the own beliefs of the teacher may go along with his explanations regarding concepts on evolution. It is sometimes forgotten why concepts in evolution is needed to be taught and why bio students need to incorporate it in their curriculum and these makes them confused and even what stands in their beliefs versus evolution sometimes makes them knocked-off.

I agree that evolutionary concepts are indeed important to give is enlightenment about our natural history.

Apology for not making myself clear. Here is another go:

A teacher has to give the necessary information for the student to do well in his examinations. I don’t know how it works in the US, but presumably the examination standards are set by either a State or the Federal government? I suspect that those that hold to the "Creationist" ideas have not yet exerted power over the people who decide how the exams are to be marked and assessed. They may hold power over local schools and are probably able to insist that "Creationist Evolution" is to be taught in those schools. Fine! But the students being taught "creationist ideas" as science need to be warned that those ideas are not going to get them many marks when it comes to answering exams papers on the subject of evolution. It won’t prevent them from being muddled however until they are mature enough to think for themselves, since the two theories are diagrammatically opposite to each other.

I see that there’s no essence at all that they insist it to be taught but afterall won’t give many credits when it comes to answering tests. It’s totally absurdity. Very confusing.

I read one material where in US, a treaty or a bill has been signed regarding the treatment on these two opposing ideas, specifically on creationism and evolutionary sciences.

It sounds that they teach the ideas but behind their backs there’s an anxiety that these creationists will "haunt" them.
Or it will appear to these creationists that when they see the results of the exams of these students and the scores/rating would be low, arguments at least are less likely to be invoked and so as vice-versa.

What must be the good role of the state/federal government here? It seems absurdity to me. But how come that in this just simple question of how things were made, and just to enlighten us from wondering we did everything to know scientific facts. I do not know much of the background of the kind of government there but, a government could be a strong body–but in this case, how does it properly neutralizes this kind of situation? (Through the setting of their standards in marking papers?) If until today, the argument has not yet been settled in your area and where in some countries evolution is not controversial too much, what good must it have been doing now?

Now I see, The "creationist evolution" may be taught in schools but will not get any marks due to the answers the exam board will allow.

I agree with that. Subjectivity will be less likely prevented. Though here comes cultural sensitivity. If a classroom is heterozygous or its students are of great diversity,the inclusion of religious curriculum might be probably very conflict-ridden one.

I took religious studies in all the four years of high-school. It was a very interesting class, taught by one of the smartest people i have ever met. The teacher, with both a BS in engineering and a BS in religious studies had a course designed to teach us how religious beliefs can be integrated in modern society and how evolution and technological progress fits with religion. I can truly say that i am not sorry I had that class.

On the topic of ID in schools. I do not agree. The ideas of ID people are so popular nowadays, that saying nothing in biology class would be doing just what they want. They say "They don’t tell students about us, they want to hide the truth". I would be comfortable with a class on refuting ID arguments, which can be easily done in a few minutes by any teacher. "Biology" by Raven and Johnson refutes the main ID arguments in one page, but it is enough to make everyone realize how illogical and unscientific those ideas are.

there might be some difference between darwinism and the theory of evolution
darwinism is what he believed but evolution is what we now understand from what he discovered 🙄 but I dont really know
for me this is just a battle of terms

we had known that it is not only darwin who took this subject(the theory) seriously
People might have thought that he tried to deviate himself from God or his theory was some sort of different from that of the "real" evolution

How did you triple post the same subject alex?
did you have a problem with your computer?

The mods are watching.

already done before my first post actually 😉

Back to the main topic, Evolution is what we understand of the theory now and Darwinism is the incorrect term that is mistakenly used, or at least that is what I believe the other posts are trying to get at.

rahter ill-willingly than mistakenly

As you said it!

evolution might be a better term(no offense) 😆

That is what we have been trying to sort out with this thread.

It is no doubt that Darwin’s name was so loud in the scientific world and no other names could ever match the noise since Darwin’s achievement is really a good matter of going deeper and gradually realizing what happened before. The evidences and certain studies were somewhat collecting an almost final piece to the jigsaw puzzle and finally revealing the true picture of the past.

Like most other important scientific discoveries Darwin’s theory saw seen as blasphemous by the church and ridiculed by almost everyone.
The reason that a scientists name is remembered is because it took so long for the theory to be acknowledged.

And such ambitions are really big deal.