. . . and, yes, a lot wrong.
But not to worry--that is, if you know how the self-correcting processes of science work (which you obviously don't).
It is the nature of scientific investigation--involving empirical confirmation or denial of claims relying on tools of observable, testable, falsifiable evidence--to propose theories, then to examine them through the systematic and open critiquing process of peer review. This rigorous methodological approach serves to hone and increase human knowledge. The scientific method of interpreting the world around us shapes, adjusts and advances our knowledge base over time and (unlike religion) remains the best, most reliable tool humans have at their dispoal to sift fact from fiction.
What Eugenie C. Scott is proposing is not an abandoment of Charles Darwin but, rather, a tightening and useage of terms within the bigger picture of advancing science, so that ill-informed religionists in their wacky world of pseudo-scientific "creationism" cannot use Darwin in misleading and often disingenuous ways to peddle their theological snake oil at the expense of reputable, proveable, genuine science.
From the abstract to which you link:
"Evolutionary biology owes much to Charles Darwin, whose discussions of common descent and natural selection provide the foundations of the discipline.
"But evolutionary biology has expanded well beyond its foundations to encompass ma'y theories and concepts unknown in the 19th century. The term “Darwinism' is, therefore, ambiguous and misleading. Compounding the problem of 'Darwinism' is the hijacking of the term by creationists to portray evolution as a dangerous ideology—an 'ism'—that has no place in the science classroom.
"When scientists and teachers use 'Darwinism” as synonymous with evolutionary biology, it reinforces such a misleading portrayal and hinders efforts to present the scientific standing of evolution accurately. Accordingly, the term 'Darwinism' should be abandoned as a synonym for evolutionary biology."
(To read Scott's article in its entirety, co-authored with Glenn Branch, entitled, "Overcoming Obstacles to Evolution Education: Don't Call It 'Darwinism.'" see:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0111-2/fulltext.html)
I also strongly recommend that you read Mario Livio's book, "Brilliant Blunders and the Genuises Who Made Them from Darwin to Einstein: Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists that Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe" (2013, Simon and Schuster, 340 pp)
That recommendation made, theists prefer that atheists process like theists do; namely, in terms and context of "belief." Theists are big into "belief"-thinking (a true oxymoron) and seek to control the court by telling atheists that they (atheists) "believe" in their own "religion" of atheism. Religious processing of ideas through the use of "belief" language is the only kind of lingo that theists really know and feel comfortable with. It is a familiar, thumb-sucking Linus-like blanket to them.
http://possil.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/linus-blanket.gifTherefore, it not only makes theists feel angry, it makes them feel uneasy and vulnerable when they are confronted with non-believers who don't buy into the believer's game of thought control through theistic terminology control. Deep down, theists may well realize that thinking is more grounded than believing. (For evidence of that, one need look no further than the futile and dishonest attempts by anti-science creationists to gain credibility in the real world by wrapping their other-worldly religious beliefs in the trappings of pseudo-scientific language).
Atheists scare the hell out of theists.
____
Back to Eugenie Scott, whom I know. She is a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education, based in San Diego, California. We first met a few years ago over a B&B breakfast at a national convention for the Freedom from Religion Foundation where we were both program speakers. During the course of friendly conversation, she mentioned that she was taking a group of scientists and interested laypersons on a river-rafting trip through the Grand Canyon. I had always wanted to go on such an expedition so I notified my regular group of hiking friends (all scientists themselves) with whom I take annual excursions into the national parklands and wilderness areas of West. We decided to put it on our to-do list and soon thereafter found ourselves on a nine-day white-water/calm-eddy river raft of the Colorado River in the company of a group of various science professionals (including geneticists, biologists, anthropologists and physicists).
It was an amazing and educating experience, with Eugenie at the helm. She's a critical thinker who uses language much more preciesly than theists do. Those, like her, in the professional scientific community who understand the importance of word-meaning don't "believe" in evolution any more than they "believe" in god. Rather, they "accept" evolution as fact.
During the course of the 200 mile-plus trip that wound its way through the Grand Canyon, we camped out at night on the Colorado's sandbars and during the day--launching from a point in the Grand Canyon where the rocks, sediments and fossils were the oldest--steadily made our way along the river, examining the observable evidence for the long-term evolution of the Canyon. What was particularly interesting was to have compare-and-contrast presentations made by scientists along the way regarding the real-science evolutionary vs. the pseudo-science creationary explanations for how the Grand Canyon physically came to be.
Eugenie has made it a point, then and since, that when educating supporters of evolution on how to deal with an remarkably uninformed and illiterate public, it is very important to "watch your language," so to speak. In efforts to defend and explain the realities of evolution to novices and (in particular) to anti-science religious believer types, language is a critically important tactical device for use in the delivery of facts.
Below is the text of an interview with her on the importance of using words, language and terminology precisely and meaningfully:
"Watch your language! It’s a common message from Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), an organization dedicated to promoting and defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scott recently spoke with Science News writer Susan Milius.
"[Question to Scott]: 'So you urge scientists not to say that they 'believe' in evolution?!'
"[Scott's answer]: 'Right. What your audience hears is more important than what you say. . . .What [people] hear is that evolution is a belief, it’s an opinion, it’s not well-substantiated science. And that is something that scientists need to avoid communicating.
"'You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you 'accept evolution.'
"Q: 'How does the language used to discuss new discoveries add to the problem?'
"Scott: 'To put it mildly, it doesn’t help when evolutionary biologists say things like, “This completely revolutionizes our view of X.” Because hardly anything we come up with is going to completely revolutionize our view of the core ideas of science. . . . An insight into the early ape-men of East and South Africa is not going to completely change our understanding of Neandertals, for example. So the statement is just wrong. Worse, it’s miseducating the public as to the soundness of our understanding of evolution.
"'You can say that this fossil or this new bit of data 'sheds new light on this part of evolution.'
"Q: 'So people get confused when scientists discover things and change ideas?'
"Scott: 'Yes, all the time. This is one of the real confusions about evolution. Creationists have done a splendid job of convincing the public that evolution is weak science because scientists are always changing their minds about things.'
"Q: 'So how do you explain what science is?'
"Scott: 'An idea that I stole from [physicist] James Trefil visualizes the content of science as three concentric circles: the core ideas in the center, the frontier ideas in the next ring out and the fringe ideas in the outermost ring. . . .
"'[We need to] help the public understand that the nature of scientific explanations is to change with new information or new theory — this is a strength of science — but that science is still reliable. And the core ideas of science do not change much, if at all.
"'The core idea of evolution is common ancestry, and we’re not likely to change our minds about that. But we argue a lot about … how the tree of life is branched and what mechanisms bring evolutionary change about. That’s the frontier area of science.
"'And then of course you have areas that claim to be science, like "creation science" and "intelligent design,” that are off in the fringe. Scientists don’t spend much time here because the ideas haven’t proven useful in understanding the natural world.
"Q: 'You’ve been on talk radio a lot. What’s your sense of what the public understands about evolutionary biology?'
"Scott: 'The public has a very poor understanding of evolution. People don’t recognize evolution as referring to the common ancestry of living things. Even those who accept evolution often don’t understand it well. They think it’s a great chain . . . of gradual increases in complexity of forms through time, which is certainly an impoverished view of evolutionary biology. That view is the source, in my opinion, of: “If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?” ... That’s probably the second most common question I get on talk radio.
"'It’s like saying, "If you evolved from your cousins, why are your cousins still here?" And of course the answer is, well, in fact, I didn’t evolve from my cousins. My cousins and I shared common ancestors, in our grandparents.'
"Q: 'What’s the current state of the effort to keep schools teaching evolution?'
"Scott: 'Sometimes it feels like the Red Queen around here, where we’re running as hard as we can to stay in the same place. The thing is, creationism evolves. And for every victory we have, there’s pressure on the creationists to change their approach. We constantly have to shift our response. Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it."
"Q: 'What should scientists and people who care about science do?'
"Scott: 'I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change . . . you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will . . . accept the science."
(Eugenie Scott, "Accept It: Talk about Evolution Needs to Evolve," in "Science News: Magazine for the Society for Science and the Public," vol. 176, #3, 1 August 2009, p. 32, at:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45594/title/Comment__Accept_it_Talk_about_evolution_needs_to_evolve; for a related thread, see: "Why I hate the phrase 'I don't believe in god.'" posted by "kolobian," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 5 December 2011, at:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,357373)
*****
You don't have to be scared of her, "katuwiran, or of science. But you are stuck in the language of religion because you obviously don't know how else to communicate your ideas. Instead of lashing out theistically, try thinking rationally. It's more reliable and would make you look less nutty and uneducated.
Edited 29 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 10:36PM by steve benson.