Talk:Darwinism

message: I changed the word "concepts" in the first sentence to "theory". As it is, the word "theory" has a very specific meaning in science, not to be confused with a philosophical concept which this article describes. The rest of Darwinism should also be revised accordingly. --Yerpo (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, we're already using that source as reference 4 for the second paragraph which sets out some of the shifts in usage, including the point that the term has been associated at times with specific ideas. This paper goes more into recent misuse of the term. The article needs to be revised to use the information in both of these references, if you can help by adding a summary of significant points that'll be great. . . dave souza, talk 12:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Most of the comments aplied to this article,like 'citation needed 'seem to derive from a position that is disbelieving of Darwinism. For example against a reference to Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, in blue (therefore referenced in Wiki) is cited a 'reference needed'.  Is this a very unsubtle way that disblievers in evolution are trying to make their arguments. If there are substantive arguments against the concept of evolution, they shouldbe clearly and openly made, so that they can be subject to proper scientific and forensic enquiry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 January, 2008
Can I include that darwinismis a slang word?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.97.52 (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without a reliable source to verify it. HrafnTalkStalk 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Overcoming Obstacles to Evolution Education. Don’t Call it “Darwinism” by Eugenie C. Scott1 and Glenn Branch provides a timely reliable source about the misuse of the term in one rather influential country. . . dave souza, talk 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The link of the article just above is broken, the whole website doesnt seem to exist anymore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:288:4A4:C5D9:D643:F9AE:3DBD (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment boxes

message: Unless there is an objection, I'm going to set up automatic archiving for this article's talk page; all threads older than 30 days will be automatically archived by a bot. Vicenarian (T · C) 14:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given there's only been one new thread in the last six months, I don't know if we really need automatic archiving. Also I'd suggest a longer (say 90 day) window if it is set up. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Maybe a one-time manual archive? Vicenarian (T · C) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The archive for the entire history of this Talk header is only 66k. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. Thanks. Vicenarian (T · C) 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic Archiving 

message: This article is totally biased, from a western-imperialist point of view. Desperately needs some balance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaseratiFerarri (talk • contribs) 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a mature and exhaustively discussed article and as such tagging it  and  needs more justification than just this. Removed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: *Charles Darwin's Reception in Germany and What Followed, PLoS Biol 7(7). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on German Darwinism 

message: As Wells, an opponent of Darwinism, is being used only to provide a source for nomenclature used by the opponents (and its favourable use in the UK) I am defending my choice of citation here. Propose to add a quotation. Non rhetorically, may I ask "who better"? If anyone can come up with something, I'll happily defer. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I didn't revert, but Wells is remarkably untrustworthy, and unsuitable as a source about others. Rather rushed, but this paper covers creationist misuse, and if it doesn't cover it being OK in the UK, Dawkins is a better primary source than Wells. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper includes UK usage as well. Go ahead, or should I do it as I poked the wasps' nest in the first place? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking that, if you can do it I'll be grateful – am struggling to get on with another article! . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, with due acknowledgements. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! . . dave souza, talk 23:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using [[Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)]] as a source 

message: A facsimile of the original page is here. It has the standard spelling. Calling for a RV. --Old Moonraker (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think its right to make the change, do it. Add your source too. ValenShephard (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, it seems to be an OCR error in the Darwin Online text version, their image of the page shows phenomena. Corrected, thanks for picking this up. . . dave souza, talk 11:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conceptions of Darwinism" uses "phænomena" in quotation 

message: We need a real definition. The sentence I edited was an absurd string of weasel words- "refers to various movements and concepts related to ideas of..." Bhny (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  refers to various movements and concepts related to ideas of  

message: The passage below was removed, and I'm wondering why? It certainly would appear to fall into the category of "other uses". If it's a problem of citations or such, could it not be cleaned up or flagged rather than removed?:
"The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.<ref name=genie>{{Cite book | last = Scott | first =Eugenie C. | author-link =Eugenie Scott | year = 2008 |" — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Badboy! (talk • contribs) 11:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I agree with putting that back in because it is correct. Vmelkon (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other  Uses 

message: It appears that Dan Dennett used Darwinism several times in his 1995 book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Can we mention Dennett's usage somewhere in the Darwinism article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of creationists use the term "Darwinism" incorrectly. Should we include EVERY book that uses that word incorrectly? It has nothing to do with the article. And personal opinion, terrible, TERRIBLE book. Lots of falsehoods and downright lies. 2601:1C0:8500:1161:6586:A758:6A65:700C (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Dangerous Idea

message: Charles Darwin admitted that he was stuck on a problem in his theory for some time, that being that the principle of natural selection only explains how an existing favourable variant would tend to be preserved within its environmental niche. According to Darwin himself, this was a crucial impediment such that natural selection, on its own, could not account for the biodiversity of life on our planet. 
Albert Einstein encountered a similar impediment in his theorizing, wherein the inertial frames of reference in special relativity were a limited case of a more general theory that would incorporate gravity and describe accelerations of reference frames with respect to each other. Einstein had "a storm break loose in his mind" while riding the train in Bern for special relativity, and "the happiest thought of his life" of realizing the equivalence principle for GR.
Could it be that we are missing a key view as to how Darwin himself viewed this paradigm? For the principle of natural selection, Darwin read Thomas Malthus and "it at once struck [him]" how such a principle could operate to explain the persistence of a successful life form [within its niche/inertial frame]. But it was AFTER discovering this principle that CD was aforementioned stuck. Yet here we are, experts and laymen alike, decades later, saying "natural selection by itself explains all the biodiversity of life." Why then was Darwin stuck? How did this resolve?
Consider the following passage from Darwin's autobiography: "and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me.... The solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature." Darwin termed this the principle of divergence, and he utilized BOTH principles in On the Origin of Species, frequently referencing the "economy of nature" and natural or physiological divisions of labor. An informed reader can notice the influence of Adam Smith's economic paradigm from Wealth of Nations (where an increase in productivity comes from specialization)--an author with whom Darwin was familiar and whom he cited. In particular, I would reference Darwin's multiple passages in OtOoS describing an increase in biomass within a particular region as a result of "specialization" of diverse forms.
I do think we are missing this perspective here: Charles Darwin's one-two punch of two principles, natural selection and divergence, akin to the special and general theories of relativity. Maybe Darwinism as a movement, post-Darwin himself, has focused exclusively on only the first principle; I'll make the case that if we are invoking his name, we should also invoke his understanding.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.245.110.160 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Darwin's principle of divergence

message: The term "Darwinism" is most often used as a pejorative term for evolution by those who are opposed to the theory (such as Creationists). I suppose their aim is to imply that evolution is merely one man's idea, rather than a well-researched and well-accepted science, or to imply that it is some sort of personality cult.  Yes, the modern theory of evolution is loosely based on the 1859 proposals of Charles Darwin -- but has certainly changed over the past 160+ years. There is quite a lot we know now that Charles Darwin did not, and the theory now has many lines of supporting evidence beyond what Darwin was aware of. Why doesn't this topic merely direct readers to Evolution?
Galt57 (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article deals with the academic definition of "Darwinism," i.e., Evolutionary Biology as Charles Darwin and his students and followers originally understood it.  Simply because Creationists and other Anti-Science Propagandists For Jesus have misappropriated the term to use as an anti-science slur does not obligate us to expunge this article anymore than the fact that people have appropriated the terms "banana" and "Oreo" to use as slurs does not force others to suspend their use of those objects.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is Unnecessary 

message: I think that Darwin’s theory of evolution is wrong because there have been truly very many people who have believed in the religions which God created. Because of the large number of such people, the religions should not be considered fake. Thus, what a sacred book states, that is, that the first human, Adam, was created by God, should be convincing. Ruby2021 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is not a forum. We reference reliable sources on wikipedia, not our own opinions on the matter. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong