Talk:Darwinism

Definition

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)

I found a really good site: [1] that gives a good definition of Darwinism. As explained in the article, many people misunderstand darwinism as a theory SOLELY FOCUSED on the process of natural selection. Using a quote found in Darwin's On the Origin of Species provided by the article.

"But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position -- namely, at the close of the Introduction -- the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification."

I think it is important to acknowledge this and maybe change the definition. 218.250.156.137 (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

The first line reads: "Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce"

That is actually the Theory of Evolution. I suggest that it may be more accurate were it to read: "Darwinism a term used to describe various views or aspects regarding or arising from the theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."

Somebody had changed the words 'Darwin' and 'Darwinism' to 'joey quiambao' and 'joeyism' respectively, so I changed it back.

I understand that topics regarding evolution will be controversial, and the introductory paragraph to any article is important so I have not attempted to edit it to reflect what I consider to be a more accurate description without getting some feedback on the matter. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 08:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Badboy! (talk • contribs)

Comment boxes

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)

Not without a reliable source to verify it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Automatic Archiving

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)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe a one-time manual archive? Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. The archive for the entire history of this Talk header is only 66k. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias

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)

This is a mature and exhaustively discussed article and as such tagging it {{NPOV}} and {{WEASEL}} needs more justification than just this. Removed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Article on German Darwinism

• Charles Darwin's Reception in Germany and What Followed, PLoS Biol 7(7). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Using Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) as a source

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)

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)

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)

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)

Done, with due acknowledgements. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! . . dave souza, talk 23:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Conceptions of Darwinism" uses "phænomena" in quotation

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)

If you think its right to make the change, do it. Add your source too. ValenShephard (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term as an epithet or slogan

• 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.[16]

I wonder if both sides of the controversy over "unguided evolution" are not guilty of the same kind of use of epithets (or even sloganeering). As a man I respect very much once said:

In order to defend themselves, the best thing, as has always been the case throughout history, is to paint the worst possible picture of their opponent's doctrine and method of operation. [2]

I wonder if we might create a dispassionate, objective, or at least neutral article on the way the major schools of thought in the origins controversy like to portray each other. Hey, why isn't there at least a redirect for "origins controversy"?

Anyway, promoters of evolution as "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" seem to be constantly attacking the arguments against them as being an ideology (an "ism") of religious faith in the supernatural.

So I think the article needs a link to the article which explains how the sides portray each other; or if no such article has been written, we'll have to write one together. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What is this unguided of which you speak? Is that creationist for not needing a supernatural creator? Is guidance needed every time a rockfall forms rock fragments of various shapes and sizes? . . . dave souza, talk 01:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response; if we had an Unguided evolution article (even a short one) I could just refer you to it. I don't even know whether the definition I am quoting came from those Nobel Laureates defending evolution or that Roman Catholic Cardinal criticizing it. That's the problem I'm talking about here.

I'd like this article (or another one, if I'm in the wrong place) to define exactly what is meant by the terms used.

Snap! I just found out I was accidentally (and partly) quoting Darwin himself: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating ... the facts and arguments on both sides of each question ..." [3]

Anyway, I'd like to get a clear picture of the whole thing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems we have an Unguided evolution article, see Evolution. Vsmith (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And also a guided evolution article, see Progressive creationism. (For the intermediary view that it is guided, but in too subtle a way to be detectable -- and thus indistinguishable from unguided evolution, see Theistic evolution.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information, and for taking my question at face value. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Always glad to assist, you'll have noted my reference to a rockfall, and indeed the good Darwin considered this theological issue in Variation, "Let an architect be compelled to build an edifice with uncut stones, fallen from a precipice. The shape of each fragment may be called accidental; yet the shape of each has been determined by the force of gravity, the nature of the rock, and the slope of the precipice,—events and circumstances, all of which depend on natural laws; but there is no relation between these laws and the purpose for which each fragment is used by the builder." As he said earlier to Asa Gray, "I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world.... Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me." There were wide views about this topic at the time, not the simplistic "two sides" that modern creationists tend to assume. . dave souza, talk 18:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I deplore any simplistic reduction of a controversy into "two sides" when there are three or more. In particular, I note that when contesting opposing views there is an all-too-common tendency for supporters of a view to put all who disagree with them into a single category:

• Supporters of evolution tend to label all their opponents as "Creationists" (meaning someone with an a priori belief in supernatural causation of new major kinds of life or new major features of living things like the "molecular motor" of the flagellum or the camera eye)
• Creationists tend to assert that one can either believe in evolution or be a creationist

On top of that is the tendency to lump all creationists into the YEC category, although in the USA there are roughly equal numbers of OEC and YEC (I pronounce these "oik" and "yecch", by the way ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"...the tendency to lump all creationists into the YEC category, although in the USA there are roughly equal numbers of OEC and YEC"

In the context of Evolution (supposing that is what "Darwinism" refers to), the internal schisms of Creationism are not relevant; any form of Creationism in antithetical to science, as Creationism by definistion must necessarily disregard evolution.

I would point out that:

1. The 'motor' analogy for flagellum is considered to be a very poor one by experts in the field.
2. The evolution of the eye has been studied in considerable detail, and the use by creationists of the eye is generally simply quote mining Charles Darwin.
3. That a major source of the creationist=YEC conflation is supplied by ID creationists making the claim that they aren't young earth biblical literalists, so they aren't creationists. Added to this, YECs tend to be among the most vocal and most colorful of creationists, so tend to garner most of the attention.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Odd wording, "Supporters of evolution tend to label all their opponents..". Firstly, scientists accept the validity and fact of evolution, they don't "support" it. What opponents of evolution are there other than creationists, self professed "creation science" creationists, and of course "cdesign proponentsists"? Of course using term broadly many creationists fully accept the science of evolution, often reconciling it with theistic evolution. But opposition to acceptance of evolution or the science of evolution is a peculiarly fundamentalist view, whose proponents either call themselves creationists or whitewash the term as "design proponents". As in Pandas. . dave souza, talk 19:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

refers to various movements and concepts related to ideas of

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)

Evolutionists' confessions regarding darwin

Charles Darwin's educational and scientific attainments were not exactly of the highest, particularly when compared to all the opportunities available in our own day. Darwin embarked on medical studies in Edinburgh, but failed to complete them and abandoned the course half-way through. For that reason, when he launched the theory of evolution, he was ignorant of many branches of science closely related to his theory.

Thomas Huxley was Darwin's closest friend and greatest supporter in terms of the theory of evolution. He is even remembered as "Darwin's bulldog" for his vociferous defense of the theory of evolution on Darwin's behalf. But even he admitted of this friend:

Like the rest of us, he had no proper training in biological science.1

From a letter written to Darwin by A. Sedgwick, his closest friend:

Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous... Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions..2

Is there actually any valid reason for this section? I was under the impression that the Wiki talk pages were not for the purposes of debate or for people to assert their opinion about the subject(s) of articles. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 08:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Badboy! (talk • contribs)

---

References

1.Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of

Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 315.

2.Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of

Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 43. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azreenm (talk • contribs) 15:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Blatant nonsense, with no coherent proposal for improving the article. By the way, Adam would be severely offended at being called an "evolutionist", and is no doubt birling in his grave. . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

p.s. from a quick hunt on the internets, looks like you got this quote mining from the well known comedian Harun Yahya. Were you hooked by a caddis fly?. . dave souza, talk 19:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Darwin never stated that man came from apes

I find no quote or evidence that Darwin ever stated that man came from apes. He only puts the question at the end of his book? Please remove images that show this other thgan the original press image of Dawin as an ape. That cartoon is what confuses the world. Obviously we have very similar DNA with chimpanzees, mice and pigs but the missing link has never been found.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangutan (talk • contribs) 18:00, 24 November 2014‎

You might want to read Transitional fossil, - "missing link" is not a term used by scientists. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is this discused in the article? Looks offtopic.

Having said that, Linnaeus long ago noted that humans are apes. My understanding is that Darwin discussed shared common ancestry between humans and other apes in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, but you'd have to read it or a good secondary source to find out exactly what he wrote on the topic. . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The very article and the most of the talks recorded about it are very very vague ashamed of to be an article wikiepaedia and so it has to be deleted. The article, its citations and also the references are not only anti-darwinian but also pseudo-scientic, more correctly anti-scientific.user:Ulo.Sendhamizhkodhai 12:37, 4 March 2015 (India) — Preceding unsigned comment added by உலோ.செந்தமிழ்க்கோதை (talk • contribs)

We delete articles because they fail our criteria of notability. There's no chance at all that this will be deleted. Which references/citations are you unhappy about? Vague generalities are unhelpful. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Other Uses

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)

OK, I agree with putting that back in because it is correct. Vmelkon (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Dangerous Idea

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)

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)

Missing Darwin's principle of divergence

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)

After 150 years

Some OP says what follows is a copyright violation, of an article by Barbara Kay.

“ In 2016, Noam Chomsky and seven other prominent professors of linguistics published an academic paper in which they admitted that, even 150 years after the neologism was borne from the pen of Huxley, and following the "explosion of research" in the modern field of linguistics, they are still mystified from whence comes the gift of language, which resides uniquely amongst the animal kingdom in the beast called man. ”

For the record, and this falls under fair usage, the paraphrased article read:

“ In 2016, eight prominent academics, including the world's most famous linguist, Noam Chomsky, published an article admitting that 150 years after the Theory of Evolution was birthed, and following an "explosion of research" in the modern discipline of linguistics, they cannot explain where language comes from. ”

How is this a copyright violation?

• Kay talked about eight academics, I write about seven.
• "published an academic paper" vs "published an article"
• "admitted" not "admitting"
• neologism and Huxley don't appear in Kay's work
• I don't speak about "Theory of Evolution", whereas Kay does
• "borne" not "birthed"
• "modern field" not "modern discipline"
• "they are still mystified from whence comes the gift of language" not "they cannot explain where language comes from."
• no dangling participle in mine

Need I continue? Magnovvig (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Not going to sit here and debate with you such a blatant copyright violation. I reported it over at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 September 24. Each of your bullet points above could be presented as a classic example of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which is not a lesser form of plagiarism and copyright violation. It is the same as plagiarism and copyright violation. No distinction.

Even if you rewrote this to remove the copyright violations, you're inserting the opinions of conservative columnist Barbara Kay from an op-ed article and treating her biased mis-characterizations as fact. It's obvious from your re-use of weasel words like admitted, and your editorializing even after 150 years in Wikipedia's voice as if it were fact, not opinion. Kay's opinion piece grossly misrepresents the academic paper she is referring to, misleading readers to think that scientists have retreated from Darwinian theory and have been forced to admit defeat, that evolutionary theory has failed. In fact, the conclusion can better be summed up, in their own words, that: "The evolution of our language phenotype may remain stubbornly resistant to empirical inquiry, and yet, as indicated in Table 1, there are potential empirical prospects, some near term, others quite remote." The researchers specifically credit Darwinian theory for any of this progress even being possible. The whole point boils down to yet another example of the God of the gaps used to prop up the pseudoscience of intelligent design. We could write a paragraph describing Kay's opinions (as opinions) but her opinions aren't even unique, significant, or interesting.

What you've added has no place in a Wikipedia article for its gross WP:NPOV violations and misleading use of an op-ed as reliable source.

Also, it's born, not borne. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it's definitely borne, see "past participle of bear". Sheesh.

Now see WP:LIMITED.

Barbara Kay is an employee of the National Post. Her contributions are unlike an op-ed. Thus, you need to vary your complaint.

I can change the word "admitted" if you like. I doubt that your attack on Kay's and my use of the verb "admitted" can be characterized as weasel words. That's pretty strong language, don't you think?

I presented as fact the written work of a journalist who wrote about the subject at hand. Just because you happen disagree with her point in no way, shape or form makes your judgement relevant. You are welcome to add your contribution, and by this addition to flesh out the paragraph.

It is good that you quote from the Chomsky article. I will use that in an amended and expanded paragraph, as counter-point to Kay's.

Magnovvig (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this is textbook close paraphrasing. If you substitute words but retain the sentence structure, it's still a copyvio. Guettarda (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Search Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing for "A close paraphrase of one sentence from a book may be of low concern, while a close paraphrase of one paragraph of a two-paragraph article might be considered a serious violation."

Magnovvig (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Magnovvig, Dennis Bratland, and Guettarda: I agree this is copyvio, but it's also by Barbara Kay of the Barbara Kay controversy - is she really the only source for this? If so, and I doubt it, it doesn't belong at all, if not, then we need to find better sources. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: thanks for the ping, but having revdel'd the edits, I think I need to stay out of any content decisions here. Guettarda (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The paper Kay is referring to is a perfectly good primary source. We can add a basic summary without getting into any interpretation. Neutral secondary sources might give us some analysis we can mention. What we don’t have is any good sources saying the Chomsky et al paper really did shake the foundations of Darwinism. Unlike religion, good scientific theories aren’t burdened with having to give infinitely fine grained explanations for absolutely everything. Claiming to have all the answers correlates more with quackery.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Although it's a bit old, the proposed source was indeed unusable. Opinion category, non-specialist author, on a site that's inadequate to cover aspects of biology. Other than linguist Chomsky, the other source it was based on (that seems to be used in this article), is by a computer scientist and ID proponent, used to cite a biologist to make the point "Darwinism is an attempt to explain 'design without a designer', according to evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala." but that's also true for all of science, so only really means that it doesn't begin with dogmatic premices but seeks answers that are practical to understand and make predictions according to the scientific method, etc. I suppose that because it's in a section related to apologetics, this sentence could remain. —PaleoNeonate – 21:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Article is Unnecessary

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)

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)

Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong

Talk pages are not a blog's comment section applies. --Calton | Talk 15:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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) 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)