Learning to Understand Darwinese
There is a song that says words sometimes have two meanings, but that is an understatement. We can be led the wrong way by erroneous assumptions about word definitions. Creation science ministries try to encourage people to learn how to think, in stark contrast to secularists who try to tell people what to think. With a bit of study, we can learn how to understand the malarkey of Darwinese. There are two posts featured here to emphasize the point.
Although the Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ is useful if you can find one (the version with the whistle in it is a very expensive collectable), we really need to put our hearts and minds into interpreting Darwinese.
Watch for maybe, scientists believe, earlier than we thought, perhaps, and other words that the secular establishments pass of as "science" instead of earning their pay. Another big help is learning to spot basic logical fallacies. Once you get a handle on translation, you can start asking questions that make evolutionists downright uncomfortable: How do you know? Were you there? How do those other people you rely on know? Actually, there is someone who does know and was there, and that is our Creator who told us all about it in the Bible, beginning in Genesis.
As some of us involved in creation science ministries have pointed out, sometimes it seems like researchers turn in papers that have interesting and even useful research but they taint it with evolution. It's like they sanctify it by slapping on a Darwinese-type "Hail Darwin, blessed be!" remark to sanctify it as "science" when it was fine before it was polluted with nonsense. Researchers often distract from their research or even ruin it by throwing in worthless (or even harmful) evolutionary posturing.
 |
| Modified from an image at FreeDigitalPhotos.net by Stuart Miles |
Watch for maybe, scientists believe, earlier than we thought, perhaps, and other words that the secular establishments pass of as "science" instead of earning their pay. Another big help is learning to spot basic logical fallacies. Once you get a handle on translation, you can start asking questions that make evolutionists downright uncomfortable: How do you know? Were you there? How do those other people you rely on know? Actually, there is someone who does know and was there, and that is our Creator who told us all about it in the Bible, beginning in Genesis.
Translating Darwinese primarily involves taking out the assumptions and assertions and seeing if anything is left.I'd take it right kindly of you if you would finish reading "The Art of Translating Darwinese". A kind of follow-up post follows that really helps bring the point home.
If, like the late Phillip Johnson argued, Darwinian evolution is naturalistic philosophy masquerading as science, then it follows that Darwinian ‘science’ is fake science. It may include some tangible objects, like fossils or genes, but it will be wrapped in rhetoric intended to promote naturalism. Consequently, a perceptive reader needs to learn how to translate Darwinese. The mystical language of Darwinese makes it seem as if observational data supports evolution, when it’s really the other way around; naturalism colors the data. A successful Darwinese translator is always focusing on the actual evidence. One must filter out the assumptions and assertions to see what the data are actually indicating. Here we teach by example.
As some of us involved in creation science ministries have pointed out, sometimes it seems like researchers turn in papers that have interesting and even useful research but they taint it with evolution. It's like they sanctify it by slapping on a Darwinese-type "Hail Darwin, blessed be!" remark to sanctify it as "science" when it was fine before it was polluted with nonsense. Researchers often distract from their research or even ruin it by throwing in worthless (or even harmful) evolutionary posturing.
If an objective English teacher read a typical science paper, she would cross out the Darwinese as deadwood that adds nothing.To read the rest and get the full impact of both posts, click on "Junk Darwinism Clutters Science".
Darwin. Who needs him? He keeps popping up uninvited, cluttering science papers and articles with his BAD ideas (see definition of BAD in the Darwin Dictionary). Science writing would be much cleaner and understandable without him. Like Sergeant Friday of Dragnet used to say, “Just the facts, Ma’am.” Dear scientist, tell the public what the question was, the hypothesis that was tested, the methods and materials, the findings, and the conclusions. You can also brag about the value of the findings. But cross out the Darwinese. Like deadwood in bad writing, it just adds clutter. Here are some recent examples of news articles that would be cleaner and leaner without evolutionary storytelling, and tastier without Darwin Fudge on top.