Hunter says "this" is not Evolution - a problem with definitions?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Swamidass

There are three different definitions of Darwinism, and you are confusing them as if they are the same.

The scientific model of positive selection dominated change, “neo Darwinism”, that was falsified by genetic data in the 1960s and 1970s.
The philosophy of atheism that uses evolution as a key tenet, and is promoted by people like Dennett and Darwinism. This, in no way at all, is science. It is not part of science. This precise view is not even common among scientists. Rather, it is anti-religious sentiment masquerading as science. When I talk about “mainstream science’s” understanding of evolution, it specifically rejects this view as non-scientific.
Some people imprecisely use Darwinism as a synonym for “modern evolutionary theory” or the “modern synthesis”. This is not a good use of the term for a wide range of reasons. Most importantly, in is often mistaken for the other two definitions, and it is ahistorical. Modern evolutionary theory mainly holds “common descent” in common with Darwin’s views (and some of its consequences). But positive selection dominated change (as Darwin conceived it) is not at all dominant as he thought. For example, ecology (and neutral drift) are important too, but that has been known for a long time (ecology was even recognized by Darwin himself) and is not at all denied by people who use Darwinism by this definition.

With those uses in hand, it becomes clear your error. You think Dawkins and Dennett are correctly representing the science. They are not. Period.

Could we pin this to the top of every thread?