Eden and Evolution

Intelligent design's argument that evolution cannot explain the origin of astoundingly complex biological systems such as the flagellum of bacteria -- the microscopic, whiplike propulsion system with multiple interdependent parts -- is indistinguishable, Leshner said, from the bland assertion that science has not explained everything. Unexplained, however, is not the same as unexplainable. When ID advocates see something unexplained, they point to the supernatural. But science, by definition, looks only for natural explanations, Leshner said.

His comparison with gravity is false, unless he is talking about the microevolution, the local effects of each can be observed. He is begging the question of macroevolution. It no more exists than a general theory of gravitation. As for his notion of the supernatural, he is confusing it with the notion of a god of the gaps. The supernatural is precisely that which holds together the natural world, and is more analogous to Plato's forms. These are, in turn, like mathematical models which are either the creations of the human mind ,or some other mind if they exist independently of our minds. In any case, the main argument for the supernatural is the existence of the human mind. Rather than talks about natural and supernatural, he needs to use philsophical lanuage and say that science only deals with secondary causes, not final ones, and iD often sounds like a claim to know final causes.

(for the record, I think it's downright nonsense, if not deliberate deceit, to link Hitler's crimes to either Darwin or Christianity. )

Mostly agree. However, I would note that it's the naturaly reaction of a fascist, on considering evolution, to decide it's a good idea to help it along.

There was an online discussion with the author of the above story, link here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/02/03/DI2006020301423.html

Ping for when I have more time.

Word games.

You did not address my point.

Religion, a set of beliefs that supernatural forces control reality, does act, often leading people to do bad things.

More often it leads people to do good things. In this case however, it made a bad scientist (if she's not lying about her faith just to make money).

this girl has an advanced degree which presumably entails frequent visits to large libraries

Clinton conducted political campaigns which entailed visit after visit to churches... and yet he remained as hermetically sealed against morality as this bozo did against evidence.

Indeed...evil people do evil things

~~Allah~~ Jesus said it was OK to lie to the infidels....

To me, those were exactly the paragraphs where the author went lost and seemed to rant and kick the furniture. Not justifiable on the evidence at all.

so someone can yell "That's just microevolution!" and it's true as far as it goes

The ad hoc "distinction" between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" as those terms are used by creationists corresponds to the "distinction" between "not rising to the level of impeachment" and "serious if proven true" as those terms were used by the Clinton Crime Cabal.

In both cases, the evidence that simply cannot be plausibly denied is assigned to the former category in order to denigrate its significance, and the evidence that can still be quibbled and obfuscated away is assigned to the latter category in order to make its underpinnings appear dubious. Specific cases can even be moved between categories at need (as Eohippus --> Equus and the blue dress were shifted from the latter category to the former when additional evidence made denial an untenable strategy).

"Humans have souls, which make them different from other animals, she told me later." And when has anyone ever seen, or conclusively proven the evidence of the soul?
...or demonstrated that, say, dogs don't have them?

Hell, it's a lot easier for me to believe that my cats have souls than that some humans I could name do.

"Raping" animals is, as far as I know, always illegal. Heck, it's also illegal to have "consensual" sex with an animal -- assuming that's possible. In other words, sex with animals is always illegal.

True, but I'm not aware of any civilized jurisdiction that punishes bestiality as severely as it punishes rape. (Some places will execute people for the former, and more reasonably will do so for the latter as well, hence the "civilized" proviso).

His comparison with gravity is false

On the contrary, the analogy is perfect.

Planets are pushed around their orbits by angels. Heathen attempts to ascribe this phenomenon to gravity are unsupported by evidence -- the phenomenon of "microgravity" demonstrated by dropping small objects and watching them fall has no relevance to the unproven theory of "macrogravity"....

(for the record, I think it's downright nonsense, if not deliberate deceit, to link Hitler's crimes to either Darwin or Christianity. )

"Mostly agree. However, I would note that it's the naturaly reaction of a fascist, on considering evolution, to decide it's a good idea to help it along."

The word 'Evolution' and its image were good tools to use if you were trying to get citizens to go along with any political change. That is, of course, until the late 1940s, at which time "consumers" of political ideology (citizens of countries) started linking that word to Nazism and Communism. That these ideologies happened to be fascist was, I think, largely a matter of different causes (German academic philosophy, way more than British biological research). The appeal of evolution for them was not really that it said much supporting fascism, but that it said a lot supporting the vague idea of "change is progress".

Look at it as marketing. The people behind Communism as Nazism obviously knew jack about evolution, being totally incapable of keeping their pet systems running beyond the span of a few decades (or, for that mater, being incapable of choosing as pet systems with any hope of doing more than killing and dying), thwarting all manner of carefully honed moral instincts in the process, and killing the most talented people in the nation once they grabbed that power on the disgusting (and possibly pretensive) grounds of killing the weak. No need to assume any deeper connection than marketing.

Note also that the word "Christian" was used as a marketing tool in Nazi Germany. Not because what the Nazis were doing had much anything in common with the ideas set out in the New Testament, but because they wanted to make themselves look good to a primarily Christian population. Marketing. Both cases.

Would Ms. Crocker be as willing to link Hitler and the death camps to Christianity?

Might also be done by pointing out that the Nazis reprinted, and copiously referenced, Martin Luther's On The Jews and Their Lies. Although he stopped just short of advocating mass executions, Luther in this book (explicitly and quite seriously put forward as policy recommendations to the kings of Europe) laid out many policies the Nazis would later enact: Burn the Jewish Holy Books and Synagogues, confiscate the homes and property of Jews, deny them the protection of the law and police from assault, make them work at hard labor, etc.

Of course there's no remotely comparable, or similarly vicious, prefiguring of Nazi oppression from any "evolutionist".

All you say is true. But eugenics is explicitly what you get when a fascist ponders natural selection, just as inquisitions are what you get when a fascist ponders the evils of heresy. Some people talk about evolution; the fascist sincerely wants to do something about it.

That his idea of "fittest" always puts himself at the top of the heap is another issue--a psychological one...

Fascism, being amorphous, as vik pointed out, consists in large part in dressing in cool uniforms and marching around spouting nonsense as justification for smashing and grabbing whatever you can.

The idea that the people on top of the pile are somehow better than the ones on the bottom isn't exactly a new idea (for the people on the top).

The idea of the superiority of certain races predates Darwin and doesn't need Darwin's theories, nor even really use Darwin's theories.

A list of important online references in regard to the Peppered Moth controversy can be found here. (An old message of mine to one of the fallen.)

Actually I repost here as I need to repair some links (Calvin College Evolution Listserv) that have changed their domain address:

O.K. I have contended that the Peppered Moth has NOT been discredited as an example of evolution in action, and that the claim that the moths do not, or hardly ever, rest on tree trunks is FALSE, that Kettelwells experiments represented good science, and so on. I have collected the following links (in very roughly chronological order) so that you can decide for yourself. Most of these are messages posted in the Calvin College Evolution Listserv. I recommed special attention be paid to the following links:

1) Grant's Review of Majerus' 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action
3) Wells is a principle critic
5) Coyne is the primary source for journalist Matthews (who wrote the article heading this thread)
7-9, 12, 25, 27-28, 32-35, 39, 44-45) Frack's articles criticizing the Peppered Moth's critics, and Wells' responses, are a must read
41) Response to all this from the Telegraph reporter Matthews

Peppered Moth Links