Darwinism at AEI

American Spectator (via Discovery Institute) ^ | July 1, 2007 | Tom Bethal

[GodGunsGuts]

You bring up a very good point. Darwinian evolution can be falsified by the fossil evidence alone. I also quite agree with you that Gould recognized this and thus tried to save natural selection from the fossil evidence by inventing punctuated equilibrium. It is also interesting to not how bad Gould felt the fossil evidence was for Darwinian evolution. Indeed, if one didn’t know any better, one might conclude he was a creationist from the following quote!:

---

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.

Gould, S.J. (1977)
“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
Natural History, vol. 86, May

[tacticalogic]

Get the government out of the science business and let both sides duke it out in the free market.

How do you propose to "get the goverment out of the science business", and what do you consider the "free market" of philosophy, and what currency are we using?

[narby]

The creationists are still creationists. The IDers are a whole 'nother group that has only become vocal for the past decade or so.

Oh. So how many variations on the theme is there? We have YECers that might be the same as creationists. Then directed evolutionists, old earth creationists. How many more?

At least science has all it's stuff pretty much in one pile, arguing only about tiny details. Geology supports paleontology, chemistry supports geology, astrophysics supports them all, on and on and on. In order to bring down the house of science, you can't just take out one wing like evolution, you have to take down the whole thing.

[GodGunsGuts]

==It’s fine to point out the shortcomings in a scientific theory

Not only is it fine, it’s an essential component of the scientific method—FALSIFICATION.

[js1138]

So basiclly you are saying that people who don’t believe what you believe are “aggressive” if they say what they believe in public.

[brannon]

just like religion. that’s the point.

[narby]

But is it falsifiable? And if so, what would be the test?

I love this. One of the earliest arguments against ID was that is wasn't falsifiable. Then, like a good politician who knows that a good defense is a good offense, the creationists started claiming that evolution wasn't falsifiable. LOL.

[AndyTheBear]

How about private school instead of government school.

Let the parents decide what kind of school with what kind of a curriculum to send their kids to. Let the parents pay for it.

If we feel we need to have some government charity in the matter, we can provide vouchers to poor families.

[AndyTheBear]

One of the earliest arguments against ID was that is wasn't falsifiable

I agree, its not. I don't consider ID to be science. Certainly not by Popper's test. But then you are changing the subject, why?

[narby]

I agree, its not. I don't consider ID to be science. Certainly not by Popper's test. But then you are changing the subject, why?

Because in #60 you are questioning whether evolution is falsifiable. It is, by a dozen or so methods that I've seen listed.

That said, I don't have time to stay around or search up lists on the net. Perhaps you'll claim that such lists don't exist because I have to leave. You would be wrong, but, whatever.

[tacticalogic]

We have public and parochial schools now.

The only thing we don't have is the vouchers. I think it's been tried in some places, with mixed results. In many cases the kids "graduated" illiterate.

[Coyoteman]

Narby: So why did the creationists transform themselves into IDers if they were winning the battles?

They didn't. The creationists are still creationists. The IDers are a whole 'nother group that has only become vocal for the past decade or so.

Evidence suggests Narby is right and you are wrong.

The Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision lays out all of the details. Here are some exerpts:

• Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization.

• Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work.

• As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept.

• The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.

• Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism. One significant difference is that the words "God," "creationism," and "Genesis" have been systematically purged from ID explanations, and replaced by an unnamed "designer." Dr. Forrest testified and sponsored exhibits showing six arguments common to creationists. Demonstrative charts introduced through Dr. Forrest show parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution's threat to culture and society, "abrupt appearance" implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to show its "strengths and weaknesses," and to alert students to a supposed "controversy" in the scientific community. In addition, creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID. The IDM openly welcomes adherents to creationism into its "Big Tent," urging them to postpone biblical disputes like the age of the earth. Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID's relations hip with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Nonsense. There is as much diversity between shades of evolutionists as there is between non-evolutionists. Darwinists, neo-Darwinists, punctuated evolutionists, even panspermianists, etc. etc. And again, “science” doesn’t support evolution. Evolution is a philosophy used to put a spin on otherwise neutral empirical evidences. Evolution is a circular-reasoning lens through which evolutionists look to say that they’ve found “evidence” for evolution when in fact they’ve done no such thing.

[AndyTheBear]

That said, I don't have time to stay around or search up lists on the net. Perhaps you'll claim that such lists don't exist because I have to leave. You would be wrong, but, whatever.

No worries. I don't hold you responsible for doing research for me.

[GodGunsGuts]

I say put an end to government funded science. If the government wishes to obtain the many benefits of science, they can purchase them from the private sector. Then science and scientists will be forced to compete with each other in the free market (just like every other endeavor worth its salt).

[betty boop]

So basiclly you are saying that people who don’t believe what you believe are “aggressive” if they say what they believe in public.

I'd call it "aggressive" to engage in a publicity campaign designed for the express purpose of trashing a sunstantial segment of the populace with whom one does not agree. If a grass roots organization were to mount a campaign against gay people, I feel pretty certain that the gay community would regard this as an act of aggression.

I'm all for freedom of expression, js1138. But one could wish that people would not express themselves with so much trash talk that is bound to offend. Indeed, that is the whole point: To offend, to ridicule. To me, this is simple thuggery.

Of course, dear js1138, you are free to disagree with me.

[GodGunsGuts]

Fine by me...as long as they don’t make you pay twice (like they are doing today).

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Evidence suggests Narby is right and you are wrong.

If creationists transformed themselves into IDers, then why are the same old creationists who've been plugging away for decades still at it (except for Morris, who died last year)? ID is a new camp of writers and thinkers who may have arisen in response to said court decision, but to say that they themselves ARE the creationists relabeled is logically and factually incorrect.

Narby's statement suggests a tit-for-tat carryover of the creationists to the ID camp. Such carryover did not occur, which is why there are still the same creationists (who, incidentally, are as often at odds with IDers as with evolutionists) regardless of what a judge who knew little to nothing about the issue had to say. The problem is simply that you, narby, and the judge in the Kitzmiller case, are confusing terms and conflating groups together because it is then easier to paint them with a broad brush rather than have to deal with them separately.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Let the parents decide what kind of school with what kind of a curriculum to send their kids to. Let the parents pay for it.

Here here, I'm all for that.

And not because of evolution versus creationism/ID.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I say put an end to government funded science.

I say put an end to government funded just about everything.

Cheers all, I'll see you tomorrow.