Darwinism Intelligent Design News

At ENV, Ann Gauger notes something that had occurred to the News desk here as well

Spread the love

The irrelevant “evolution” spin that many science papers seem forced to adopt.

Namely,

Biology papers are ubiquitously colored by evolutionary interpretation, which can be separated from actual experimental results. Scientists ought to be clear about the difference between the underlying observations and the interpretation layered on them in what they write, and in particular in what they say to the general public. But it is not so.

Now the question becomes which explanation fits the facts. The evolutionary view attributes any observed similarity to evolutionary relatedness, and explains all biological structures as the result of purely natural evolutionary processes. This is the case even for complicated biological apparatus like programmed cell death, the cell cycle system, chromatin remodeling machinery, structures like the nuclear envelope, or for DNA sequences like the Y chromosome MSY (see above). On the other hand, these same structures can be attributed to design. The words used to describe them (apparatus, machinery, system) reveal their similarity to intelligently designed objects.

Life certainly looks designed. Design language unintentionally pervades mainstream papers despite a bias against intelligent design. It’s so noticeable that articles have been written urging scientists to avoid teleological language (that is to say, design language) and use more evolutionary language. In other words, more spin.

Her examples are worth a look. Basically, the story seems to be, shout the “evolution” shout but talk as though design is true And hope that only a fusspot notices.

Note: A researcher who was hostile to design told me many years ago that he would not be allowed to research various projects that interested him if he could not explain to his supervisors how the circumstance arose by Darwinian means.

Garbage in = ?? You smart persons, you do the math to complete the equation, okay?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “At ENV, Ann Gauger notes something that had occurred to the News desk here as well

  1. 1
    DavidD says:

    As usual good observation and well done by Ann Gauger. It reminds me of the article by Philip Skell in 2005 where he wrote, “Why do we invoke Darwin?” and was fair in assessing the same trouble if substitution of the words creation, Buddha, Christ, God, etc were replaced where evolution or Darwin were inserted. In any event, none of those names, titles, words etc would add meaning to the actual subject of the paper other than pacifying the faith of the follower. It’s like the mere act of mentioning evolution or Darwin makes it so. It’s a sort of faith affirmation or even an act of placing a pinch of incense into the alter before the image of Darwin and acknowledging the Emperor as god/king.

    http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....e-Darwin-/

    .

  2. 2
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Excellent post. Ann Gauger always seems to put the evolutionary problem in sharp-focus.

    Scientists ought to be clear about the difference between the underlying observations and the interpretation layered on them in what they write, and in particular in what they say to the general public. But it is not so.

    The appeal for clarity is important. There are at least two reasons why scientists muddy their writings with ambiguity and failure to draw clear distinctions:
    1. To make them sound more impressive. Scholar-speak always suffers from this. The less they have to say, the more words they use to say it.
    2. To cover up the lack of demonstrable evidence.

    Now the question becomes which explanation fits the facts. The evolutionary view attributes any observed similarity to evolutionary relatedness, and explains all biological structures as the result of purely natural evolutionary processes.

    The key word is “explanation”. Its another means of saying “interpretation of the facts”. Evolutionists don’t like to admit that they’re offering interpretations. That’s where the story-telling comes into play.

    One part that’s missing is an actual demonstration of the evolutionary story. Anybody can create explanations.

Leave a Reply