Textbook wars: The fact that something evolved does not mean that Darwinism caused it

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 12, 2012

Books of interest, Intelligent Design, science education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A blog repeats a whole lot of stale stuff about Americans not believing in evolution, in support of a 2013 textbook, whose cover shows insects that look like leaves.

It’s a great cover, but what does it show? That Darwinism is true? Almost everyone crabbing about the fact that Americans do not believe in evolution means that Americans do not believe in Darwinism – the only theory of evolution ever developed explicitly to destroy the idea of design.

Somehow or other, looking five percent like a leaf was supposed to prevent the original forebears of these insects from getting eaten as often as their own forebears did. And the Darwinist’s usual response to any doubt about this explanation has been ridicule – and court cases, if ridicule doesn’t work.

Normal people push back.

By the way, an equally interesting example is the praying mantis that looks like dropped petals. It’s amazing. But it is not evidence for Darwin’s theory either.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Comments

Hi Eric
... I’m struggling to understand why ID would not be considered science...
In my view, for an idea to be scientific, it must clearly and unequivocally entail some consequences that we can empirically test; and the entailment of these consequences should be such that, if they are not found to obtain, the original idea is considered false, at least in part. It appears many feel that, so far, ID proponents have not not met this standard. To be sure, they are facing worldview bias and prejudice, but do these factors alone explain ID's almost complete lack of traction in science? That is not to say ID proponents are not doing science at the "micro" level e.g. Douglas Axe is doing perfectly fine biochemical science. But the argument is that such work does not directly put an entailment of ID to empirical test. My feeling is that ID is still at the "proto-science" stage. It's certainly not an unscientific idea in principle, but it is not yet ready to be subjected to the scientific method. CheersCLAVDIVS_{March 15, 2012
March
03
Mar
15
15
2012
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

Eric, Some comments. Further, in the area of historical sciences (of which origins is one), we are dealing with inferences to the best explanation, which are a perfectly valid form of scientific reasoning in historical sciences. While I think what are usually called "historical sciences" are valid forms of knowledge and reasonable on their own, I'm not as comfortable with calling them "science". Or at least, I think it starts to get messier than most people can accept - similar to the questions of "social sciences". Not everything that leads to reasonable or empirically supported conclusions are necessarily rightly called science. I'll admit my view on this is my own, not any mainstream one. Yet again, the research that Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Doug Axe, and Scott Minnich are doing is certainly scientific in nature. The fact that a design paradigm influences their thinking doesn’t make it not science. Absolutely agreed. When I say that I don't think ID is science, I'm not dumping every observation Behe or others make. For instance, Behe's attempt to find an 'edge of evolution', or argue that there are certain things Darwinian processes cannot be expected to accomplish, seem entirely scientific to me. But those critiques in and of themselves don't involve inferring the presence or lack of design whatsoever. Finally, if we compare what prominent ID proponents are doing with some of the other stuff that passes as “science,” Here's where it gets complicated for me. I think quite a lot of what gets passed off as "science", isn't science. Particular when it comes to the opposite of ID, that "non-design detection". I know Jerry Coyne and Dawkins and company often strongly suggest that "science shows us that humans aren't designed" and such - that's not science either. It's an abuse of science. On the flipside, if someone digs in their heels and says that ID inferences that Coyne and Dawkins make really are science after all, then so too is ID. One or the other, all or none. But I think the more proper approach is to regard any question of design, certainly design on the scales ID tends to make inferences about, as outside of science - whether detecting its presence, or lack.nullasalus_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

Eric -- Sorry, yes it was your comment I was referencing.CLAVDIVS_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

Incidentally, I'm struggling to understand why ID would not be considered science, unless someone is trying to make a hypertechnical distinction between: (i) the general idea of design existing in the universe (which could be contrasted with the non-scientific idea that design doesn't exist), and (ii) the actual work that goes on using a design paradigm. (I'm not sure there is such a distinction; I'm just trying to understand why the idea of being able to detect design would not be viewed as scientific.) Design detection as a basic undertaking is absolutely a scientific exercise. It happens all the time in lots of fields and is every bit as objective, quantified, and scientific as many other things that are considered science. Further, in the area of historical sciences (of which origins is one), we are dealing with inferences to the best explanation, which are a perfectly valid form of scientific reasoning in historical sciences. Design is on absolutely the same scientific footing with any other explanation (Darwinism or otherwise) in that regard. Additionally, if origin of life research in general is a scientific endeavor, then surely analyzing the parameters of abiogenesis -- the available materials, locations, alleged mechanisms, timeframes available and so on -- is a scientific endeavor. And drawing a reasonable inference as to what the best scientific evidence shows and what the most likely explanation is for the origin of life, would certainly be a scientific undertaking. Yet again, the research that Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Doug Axe, and Scott Minnich are doing is certainly scientific in nature. The fact that a design paradigm influences their thinking doesn't make it not science. Finally, if we compare what prominent ID proponents are doing with some of the other stuff that passes as "science," like the papers Matzke often refers us to (Pross' idea of "life as a kinetic state" being just the latest example), or other papers that purport so show some kind of new mechanism for OOL, or Gould't punctuated equilibrium idea (we don't see evolution happening because it is generally happening where we can't see it), or (worse yet) papers that are wildly subjective about how and why a particular biological feature came along, then it seems any fair assessment would have to conclude that the work ID proponents are doing is at least as objective and scientific as any of that stuff.Eric Anderson_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

Clavdivs:
If we grant frontloading at the origin of life, couldn’t it be that subsequent mutations *look* random to us, although they are actually constrained by the complex front-loaded programming?
Absolutely agree. That's why I reference frontloading as a possible way ID can accommodate to universal common descent. If there is front loading, then the only way we can ultimately distinguish between what is random and what is constrained is to understand the parameters of the front loading. Thus, the idea of mutations leading to complex specified information is between a rock and a hard spot: either (i) the mutations are constrained/directed by some kind of front loading, thus allowing them to achieve something meaningful, or (ii) the mutations really are "random" or undirected, in which case they can't really do anything meaningful. (I think you were referencing my comment.)Eric Anderson_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Hi Gregory Just curious. You say:
ID can accommodate all the other concepts of evolution to a greater or lesser degree, partly because we know so little about them. For example, can universal common descent be accommodated within ID? Sure, as long as we posit either some kind of frontloading or intermediate intervention. But if someone were to assert that universal common descent happened by random mutations plus differential survival rates, I would have to argue that ID is against such an idea.
If we grant frontloading at the origin of life, couldn't it be that subsequent mutations *look* random to us, although they are actually constrained by the complex front-loaded programming? CheersCLAVDIVS_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Luckily I’m not your usual ID critic, eh, nullasalus?! Doesn't matter. You're talking about the importance of using these particular terms for 'clarity' and suggesting that this is why critics call ID anti-evolution. I'm suggesting that the reason why critics call ID anti-evolution has far more to do with the usual marketing and politics. Do you really think the controversy over ID boils down to confusion over definitions and book titles? Pull the other one. Surely you’ll acknowledge that the difference of omitting a qualifier to evolution is not trivial, if you do indeed love arguing over details? As I said, my love of arguing over details has a limit. I am entirely in favor of ID proponents clarifying their points. To suggest that ID critics repeatedly call ID "anti-evolution" because (for example) of Behe's book title, despite the actual content of the book, despite Behe being a common descent proponent, etc, is just silly. You may as well be saying ID critics are all a pack of idiots, easily confused by vague titles. Also, shiny objects. Stephen Hawking called his book The Grand Design. Let me guess: plenty of ID critics think that's a book showing how the universe is designed, right? I mean he called it The Grand Design, and it's a book about the universe. Surely Barbara Forrest is that much of an idiot, yeah? In this context, mere USAmerican anti-evolutionsists are little worth taking seriously. In that context. But then again - who cares about that context? For that matter, who cares about Margaret Archer's life work? Dare I suggest, in the context of ID discussions, Margaret Archer is - particularly in a practical sense of the term - damn near irrelevant. Let me be clear: while I don't think ID is science, I do think ID asks some very important questions, and makes inferences I have great sympathy with. I admit the ID movement for making 'design' a subject, not to mention a possible inference, for people within the 'circles' they reach. Rather average people, in fact, who - while they may have picked up or pursued degrees - aren't otherwise academically noteworthy. I really don't care what some particular academic cabal thinks or judges worthy or not, except insofar as it affects we plebes in the greater public. In fact, one contribution to culture ID has made is that it has encouraged people to take such academics less seriously. I look forward to the day when (say) Jerry Coyne's proclamation of what does or does not exhibit design is given, by the public at large, as much weight as a janitor's insight on the same topic.nullasalus_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Likewise, what would have been wrong with Behe naming his book “The Edge of Darwinian Evolution” instead of “The Edge of Evolution”? Surely you’ll acknowledge that the difference of omitting a qualifier to evolution is not trivial, if you do indeed love arguing over details?
Dude- the subtitle of The Edge of Evolution is: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism Chapter 1- "The Elements of Darwinism" Chapter 3- The Mathematical Limits of Darwinism Chapter 4- What Darwinism Can Do Chapter 5- What Darwinism Can't Do "Hello (hello (hello)) Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me Is their anybody home" Which one's Pink...Joe_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

"I’ve watched this debate long enough to know that most ID critics couldn’t care less about accuracy." - nullasalus Luckily I'm not your usual ID critic, eh, nullasalus?! Only a decade for me, including outside of the 'western' framework. And gladly I agree with your view of ID re: not qualifying as 'science.' "What’s wrong with “non-Darwinian evolution”?" - nullasalus Yes, that's a fine description in my books too. Likewise, what would have been wrong with Behe naming his book "The Edge of Darwinian Evolution" instead of "The Edge of Evolution"? Surely you'll acknowledge that the difference of omitting a qualifier to evolution is not trivial, if you do indeed love arguing over details? Perhaps I have more hope than nullasalus to think that, yes indeed, "straightening out the terms would help end confusion." Unfortunately, I imagine he is dealing in far fewer academic disciplines than is needed for a holistic approach to the topic. It may not be catholic/Catholic to think that distinguishing 'design' from 'Design' is ultimately important, but then again there are those like Margaret Archer (Vatican council) who make it their life's work to distinguish 'agency' from 'Agency.' In this context, mere USAmerican anti-evolutionsists are little worth taking seriously.Gregory_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

E.g. Behe’s “The Edge of Evolution” does not qualify itself by saying “The Edge of Darwinian Evolution” or “The Edge of Materialistic Evolution.”
Earth to Gregory- Behe has always made it clear that he is talking about Darwinian evolution- Look at the cover of the book "The Edge of Evolution"- right below that title are 7 words- "The Search for the Limits of Darwinism" What gives Gregory? Do you really think you can waltz around here with obvious nonsense? Really??! BTW in 1997 Dr Spetner posited his "non-random evolutionary hypothesis"- then there is Dr Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, Mike Gene's Front-loaded evolution and I like evolution by design.Joe_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

So what NAME do you use to call the non-Darwinian evolution (not the content of the theory, but its NAME)? What's wrong with "non-Darwinian evolution"? Seems rather accurate to describe "evolutionary theories that are not Darwinian". Iow, who is far enough beyond Darwin to enable an alternative NAME As much as I love - and I mean this, I sincerely love - to argue over details, naming conventions, concepts, etc... this is edging right into "who cares?" territory. And don't tell me that straightening out the terms would help end confusion, because I've watched this debate long enough to know that most ID critics couldn't care less about accuracy. Technically, everything from GE Salmon to what goes on in Craig Venter's lab to AVIDA are all or involve instances of Intelligent Design. No one but ID proponents will ever call those things that, because to do so would make a lot of ID critics freak out at the implications.nullasalus_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

"I don’t get too exercised when people ask about whether ID is anti-evolution, or whether I believe in evolution, and so on. I simply say: “Depends. What do you mean by ‘evolution’?” - Eric Anderson That sounds like a pretty good approach to me. Most IDists accept what I call 'limited evolution.' The main question is where or how they limit it and what they count as 'evolvable' or 'evolutionary' change. Many sides are guilty of obfuscation wrt one of the most interdisciplinary concepts (i.e. 'evolution') in use today. E.g. Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" does not qualify itself by saying "The Edge of Darwinian Evolution" or "The Edge of Materialistic Evolution." By leaving out the Darwinian (or naturalistic, materialistic) qualifier, Behe leaves his main argument open for mis-/re-interpretation. What/where is the end of which evolution? Just Darwinian evolution is of course only a partial view of the field. Can I assume people here agree by definition that ‘Darwinian unevolvability’ is still ‘unevolvability’ and that thus if and when ID is against Darwinian evolution it is at the same time anti-evolution? “one can define evolution in such a way as to make ID be anti-evolution...” One can also define ID in such a way as to make evolution anti-ID...one way which is simply by speaking only of Darwinian evolution. "Even outside of ID, not every kind of evolution is Darwinian evolution."- nullasalus Yes, sure. So what NAME do you use to call the non-Darwinian evolution (not the content of the theory, but its NAME)? Iow, who is far enough beyond Darwin to enable an alternative NAME (e.g. are you suggesting 'Dembskian evolution,' 'Behean evolution' or 'Margulisian evolution')? (Don't worry, nullasalus, I haven't forgotten the other thread and will return to it when time permits.)Gregory_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Joe: "ID is good with 1-5." Agreed. I think we could add a couple more definitions to the list, but that list is a good example of the wide range of definitions and it is really only the blind watchmaker thesis that ID is necessarily in conflict with on that list. The only other use of 'evolution' that I would say ID is definitely in conflict with is when 'evolution' is used to describe abiogenesis, sometimes called "chemical evolution." The blind watchmaker thesis in that instance is not just implied, it is explicit, so I would include naturalistic abiogenesis or "chemical evolution" as something with which ID is in conflict. Otherwise, agreed, everything from "change over time" on up to and even including "universal common descent" can be accommodated within an ID framework. As long as the blind watchmaker thesis doesn't try to come along for a free ride. ----- Maybe the more proper way to look at this is to focus on what ID argues, namely that complex specified information is a reliable indicator of intelligent activity. Thus, any use of the word "evolution" that denies this argument and claims that complex specified information can arise without intelligent input is in contradiction to ID. The two categories in which this is obvious are (i) the blind watchmaker thesis itself, because that is what it means, and (ii) abiogenesis. ID can accommodate all the other concepts of evolution to a greater or lesser degree, partly because we know so little about them. For example, can universal common descent be accommodated within ID? Sure, as long as we posit either some kind of frontloading or intermediate intervention. But if someone were to assert that universal common descent happened by random mutations plus differential survival rates, I would have to argue that ID is against such an idea. What Behe is trying to do is find the "edge of evolution" in terms of what evolution can accomplish. Others have looked at probabilistic resources and argued that any increase in specified information content above a certain boundary, say 500-1000 bits, requires intelligent input. To the extent that universal common descent, new body plans, descent of man, or any other concepts of evolution require informational infusion above that amount, they would argue it is against ID. You are right, of course, that ID is fine with the historical concept of these things coming about; it is the how that can give rise to conflict.Eric Anderson_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

The problem is, of course, is that when the NCSE sez Intelligent Design is anti-evolution, they want people to believe Intelligent Design is against all change- meaning that anti-biotic resistance, peppered moth variation, finch beak variation, etc. refute ID, case closed, nothing to see. Chris Matthews asked Santorum about "evolution" and he said it all depends on what you mean by the word and provided a little explanation. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
ID is good with 1-5Joe_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

EA: See why, on years of exchanges, I use the descriptive term, "evolutionary materialism"? I notice too, there is a pretence that terms like macro-/micro- evolution and darwinism are just used by critics. The weak argument correctives speak to that. KFkairosfocus_{March 14, 2012
March
03
Mar
14
14
2012
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

". . . one can define evolution in such a way as to make ID be anti-evolution . . ." The word "evolution" -- as used in the popular press, scientific articles, by the NCSE, in general when used by most people -- assumes a fully naturalistic and materialistic process. I fully agree with you that we shouldn't let the materialists get away with taking what was a perfectly useful word and turning into a materialist stick to beat everyone over the head. I further agree that it would be preferable if every time the word "evolution" were used there were a footnote explaining which of the many definitions is being used and whether the definition in that particular case is carrying materialistic baggage. But it isn't going to happen in ordinary discourse. As a result I don't get too exercised when people ask about whether ID is anti-evolution, or whether I believe in evolution, and so on. I simply say: "Depends. What do you mean by 'evolution'?"Eric Anderson_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

"Unevolvable by Darwinian means" does not equate to "unevolvable, full stop". Even outside of ID, not every kind of evolution is Darwinian evolution. You can have two people argue over whether natural selection or neutral drift was responsible for some particular trait X, with one side saying the other side's view is extremely unlikely. You don't end up with two people accusing each other of saying X couldn't have evolved at all. Seems like a pretty easy distinction to get.nullasalus_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

‘Darwinian unevolvability’ is still ‘unevolvability.’
Nope. If it evolves by design it still evolves.
‘Unevolvable’ means ‘not capable of evolving.’
In a SPECIFIC CONTEXT- unevolvable in a darwinian context does not = unevolvable in a design context- Behe is referring to unevolvable in a darwinian context. That is the third time I have said that- apparently you have other issues.Joe_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

'Darwinian unevolvability' is still 'unevolvability.' Black and white television or colour television is still a kind of 'television.' 'Unevolvable' means 'not capable of evolving.' I equate this with 'anti-evolution.' Don't you?Gregory_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Gregory- all I remember about you is your whining- but anyway:
Are you suggesting that ‘intelligently designed evolution’ (IDE) or ‘front-loaded evolution’ (IDE) is NOT in fact ‘anti-evolution’?
why would they be anti-evolution? How are YOU defining "evolution"?
If so, then how could IDE or FLE qualify as ‘unevolvability’ as Behe sees it.
It wouldn't- Behe refers to darwinian evolution when he speaks of unevolvbility- anything requiring more than two new protein-to-protein binding sites is beyond darwinian evolution.Joe_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Joe, How could 'unevolvability' not be relavant to your claim that "ID is NOT anti-evolution"? Are you suggesting that 'intelligently designed evolution' (IDE) or 'front-loaded evolution' (IDE) is NOT in fact 'anti-evolution'? If so, then how could IDE or FLE qualify as 'unevolvability' as Behe sees it. Is 'unevolvability' empty without the qualifier? Do you have an explanation for this, i.e. how ID-evolvable or FL-evolvable could qualify as 'unevolvability'? Sounds like a GUT so far...Gregory_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Hi Gregory, If memory serves you "raised" a bunch of something, not sure if it was even relevant. Something about your name, oh well. But anyway- If something evolves because it was designed to do so, then it is ID, not Darwinian evolution. The qualifier is there because Darwinian evolution, and NDE, refer to blind and undirected processes. Intelligent Design evolution refers to directed and designed processes. So behe puts the limit of Darwinian evolution at two new protein-to-protein binding sites. Anything more than that would require IDE or even FLEJoe_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Hi Joe, We discussed this briefly on Elizabeth's blog. You wrote: "Intellgent Design is NOT anti-evolution." There I raised the topic of 'unevolvability'. You agreed, that Behe posits it, but only wrt 'Darwinian unevolvability.' Would you please help by parsing this? How is 'Darwinian unevolvability' still not an example (just drop the qualifier) of the broader term 'unevolvability' and thus in a clear sense, 'anti-evolution'? Here's the premises: 'unevolvable' = 'anti-evolution.' Thanks, G.Gregory_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Yes, Eric- one can define evolution in such a way as to make ID be anti-evolution. However by doing so will expose it as atheistic/ materialistic and as such fall under the separation of Church and State.Joe_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

The problem is that "evolution" is one of the most slippery words in all of language. There are numerous definitions used in the literature and the popular press, ranging from, as I like to say, 'the obvious and well-supported to the outrageous and wildly-speculative.' Is ID anti-evolution? Depends. What do you mean by evolution? It is clear that in the popular press, in textbooks, in most of the literature, "evolution" is used in a sense that assumes, if not explicitly expressing, that everything happened through purely natural and material processes with no intelligent guidance or input. (As shorthand, most of the folks on this blog also use "evolution" in that sense, except when we are specifically discussing what the word means, such as in this thread.) In that sense ID is most definitely anti-evolution, at least insofar as the discussion relates to complex specified information. However, that is not the only meaning of evolution, and if we peel away the materialist gloss, then ID is not anti-evolution in nearly all other senses of the word, up to and including universal common descent. There is certainly much confusion in the public mind regarding what ID really is and how it is defined. However, in many ways the problem is not with the understanding of ID, but with the wildly-shifting definition of "evolution" -- and the materialist gloss that almost always accompanies its use.Eric Anderson_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

This YEC insists there is biological change. People quickly changed upon entering new lands within years or decades after the biblical flood. Marine mammals only adapted to the seas after flood and that quick dramatic. Marsupials are adapted creatures who first were placentals and so why they look exactly alike despite the pouch. I think biological change can be and was profound but not from slow selectionism on mutation. In fact evolution has never been fueled on evidence for its mechanism but on the conviction things did change in their bodies. they simply couldn't figure out another reason how. Darwin was most convinced creatures were not fixed because close island had different looking ones of the same type. The conviction for biological change came first and then the idea. I believe in retrospect this is what will be said when evolutionism is overthrown.Robert Byers_{March 13, 2012
March
03
Mar
13
13
2012
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

Regular folk listen to people like Bill Nye and my bet is Nye is informed by the NCSE. Here's the plan, Collin- get a textbook disclaimers stating that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution, rather it is an alternative theory of evolution- and have the disclaimer explain that ID argues against blind and undirected processes being a designer mimic- and see what happens.Joe_{March 12, 2012
March
03
Mar
12
12
2012
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Joe, And you really think that those people are actually listening to ID talk? Or do they plug their ears?Collin_{March 12, 2012
March
03
Mar
12
12
2012
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Certainly a mixed message appears to be going out from the ID side. Just a quick browse around UD shows many posts where "evolution" or "Darwinism" is criticised, and where it is not clear (to me) that what is really being criticised is an atheistic/philosophical materialist gloss on the science of biology and evolution. Matthew 12:25 -- A city or house divided against itself shall not stand. CheersCLAVDIVS_{March 12, 2012
March
03
Mar
12
12
2012
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Well guys, whatever it is we are doing the point is not getting across- I have seen Bill Nye, the science guy, on CNN talking about how anti-biotic resistance is proof of evolution and evidence against ID, which he thinks = creationism = fixity of species 2005, Dover, PA- take a look at the anti-ID signs saying evolution happens.Joe_{March 12, 2012
March
03
Mar
12
12
2012
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply