Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

AAAS on Teaching Science — Now If They Only Meant It!

arroba Email

Teach Science


How about these alternatives? "Teach All the Science in Science Class" "Teach No 'Just So' in Science Class" "Where the Science Leads, Let the Students Follow." "Just Say 'No' to 'Just So' Science" etc.. Red Reader
I remember reading a couple of days ago from a NYT article, one of the participants in the Darwin conference saying something like, "ID is a great marketing effort." Well, here we have bumper sticker marketing from Darwinists. (This just proves--again--that when Darwinists point one finger at ID, they are pointing three fingers at themselves.) And notice, this bumper sticker depends for success on the confusion that surrounds various definitions of the word "science". The Kansas School Board has be excoriated in the press for defining "science" less strictly that philosophical materialists prefer. I am HAPPY with this bumper sticker if "science" means "following the evidence wherever it might lead". Red Reader
Grrrrr... if only you could edit your posts. Regarding mutation rates -- it isn't the _rate_ which is problematic per se, but the rate of getting beneficial mutations, and of getting them fixed in the population, especially as compared to degenerative mutations. In fact, this was the primary thing that Nunney noticed in The Cost of Natural Selection Revisited -- that the beneficial mutation rate was key. Also, man and ape have different genetic hotspots as well. This is one of the reasons for classifying Neandertal as human -- he shared the same genetic hotspots. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0618neandertal.asp johnnyb
Also, along the lines of mutation rates, see: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CB121 johnnyb
"1. Haldane’s famous example of "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."" Why do you think this would not be redescribed as "reworking"? "The discovery of an entirely different genetic code in, say, domestic cats vs. ocelots." Since neither the genetic code (or its uniformity) are predicted by Darwinian theory, why would this have any effect? "An extremely low mutation rate of, say, one nucleotide per hundred million years per individual." That's a nice "move the goalposts" move. The fact is, the mutation rate is already too low and too well-contained for evolution to occur. See: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm "A complete lack of correlation between phylogenies based on phenetic vs. molecular homologies" This is already the case, and in two ways. First of all, the "homologies" between diverse organisms are accomplished by non-homologous genes. Second of all, the molecular phylogenies usually give very odd results, depending on which gene you sequence. Of course, the funny thing is that most ID'ers don't deny descent with modification. Though I understand their reasons for not doing so, but I think they're wrong :) Darwinism was all about removing teleology from biology. So, the crux of Darwinism is actually to explain descent with modification WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANYTHING OF A TELIC NATURE. Natural selection was supposed to be that, but we keep on seeing teleology everywhere in the genome. And, as Dembski has shown, a blind search resulting in an assisted search is basically impossible. Therefore, the grand idea to explain the telic nature of life in purely atelic descriptions has basically failed. johnnyb
What did Darwin really say about descent with modification? http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-14.html
That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny.
For one thing, it was descent with modification through natural selection. AAAS has evidently dropped the natural selection part of it. Smart move there. So what we have left of Darwin's theory is that organisms bear offspring that aren't exact copies. Wow, what an amazing revelation. Who would have guessed? DaveScot
russ, Elsewhere on this weblog I offered the following four examples of potential observations which I believe would falsify contemporary Darwinian theory: 1. Haldane’s famous example of “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” 2. The discovery of an entirely different genetic code in, say, domestic cats vs. ocelots. 3. An extremely low mutation rate of, say, one nucleotide per hundred million years per individual. 4. A complete lack of correlation between phylogenies based on phenetic vs. molecular homologies. keiths
Isn't this excerpt from their FAQ page evidence that their theory is unfalsifiable, or have I misunderstood the concept of falsification? Did Stephen J. Gould "challenge" contemporary evolutionary theory? [Is there "evidence against" contemporary evolutionary theory? No. There are still many puzzles in biology about the particular pathways of the evolutionary process and how various species are related to one another. However, these puzzles neither invalidate nor challenge Darwin's basic theory of "descent with modification" nor the theory's present form that incorporates and is supported by the genetic sciences. Contemporary evolutionary theory provides the conceptual framework in which these puzzles can be addressed and points toward ways to solve them.] russ

Leave a Reply