Dover decision

[Mike the Lab Rat]

For Dio or anyone else to parse those phrases in a way that remotely suggests that the phrase "natural selection" was EVER at ANY TIME a concept not originating from Darwin's original proposals is deliberately disingenuous.


Talk about disingenuous...

He may or may not have originated the phrase but the concept goes back to Maupertuis, William Charles Wells and his Grandfather Erasmus Darwin.

The disingenuousness arises when ID proponents and/or creationists attempt to present "natural selection" as anything other than a part of Darwin's original proposals....as if modern scientists have renamed Darwin's ideas in some dishonest attempt to avoid argument. The absolute, undeniable fact is that Darwin himself used the phrase in the "Origin of Species" to support and explain descent with modification (In fact the full original title of his book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. He deliberately used that phrase to distinguish it from the artificial selection that humans have used to alter the traits of other species (farm animals and pigeons were his specific, incredibly tediously described examples of artificial selection....). On the other hand, Darwin didn't used the term "evolution" until near the end of the book.

My argument is that the use of the phrase "natural selection" is and has been scientifically used by evolutionists because Darwin himself used it.

And again, is not in dispute from ID, unlike descent with modification.

Actually, a quick google search within the Discovery Institute's own site reveals several articles disputing various aspects natural selection, from Darwin's premises to its current application in evolutionary theory. You want a list, go there yourself.

[Diogenes]

The disingenuousness arises when ID proponents and/or creationists attempt to present "natural selection" as anything other than a part of Darwin's original proposals....as if modern scientists have renamed Darwin's ideas in some dishonest attempt to avoid argument.

And who does that?

I've pointed out countless times that natural selection is the element of Darwinian theory that IS beyond dispute.

As opposed to those who attempt to distort ID by confluting natural selection and Darwin's theory, saying that anyone who is unconvinced by the fossil record, evolutionists 'open system' argument as pertaining to entropy et al were somehow attacking natural selection.

Actually, a quick google search within the Discovery Institute's own site reveals several articles disputing various aspects natural selection, from Darwin's premises to its current application in evolutionary theory.

So what?

Got any articles claiming it is a faulty theory on it's own merits?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I've pointed out countless times that natural selection is the element of Darwinian theory that IS beyond dispute.

And as I have pointed out, trying to separate descent with modification from natural selection is disingenuous, as is your claim that "descent with modification is the part of Darwins theory ID proponents take exception to, which is why neodarwinsts invariably like to talk about natural selection, which nobody in the ID movement takes issue with." That's a big fat fib and you know it. Folks who are convinced about the evidence for evolution discuss natural selection because it is the mechanism proposed by Darwin for evolutionary theory and what we teach in schools (as opposed to "spontaneous abiogenesis", which I know isn't part of NYS's curriculum on the topic).

As opposed to those who attempt to distort ID by confluting natural selection and Darwin's theory,

As Reagan would say, "there you go again." There is no "conflation" - natural selection is the specific process Darwin proposed.

saying that anyone who is unconvinced by the fossil record, evolutionists 'open system' argument as pertaining to entropy et al were somehow attacking natural selection.

Ummm......red herring much?

Anti-evolutionist arguments fall flat because they fail to dispel the obvious preponderance of evidence from not only fossil records, but from molecular biology and genetics (my area), developmental biology, morphology, geology, physics...

But feel free to continue mischaracterizing scientific arguments. It really helps to continue undermining what little shreds of credibility you have any time you discuss anthing remotely related to science....

Actually, a quick google search within the Discovery Institute's own site reveals several articles disputing various aspects natural selection, from Darwin's premises to its current application in evolutionary theory.

So what?

That appears to be your standard answer anytime one of your points is flatly refuted. You claimed that natural selection "is not in dispute in ID." The very presence of articles disputing natural selection at the very home of ID, the Discovery Institute, shows that you don't even know what your alleged comrades in intellectual ignorance and dishonesty believe...

ID folks tried arguing that it was legitimate science....and then when that fell on its face, they tried changing the rules of acceptable science for the sole purpose of sliding their cryptocreationism in

ID folks denied that they had any ties to creationism...and then communication of strategies with creationist folks came out, as did quotes from ID folks admitting that their position was framed to support the idea of the Christian god as the designer

ID folks have shown a repeated tendency to deliberately misquote scientists to make it appear that they doubt natural selection.

ID folks have deliberately mischaracterized how scientific research is done, how theories develop (and the definition of "theory"), how peer review works, and have lied about the universal acceptance of natural selection (as proposed by Darwin and modified by modern scientific understandings in genetics, etc.) in science.

Nice group of folks.

[Diogenes]

There is no "conflation" - natural selection is the specific process Darwin proposed

In other words, if natural selection exists, descent with modification is a given?

There is actually a slight differance between saying that traits which are contrary to survival will tend to be weeded out and saying that man is descended from a hairy arboreal quadruped with a bushy tail and pointed ears.

feel free to continue mischaracterizing scientific arguments. It really helps to continue undermining what little shreds of credibility you have any time you discuss anthing remotely related to science....

I've yet to mischarecterize anything, unlike your constant insistance that ID and creationism are one and the same.

That appears to be your standard answer anytime one of your points is flatly refuted. You claimed that natural selection "is not in dispute in ID." The very presence of articles disputing natural selection at the very home of ID, the Discovery Institute, shows that you don't even know what your alleged comrades in intellectual ignorance and dishonesty believe...

Actually what I said was "Got any articles claiming it is a faulty theory on it's own merits?"

I guess that's a big no with a side order of ad hominemns to go.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

There is no "conflation" - natural selection is the specific process Darwin proposed

In other words, if natural selection exists, descent with modification is a given?

You're really not good at this.

Darwin proposed descent with modification and proposed that HOW it happened was through natural selection.

Natural selection was HOW he explained how the species changed.

There is actually a slight differance between saying that traits which are contrary to survival will tend to be weeded out and saying that man is descended from a hairy arboreal quadruped with a bushy tail and pointed ears.

Really? Why? Natural selection states that there are must be genetic variation and that those traits that help a individuals survive and reproduce tend to be kept, while disadvantageous traits tend to decrease in frequency. Accumulation of beneficial mutations, reproductive isolation, etc. help new species develop.

I've yet to mischarecterize anything, unlike your constant insistance that ID and creationism are one and the same.

Liar. You have repeatedly -in this and other ID-related threads- mischaracterized the arguments supporting natural selection, mischaracterized scientific arguments and the nature of how science is done, mischaracterized statements from the Dover trials...and have responded by ignoring the evidence against you. Then again, that's a typical ID strategy.

BTW, the Dover trial pretty much showed the utter lie of the "ID is not creationism" argument.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and admits in interviews that its a duck...

[Diogenes]

There is no "conflation" - natural selection is the specific process Darwin proposed

In other words, if natural selection exists, descent with modification is a given?

You're really not good at this.

Darwin proposed descent with modification and proposed that HOW it happened was through natural selection.

Natural selection was HOW he explained how the species changed.

The existance of the proposed method doesn't prove the theory.

There is actually a slight differance between saying that traits which are contrary to survival will tend to be weeded out and saying that man is descended from a hairy arboreal quadruped with a bushy tail and pointed ears.

Really? Why? Natural selection states that there are must be genetic variation and that those traits that help a individuals survive and reproduce tend to be kept, while disadvantageous traits tend to decrease in frequency. Accumulation of beneficial mutations, reproductive isolation, etc. help new species develop.

Beneficial mutations are the unproven part of your train of assumptions.

Nice circular reasoning though.


If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

....then it must be an atheist?

Nice Dr D. impression, BTW.

[Mister Bushice]

Give it up Dio. MtLR just drew and quartered you big time.

There comes a time when digging only gets you in deeper. You have reached that point.

[Diogenes]

Give it up Dio. MtLR just drew and quartered you big time.

There comes a time when digging only gets you in deeper. You have reached that point.

Well as long as his fellow atheists are convinced...

[Terry in Crapchester]

Give it up Dio. MtLR just drew and quartered you big time.

There comes a time when digging only gets you in deeper. You have reached that point.

Well as long as his fellow atheists are convinced...

Going back to your characterization of those who accept evolution as "fundies," seems to me that one of the telltale signs of religious fundamentalism is characterizing those who disagree with you as "atheists."

But keep spinning, it's entertaining to watch.

Rack MtLR, btw.

[Diogenes]

Give it up Dio. MtLR just drew and quartered you big time.

There comes a time when digging only gets you in deeper. You have reached that point.

Well as long as his fellow atheists are convinced...

Going back to your characterization of those who accept evolution as "fundies," seems to me that one of the telltale signs of religious fundamentalism is characterizing those who disagree with you as "atheists."

Or sarcasm in my case.

In the case of the neodarwinists, however, they do tend to label anyone who criticizes them as 'creationist' whether said critic supports special creation or not.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Natural selection was HOW he explained how the species changed.

The existance of the proposed method doesn't prove the theory.

The proposed method (natural selection) has a substantial amount of evidence to support it, and there is also a huge amount of evidence to support that natural selection IS the mechanism that drives descent with modification. We have found transitional forms, we have found intermediate steps of molecular pathways like blood clotting...

Beneficial mutations are the unproven part of your train of assumptions.

Once again, you're wading into an area into which you know absolutely nothing.

If the accumulation of beneficial mutations is a correct explanation, then we should find intermediate steps for complex structures like the human eye and for complex pathways like blood clotting.

And guess what....we do.

The blood clotting bit we've gone over before. But as far as the evolution of the vertebrate eye, there's a researcher at the U. of Saskatchewan, Thurston Lacalli, who has very nicely shown how a stepwise series of slight changes from lanclet eyespots can result in the complex human eye. His hypthesis also explains why our eyes suck structurally. If it was "designed," it was done so quite poorly. If it evolved (which it did), the design flaws are easily understandable if they are based on the tweaking (via mutation) of already existing structures. In class, I show a video segment on Dr. Lacalli's research after a probability activity using cards, and my students easily understand afterwards how the process works.

I also debunk the creationist canard that "mutations are almost always harmful" by pointing out that sometimes even seemingly harmful mutations like those causing sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis appear to have conferred certain advantages in the populations in which they are found.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

....then it must be an atheist?

Nice Dr D. impression, BTW.

Awwwww.....I must have hit a nerve if you've had to resort to referring to me as an atheist.

Once again, you've decided to resort to an absolute lie. Neither I, nor many of the most vocal proponents of evolution, including the devout Roman Catholic scientist, Ken Miller, are atheists. Heck, a whole bunch of denominations (Christian and Jewish) have put out statements supporting evolution, which further proves that your statement is a lie.

But, hey, if you insist on using the typical ID/creationist ploy of setting up what is known as a "false choice," (either you believe in evolution or God...evolution and theism are incompatible, yadda-yadda) then I and everyone reading this thread know that you're grasping at straws.

[Diogenes]

But, hey, if you insist on using the typical ID/creationist ploy of setting up what is known as a "false choice," (either you believe in evolution or God...evolution and theism are incompatible, yadda-yadda) then I and everyone reading this thread know that you're grasping at straws.

It's rather like the false choice of saying anyone who disputes the tenets of neodarwinism is a creationist, whether or not they claim to believe in creationism.

Except that I was just using it as an analogy, whereas you have been throwing oyt the ID=creationism crap from the start.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

But, hey, if you insist on using the typical ID/creationist ploy of setting up what is known as a "false choice," (either you believe in evolution or God...evolution and theism are incompatible, yadda-yadda) then I and everyone reading this thread know that you're grasping at straws.

It's rather like the false choice of saying anyone who disputes the tenets of neodarwinism is a creationist, whether or not they claim to believe in creationism.

Except that I was just using it as an analogy, whereas you have been throwing oyt the ID=creationism crap from the start.

"Using it as an analogy?!?"

Bull.

From Day One, you have equated evolution with atheism and cast aspersions on the legitimacy and/or orthodoxy of Christian denominations that support the teaching of evolution.

And as for my "throwing out the ID=creationism crap from the start," pay frigging attention. The title of the thread specifically refers to the Dover case.....in which creationist fundamentalist Christians DID equate ID with their creationist ends, which is why they chose it as a strategy(and why the Discovery Institute helped them).

In the Dover case, it was made perfectly clear that both ID and creationism make the same points, use the same strategies, and most damning of all, a book used to push ID propaganda to kids, "Of Pandas and People," was outed as a creationist tract in which the various forms of the word "creationism" in the original version were, -in over 150 spots in the book- replaced with "intelligent design/ID." Anyone with a functioning synapse can see the utter transparency of their motives....

Yet another swing and a miss on your part...

[Diogenes]

From Day One, you have equated evolution with atheism and cast aspersions on the legitimacy and/or orthodoxy of Christian denominations that support the teaching of evolution.

No, I pointed out the dependency of atheism on neodarwinism, and pointed out the absurdity of 'christians' who attack anyone who disputes said orthodoxy as 'fundies' or 'thumpers'.

Whether you admit it or not, there is a differance between seeing evidence of design in the universe and believing it was created in 6 24 hour days, and a differance between wanting the arguments against neodarwinism presented and wanting Genesis taught in the classroom.

And as for my "throwing out the ID=creationism crap from the start," pay frigging attention. The title of the thread specifically refers to the Dover case.....in which creationist fundamentalist Christians DID equate ID with their creationist ends, which is why they chose it as a strategy(and why the Discovery Institute helped them).


Actually the Discovery Institute distanced itself from them because they and TMLC displayed an agenda.

The Dover case will have little to no value as a precedent on future ID cases.

[Mister Bushice]

The Dover case will have little to no value as a precedent on future ID cases.[/b]

If they try to dress it up in creationist clothing again it will.

[Diogenes]

The Dover case will have little to no value as a precedent on future ID cases.

If they try to dress it up in creationist clothing again it will.

You mean if another bunch of creationists tries to use ID to forward their agenda.

It still will have nothing to do with ID per se.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

No, I pointed out the dependency of atheism on neodarwinism, and pointed out the absurdity of 'christians' who attack anyone who disputes said orthodoxy as 'fundies' or 'thumpers'.

They're not attacking "anyone who disputes" evolution - they're attacking folks who quite obviously have a Christian fundamentalist agenda and who are using ID as a Trojan horse to sneak creationism in.

Whether you admit it or not, there is a differance between seeing evidence of design in the universe and believing it was created in 6 24 hour days, and a differance between wanting the arguments against neodarwinism presented and wanting Genesis taught in the classroom.

First off, as was pointed out in the Dover case, the phrase "seeing evidence of design" is a laughable statement, completely subjective and utterly unprovable as a scientific proposition. Even Behe admitted that the whole "seeing design' bit was subjective and not science.

Actually the Discovery Institute distanced itself from them because they and TMLC displayed an agenda.

Nice try, but no dice. The Discovery Institute did aid the Dover school board prior to the legal fiasco - they were sought out by Bonsall et al. and were encouraged to use ID as a way to get the creationist agenda into the district. The Discovery Institute deliberately used Dover to try to ID into a school, knowing full well that Bonsall et al. were creationists. They only pulled out when it the whole thing became a legal fiasco that would very publicly out ID as cryptocreationism. Which it is.

The Dover case will have little to no value as a precedent on future ID cases.

So says your oh-so-incisive legal mind. Considering that you've completely screwed up every one of your takes on science, you'll have to forgive us all for granting your legal opinion any weight...

BTW, I recently read an article in which the Dover case was specifically named as showing a "roadmap" on how to upend the "ID-in-schools" folks. Apparently, focusing on the complete lack of scientific merit of ID will be a continued strategy, as is revealing the unscientific argument of a mysterious, unprovable "designer."

[Diogenes]

The Discovery Institute deliberately used Dover to try to ID into a school, knowing full well that Bonsall et al. were creationists. They only pulled out when it the whole thing became a legal fiasco that would very publicly out ID as cryptocreationism. Which it is.

No, they withdrew because TMLC wouldn't let them bring private councel in and speak to ID seperate from the plaintiffs.

They're not attacking "anyone who disputes" evolution - they're attacking folks who quite obviously have a Christian fundamentalist agenda and who are using ID as a Trojan horse to sneak creationism in.


Flew and Popper (before he decided to pull a Galileo and recant his heresies) might disagree with you.