Well, the sticker should be removed simply because it states a falsehood.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Brit:

That's even anti-scientific. But, at any rate, Americans disagree 80-20.

That 80% think a falsehood is true only serves to illustrate the importance of removing the sticker.

Brit:

You Euros have your religious faith, we have ours.

As a product of Cobb county public schools, I will add that the students no doubt find this wrangling comical.

This isn't the only such flap; there was one over Marxism twenty years ago. I expect this, as that, is overblown and overreported. The stickers will go in, the fundamentalists will accept it as a token of respect for their views, and nothing much will change on the ground.

How about some creative compromises here:

"Evolution is a fact, but it is still wrong", or

"Evolution is a fact, evolutionists are a theory."

Those should send the kids scrambling over here pretty fast.

Evolution is a fact. Darwin's explanation of it is a theory.

In any case, the biological religion on the left isn't evolution but environmentalism.

Joseph:

Spot on.

Evolution by natural selection is the theory.

And it's a theory in the sense that "communism doesn't work" is a theory.

You might not be able to absolutely prove it yet, but there's an awful lot of evidence and anyone with half a brain knows it's true really...

Brit:

Come to America--no one here believes in it except intellectuals, who have religious faith in it. I don't know anyone who's intelligence I respect who buys it.

OJ, could you recommend some good books or other resources about evolution?

OJ:

I've been to America numerous times. You're lovely people and you have wonderful ice cream.

Guy:
"What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr is the standard.

But I also recently came across the excellent "Introducing Evolution", published by Icon books (they do that whole series on scientists, philosophers etc)- it's got pictures and everything.

Brit:

Mayr says it's just a philosophy, not a science, certainly not truth:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/009588.html

Forget it OJ. I'm not going to nibble at that bait again.

Brit: What are your friends saying about our election?

David:

You mean, am I the only one who doesn't think Bush is far too dumb to be in charge of the world's largest superpower?

Yes, pretty much.

(But then, they don't know much about evolution either)

Guy:

The best of the Darwinists is Ernst Mayr, who recognizes it as mostly a change in philosophy:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674639065/juddsbookreviews

The most amusing skeptic is David Stove:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1239/

A technical argument can be found in Darwin's Black Box:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684834936/juddsbookreviews

The seminal rational argument against is in Darwin on Trial:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830813241/juddsbookreviews

I don't know anyone resorting to logic chopping, tendentious reasoning, wilful abuse of scientific concepts and refusal to correct demonstrably wrong assertions whose intelligence, or intellectual rigor, I respect.

Your mileage may vary.

Jeff:

"wilful abuse of scientific concepts"

Is that a felony or a misdemeanor?

As OJ points out, there are indeed on or two semi-literate books out there attempting to prove the 'theory' of darwinism wrong.

But not nearly as many as there are semi-literate books attempting to prove the theory of communism right.

Brit:

Oh, I would be very careful with that argument. Would you not agree there is little realtion between the worth of communism and the number of books by intellectuals praising it.

Peter:

ho hum.

Point taken. I'll give you that one.

I think it would be far easier to simply teach the kids what a "theory" is - in this case, "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another" and not "an unproved assumption."

That, and simply say that science and religion are indeed two different things - one deals in proof, the other in faith. That way we don't have to go over every single creation story from every religion before we get to the date we discovered the first dinosaur fossil, and other facts that don't rely on the unseen.

Thanks (to both sides) for the recommendations.

Orrin isn't going to stop misrepresenting Mayr, and I'm not going to ask him to stop. I already have, and he wouldn't.

But, for the record, he's misrepresented Mayr.

You left out that a theory also has a falsifiable explanation for those observations. Observations are facts, while a theory is not, and both sides of this argument deliberately confuse the two.

For example, the various effects (time dilation, precession of Mercury's orbit, observed location of stars near sun during eclipse, etc.) are facts which the Special Theory of Relativity attempts to explain. But just because it does so does not make Relativity a fact.

Harry/Brit/Jeff:

OK, guys, let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that, completely independent of the wishes of the majority of parents, the children: a) must attend school; b)must study science;c) must study evolution as part of the science curriculum; d)must learn it is a fact; and e) must be prohibited fron studying religion or ID theories on the basis that they are unscientific and/or consitute an imposition of religion?

Just asking.

Peter:

You can't understand anything in biology unless you have an understanding of evolution.

In biology classes they should be told that evolution is a fact.

It should be explained to them that natural selection is the best explanation for evolution that science has, and shown all the evidence for it. But it should also be explained that its details are always being refined, that there are areas where the theory is incomplete and that certain discoveries could prove it wrong.

They can find out about ID and creationism in Religious Studies classes. There is no place for either in the biology classroom.

What Brit said.

"Brit: What are your friends saying about our election?"

Heh. Have you seen that Daily Mirror headline?

Yes. If one of you guys wants to pick up a copy, I'll gladly pay to have it shipped over here. In fact, if you pick up a bunch of 'em, I'll start giving them out as holiday gifts. Works for libs and conservatives.

Brit:

So in the name of what authority are you overruling the parents? The state? Truth?

(BTW, you are cheating. This is public school, here, not college. I asked whether you thought science should be compulsory. Religious Studies isn't even allowed, except as a kind of social science where they learn how all faiths are equally wrong.

Brit:

Reverse that. There are exactly as many books defending Communism, Darwinism, Freudianism, etc. as falsehood requires. There are rather few on the opposite side because dispositive.

Brit:

The Wife is a doctor and Other Brother has a doctorate in biology and neither found it terrinbly hard to be skeptical about evolution while learning the rest.

Just John:

They aren't different.

M Ali:
Yes - a classic. Have to admit, it made me laugh out loud in the newsagent.

David:
As you may well know, the Mirror was the most rabidly anti-war tabloid. Piers Morgan, the editor and a loathsome individual, was amusingly sacked after publishing a set of fake photos apparently depicting British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners.

Peter:
Yes, science ought to be compulsory up to sixth-form age (16-17). If you're going to teach any scientific facts, evolution has to be one of them. Otherwise you'll have to put stickers on physics books explaining that 'gravity is only a theory'.

I don't care what individual parents think - they can teach their kids whatever crackpot rubbish they like outside school hours. In fact, if they don't know that evolution is a fact, I would make the parents come along to biology classes too. And I'd make the dumbest ones stand in the corner, and I'd beat the naughty ones with a big stick.

OJ:
You mean they're sceptical of evolution or of natural selection?

They're just saying that to shut you up.

In principle, biology differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don't know exceptions so I think it's probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.

Now then you can say, how can you have theories in biology if you don't have laws on which to base them? Well, in biology your theories are based on something else. They're based on concepts. Like the concept of natural selection forms the basis of, practically the most important basis of, evolutionary biology. You go to ecology and you get concepts like competition or resources, ecology is just full of concepts. And those concepts are the basis of all the theories in ecology. Not the physical laws, they're not the basis. They are of course ultimately the basis, but not directly, of ecology. And so on and so forth. And so that's what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.

Brit:

Why? Seriously, take a moment and tell me why you are so adamant that it be taught even if the parents don't want it. There is lots of science that can be taught without it and those that need it professionally can get it in university. What drives you to want everyone to be forced to learn this one particular scientific theory at such a young age? I doubt very much you would have such strong feelings about whether all the kiddies learned about continental drift or black holes.

"Now then you can say, how can you have theories in biology if you don't have laws on which to base them? Well, in biology your theories are based on something else. They're based on concepts. Like the concept of natural selection forms the basis of, practically the most important basis of, evolutionary biology."

Well, you can't do controlled experiments for the most part but cumulative empirical evidence (such as mtDNA in molecular clocks) works well enough for the most part.

"Why? Seriously, take a moment and tell me why you are so adamant that it be taught even if the parents don't want it. There is lots of science that can be taught without it and those that need it professionally can get it in university. What drives you to want everyone to be forced to learn this one particular scientific theory at such a young age? I doubt very much you would have such strong feelings about whether all the kiddies learned about continental drift or black holes."

What? Are you comfortable with anyone who doesn't take a biological science as a major believing the major scientific theory of our age is bunk at a time when the use and abuse of DNA is likely to be one of the critical public issues of the 21st century? Education isn't here to act as a comfort for mummy and daddy that their child is suitably indoctrinated, it's around to provide people with the tools they need to understand the world around him. Kids don't need to know how the law of supply and demand works either to function in life or the causes and events of WW2 but I'd much rather they did.

Personally I don't know why creationist assaults on evolution are even felt to be necessary. Faith in the Creator does not require reason nor does it require verification in the physical world.

Peter:

Because evolution is fundamental to understanding biology.

If parents insist on disclaimers re evolution by natural selection I can live with that, but teaching natural history and biology while denying the pupils evolution is like trying to teach geography while denying them maps.

M Ali/Ernst:

OJ often quotes that passage because for some reason he's under the delusion that it supports his argument that darwinism is not a science.

M Ali/Brit

I can't believe where this is taking you guys. I asked you in whose name you would overrule the parents or community and you don't answer, except to say "stupid parents". Maybe, but as a matter of political philosophy, what difference is there between yours and the Soviet theory of education on this one? Who do you say makes the call? The State? Scientists? The educational professionals supported by the taxpayer? And, at the same time, what authority consigns ID to the land of voodoo?

Also, aren't you being disingenuous? It is all well and good for we clever types here to draw fine distinctions between evolution writ large and natural selection, or between facts and theory, but that isn't what is happening in the public schools. These are kids and they are no more going to make all those fine distinctions than they would study St. Augustine in Sunday School. Natural selection IS evolution at that level. It's the sexy part and the only thing of interest to the average kid of that age. Do you believe they do school projects on how the cow grew larger ears? Of course not. They do timelines on slugs to man and draw cute pictures of all the stops along the way. And you don't even want them to know there are skeptics out there.

Once again, we start with an article about some community wanting to teach evolution with a modest disclaimer and twenty posts later you are frothing about efforts to ban evolution from the classrooms and warning of censorship and book-burnings. You guys are the fanatics and would make good witnesses for the ACLU. Admit it, you do not want the kids to know that anyone challenges anything about evolution/Darwinism/whatever.

The analogies to DNA or WW 11 are misleading because there is no general, principled controversy here(except for the odd New England blogger). A better analogy is global warming, which certainly seems to have the backing of the majority of scientists. Is that fact alone enough to convince you the kids should be taught bt non-expert teachers that we are wrecking the planet and must change our ways? If so, I have good news for you. They are.

Peter:

Why oh why do you keep blurring the distinction between evolution and evolution by natural selection?

Evolution is the basis for both Darwinism and ID:

Darwinism is evolution by natural selection.
ID is evolution by divine intervention.

You have to teach evolution before you can teach either of the above.

This isn't some kind of clever-clever elitist distinction that only those of us in the know understand. It's absolutely basic.

I've made my position perfectly clear:

Evolution is a scientific fact. It should be treated exactly the same as all scientific facts.

If parent want to insist on disclaimers regarding evolution by natural selection, and tell kids that some people think it's wrong and have this theory called ID, then fine, I can live with that.

Christian creationism is a totally different ballgame to ID, since unlike ID, it denies evolution. It does not do so on scientific grounds, but on mythological, or faith grounds.

Creationism has to deny all sorts of elements of science: geology, archaeology, natural history, biology, anthropology, geography. It is anti-science. So keep it in the RE classroom, and out of the science lab.

Brit:

"If parent want to insist on disclaimers regarding evolution by natural selection, and tell kids that some people think it's wrong and have this theory called ID, then fine, I can live with that."

Good. So you are opposed to the ACLU. Good man. Of course, you can't possibly square that statement with your first one at the top of this thread without your deft sleight of hand, but no matter. Let's talk about soccer. Silly game for pussies.

Peter:

Sigh.

The sticker says "Evolution is a theory, not a fact".

I object to that because it is a falsehood.
Evolution is a fact, not a theory. An ID proponent would agree with me.

If the sticker said "Evolution by natural selection is a theory, not a fact", I would not have the same objections.

I'm not really sure how I can make it any clearer than that.

"d)must learn it is a fact; and e) must be prohibited fron studying religion or ID theories on the basis that they are unscientific and/or consitute an imposition of religion?"

Peter:

Sorry, a little late to the fight.

Brit is exactly right, except for YECs--who are barking mad--evolution is a fact. Heck, even OJ agrees evolution is a fact, if you want some kind of idea how massively factual it is.

So, yes, I want the fact--the what--of evolution taught.

The How, of course, is something entirely different. Science is not a faith, it is a process, a wholly non-sectarian process. It has certain identifiable components, one being the science is virtually always a hypethetico-deductive enterprise. That is, in order to be scientific, the hypothesis must have deductive consequences.

This is what distinguishes the Theory of Evolution (How) from YEC/Creationism/ID -- Evolution has many deductive consequences, all of which are testable, and all of which have proven true (This, by the way, reveals OJ's tendentious quote mining). The others have none.

As soon as one or any of them can develop deductive consequences, then they belong in science classes. Until then, they don't.

Not because they are religiously based, but because they are not science. The same reasoning applies to Astrology.

I don't know the specifics of the ACLU's position on this, but prohibiting the teaching about what the process of science has yielded in explaining evolution is the imposition of a particular religious viewpoint on a religiously neutral process.

Brit:

That's silly. Biology isn't dependent on Darwinism.

Brit/Jeff

Fine, I shall write out "Evolution is a fact." one hundred times on the blackboard today. Yes, I understand. Yes, I agree. OK?

Look, I am a lawyer and am interested in the political and educational side of this. I have no way of verifying the fossil record, but, man, all those tables and charts and diagrams of slimey things are very impressive. But whatever fine scientific distinctions you whizzkids want to draw, the fact is that it is the scientific and educational establishments that fudge the distinctions between evolution and natural selection. Dawkins and Mayr and every science teacher in the public schools are making sure that everyone sees them as going hand in hand and, like you two, will only make the distinction when under a focused attack. It is you who are promoting and encouraging the confusion, because you really believe natural selection is a fact, too, even though you can't prove it. For shame!!

Brit:

Evolution and Darwinism are identical because you guys stopped looking for the truth once you stumbled down the blind alley.

Christian Creation does not deny Evolution, it just says God was the evolver.

I don't think that creationism (both "young earth creationism" and "intelligent design") should be kept out of biology class.

Instead, the teacher should present them all as competing explanations and assign each as positions to be argued and defended to individual students (preferably not based on the individual's predisposition).

Make the students research their case and debate it in class. It would make biology class a lot more exciting.

The teacher should limit himself to the role of facilitator and referee, instead of arbiter.

Peter:

One thing is for sure: that sticker isn't going to help make the distinction between evolution and Darwinism any clearer, is it?

As to your other point:
"...every science teacher in the public schools are making sure that everyone sees them as going hand in hand and, like you two, will only make the distinction when under a focused attack..."

That's undoubtedly true. I generally only bother making the distinction explicit when discussing it with Intelligent Design proponents. I acknowledge that the distinction is nonetheless there, and in fact it is obviously crucial for IDers.

Among biologists, pretty much everyone is a darwinist. There's all sorts of scientific debate and disagreement about evolution. But there is no scientific evidence or serious scientific literature in support of ID.

So here's what I think should happen with the kids in Brit's Ideal Biology Class:
1) Tell them that evolution is a fact.
2) Explain how the theory of natural selection explains the fact of evolution. Show them the evidence.
3) Explain that there is another explanation of evolution, namely ID. Show them the evidence.

The fact that there isn't much in the way of evidence for ID is a separate issue, and if my fair and balanced method results in lots of kids rejecting ID, well, that's hardly my fault, is it?

----

OJ:

1) I said biology relies on evolution. You can't even understand what a species is without knowing about evolution.

2) "Evolution and Darwinism are identical" contradicts everything you've ever said on the subject.

3) By "Christian Creationism" I refer specifically to the literal interpretation of Genesis.
Someone who says "God was the evolver" I refer to as an ID proponent.

You can disagree with my definitions if you want, but that's how you should read my posts.

---

Eugene:

That would be a very bad biology class, but a very good philosophy/debating class.

Brit,

Your model is that knowledge flows downward from the teacher, as the dispenser of wisdom, to the receptacles (students).

My proposal is to empower the students to organize themselves to learn about biology and evolution. I happen to believe that the modern theory of evolution has most of the facts on its side.

Therefore there is no need to stack the deck. Granted, in some cases there will be particularly persuasive students arguing for the faith-based alternatives -- or for radical skepticism -- and convincing fellow students. It's a small price to pay for engaging the attention of nearly everyone in the class. I guarantee you there will be very few students reading the funnies under their desk while the debate is on.

Brit:

Why not teach them the facts? Life on Earth evolved and no one has any idea how it happened.

Jeff:

It's just another faith, but that doesn't make it unteachable.

Orrin,

People have plenty of ideas how life evolved.

Not everyone agrees. I think there is room for opposing views and debate.

I think your particular position on darwinism lacks credibility, OJ.

The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure that you don't really believe it either.

Eugene:

Yes, but none withstand scientific inquiry.

"My proposal is to empower the students to organize themselves to learn about biology and evolution. I happen to believe that the modern theory of evolution has most of the facts on its side.

Therefore there is no need to stack the deck. Granted, in some cases there will be particularly persuasive students arguing for the faith-based alternatives -- or for radical skepticism -- and convincing fellow students. It's a small price to pay for engaging the attention of nearly everyone in the class. I guarantee you there will be very few students reading the funnies under their desk while the debate is on."

Sure, why not.

My kid brother just had to give a talk on the merits of communism as opposed to capitalism in his Econ class.

"I can't believe where this is taking you guys. I asked you in whose name you would overrule the parents or community and you don't answer, except to say "stupid parents". Maybe, but as a matter of political philosophy, what difference is there between yours and the Soviet theory of education on this one? Who do you say makes the call? The State? Scientists? The educational professionals supported by the taxpayer?"

There's always home-schooling.

"And, at the same time, what authority consigns ID to the land of voodoo?"

There simply isn't much at all in the way of scientific evidence to support ID. Which is why it doesn't have any place in a science syllabus and it won't until ID proponents get actual scientific research published in scientific journals.

"It is you who are promoting and encouraging the confusion, because you really believe natural selection is a fact, too, even though you can't prove it. For shame!!"

Biology just doesn't work that way.

This where OJ goes off the rails.

As I mentioned above, I am all in favor of teaching anything that fits the shoe. At this point YEC/Creationism/ID absolutely does not because none of them have one deductive consequence between them.

Peter:

The Theory of Evolution and evolution go hand in hand because no other explanation of evolution has anything like as many demonstrated deductive consequences. By science's standards--and it is science being taught here--all other explanations are grossly inferior.

Outside of theological axe-grinding, is there any particular reasons why scientifically inferior explanations deserve class time?

Brit:

Your thoughts are well stated and I embrace your suggestions. Me thinks that there are many more pressing issues for which one's theological axes need to be sharpened.

Jeff,

The modern theory of evolution, although there is a wealth of evidence in its favor, may not be the last word.

Like you, I consider the different flavors of creationism that reject the role of natural selection to be much less well established.

Therefore, I see very little downside risk to opening up the floor to debate in the classroom. It has the potential of getting disinterested students "fired up" and excited about science.

Being forced to defend your position against an opposing argument makes you understand the merits of your position much better, as well as making you aware of holes and gaps in it.

Jeff:

I'd favor teaching natural selection too if the evidence weren't all against it.

Ali:

The evidence for ID and Darwinism is identical.

Eugene:

You make some good points. On reflection, I find myself agreeing with you.

A rigorous presentation that started with the characteristics of rational inquiry, and demonstrated in which ways the various explanations adhere to those characteristics would demonstrate quite clearly the difference between the Theory of Evolution on one hand, and the YEC/C/ID on the other.

It would also, of course, clearly demonstrate what a scientific theory is, and is not, thereby underscoring your first point: the ToE is not the last word.

I doubt very much the YEC/C/ID advocates could stand all that sunlight.

Jeff:

Just sit them all down at a table, like when they do disections, and show them an experiment that demonstrates Darwinism.

Leon Lederer, the Nobel physicist, proposed (in Technology Review a few years ago) that science instruction is upside down.

It ought to begin (he meant in high school) with physics, where it usually ends. A few, simple propositions to get started.

Then, using those, on to chemistry.

Biology, the most complex and difficult of the sciences, would be left to last, when the students have acquired a certain level of understanding.

Lederer left out natural history. Most people know nothing of it, nor of the way that darwinism was developed.

Orrin, for example, fantasizes that conspirators took orders from bearded god-killers. The actual path and pace of discovery was as constrained as any other science. The Waring blender experiment, for example, required a rethinking of the concept of inheritance, leading, within a few years, to cracking the genetic code.

That was all darwinian.

Peter, on the other hand,stated last week that the path and pace was driven by fascination by exotic species, like Hawaiian fruit flies. But this betrays as complete ignorance about just what was studied, how and where.

Without Limula or Amphioxus, our understanding of darwinism would be different, or at least greatly retarded from what it is.

Science is a process, and darwinian biology has adhered to the process as stringently as any other science.

That antidarwinians can pick up the rules of certain procedures of merely local significance suggests nothing about their understanding of or access to any general theory. Iliterate, antirational Taliban could operate Stingers, once somebody else showed them how.

Make a list, Orrin, of all the biological discoveries made by nondarwinians lately. You could fit it on a postage stamp.

Harry:

Biologists are mostly Darwinians as Spaniards of the 15th Century were Catholic--what other choice is there? But Darwinism just applied the Zietgeist to biology, it didn't flow from observation or experimentation. Malthus and Adam Smith contributed more to notions of evolution than Darwin.

All those genes in the blender and none of them ever mutate into a new species.

OJ:

You have use the term "macroevolution."

The fossil record--the experiment done trillions of times--is very detailed between dinosaurs and birds.

Since you are such an expert at this term, perhaps you could point out that place in that lineage where the macroevolution occurred.

Hint: it would be best to include the latest experi...sorry, fossils, discovered in China.

But this is beside the point. The Theory of Evolution, as Harry has noted, has adhered just as strenously to the scientific process as any other discipline.

Any alternative explanation that can say the same should be taught in science classes just as thoroughly.

Can you name one?

Jeff:

I asked first. Where is the experiment or evidence you could present in class to show natural selection? The fossil record of course argues equally well for ID or Creationism.

OJ:

You know you're not a fool.

I know you're not a fool.

So why, on the specific subject of evolution, do you do such a damn fine impersonation of one?

Brit:

You can't think of an experiment either, huh?

OJ:

Mr Newton holds his apple aloft, then lets go. Earthward it plummets.

"Thus I have demonstrated the law of gravity" announces Mr Newton, as it thuds to the floor.

"But wait", says the watching sceptic. "You say that is evidence for your law of gravity. But I claim that at the moment you dropped the apple a demon sucked it from the underworld towards the ground. Why is your experiment not evidence for that?"

"My dear fellow," says Mr Newton. "Believe in your demon if you wish, but I am a man of science.

"I have no need for that hypothesis."

Brit:

You'll get no argument here that Newton was right. But the apple does fall when you drop it. Show me that it similarly evolves.

Jeff,

No, you're stacking the deck against the alternatives.

A rigorous presentation that started with the characteristics of rational inquiry, and demonstrated

That is exactly what's broken with science teaching: top-down instruction (or should I say "indoctrination"?)

No need to stack the deck. The faith-based opponents of the modern theory of evolution are afraid of a fair playing field. They want to ban its teaching entirely from the classroom.

By all means make sure that students have some of the basic tools of rational inquiry first. But let them research, explore, think, discuss on their own. If students wish to cite Genesis in their presentation, that too must be allowed. We're talking Life and the Origin of Man here, after all: artificially keeping religion out of the debate does violence to the history of Western Civilization. But also the students must be prepared to defend their arguments, regardless of whether they are based in Scripture.

Are you afraid that students might come to the "wrong" (read: undesirable) conclusions? Fifteen-year olds are not stupid, you know.

Orrin has some issues with the scientific theory of evolution because he believes, not without reason, that Darwinism supplied material to social Darwinists (an inappropriate application even if at some point Darwin himself may have said something to support that) and subsequently to the Nazis, and that it necessarily implies atheism. Eventually he will come round to admitting that Darwin's theory and its modern versions do not necessarily lead there, and he will feel much beter.

OJ:

Mr Darwin lays end to end a complete series of fossils plotting an evolutionary course from four-legged land mammal to sea-dwelling whale.

His cane traces the family tree: here it branches, and here and here, until we finally arrive at the humpback whale.

"Thus I have demonstrated evolution by natural selection" he says.

"But wait", says the watching sceptic, Mr Judd. "You say that is evidence for your theory of natural selection. But I claim each branch of the tree is the instance where God intervened, pushing the mammal this way and that, perhaps for his amusement, but with the aim of finally arriving at the humpback. Why is your experiment not evidence for that?"

My dear fellow," says Mr Darwin. "Believe in your Intelligent Designer if you wish, but I am a man of science.

"I have no need for that hypothesis."

Eugene:

You have that backwards. Darwinism is siocial darwinism applied to science. It's philosophy dressed up in a faux-scientific guise, as Mayr says.

Brit:

That's precisely accurate. The fact that things evolved tells us nothing about how they did. That nothing has evolved in recorded human history suggests that Natural Selection won't get the job done. You accept on faith that it does. Others say God did it. Others say aliens intervened. Others have other theories. All are equally compatible with the known facts.

OJ:

"Others say God did it. Others say aliens intervened. Others have other theories. All are equally compatible with the known facts."

Correct.

But only one is science.

Brit:

None are. All are faiths. Like any fanatic you insist your faith is truth.

Orrin,

No, Darwin drew for inspiration in part on theories of Adam Smith, among others.

"Darwinism is siocial darwinism applied to science" makes as much sense as to say "The Ohio River is the Mississippi applied to Lake Itasca."

Eugene:

Yes, Smith proferred a theory of natural selection. Darwin just didn't understand that itv required intelligence for the selections when he mistakenly applied it to evolution. It was an understandable error a hundred fifty years ago, that it endures is less justifiable, though its religious nature explains why it does.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/010295.html

OJ:

No. Like all darwinists, I'm far too idle to make leaps of faith. I like my explanations to be so minimal that I don't have to expend any energy accepting them. They have to force themselves on me.

So back to my original question:

You're not a fool. So why do you pretend not to understand why Mr Newton and Mr Darwin reject their opponent's hypotheses, and why that rejection is what science is all about?

Brit:

And their opponents reject their hypotheses, which is what science is all about. There is no difference between Darwin and Creation except who believes which. I don't expect you to question your faith any more than you expect Creationists to question theirs.

OJ:

Can you answer these questions:

1) Why does Newton reject the sceptic's 'demon' hypothesis?

2) Why does Darwin reject Mr Judd's 'Intelligent Designer' hypothesis?

Brit:

The social milieu of their day required them to.

Ha ha!

Brit,

That's right. Just as Ronald Reagan drove his biographer barking mad, Orrin Judd does to us.

Eugene:

It's true that OJ's last-wordmanship is second-to-none, but I think he's wonderful.

When he gets a walloping you can be sure he'll come out with something quite nutty to evade further prosecution.

But he still has the capacity to surprise: "The social milieu of their day"! Priceless.

Brit,

I've been wondering if I would engage Orrin's services as a lawyer.

I have personally known some judges who would give him big points just for the rascally entertainment.

Others might well cite him for contempt of court.

Brit:

It's not even a controversial point that Darwin just borrowed the social darwinist metaphor:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/010830.html

Here is a good link pertinent to this subject, with suggested readings at the end: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=90

"That nothing has evolved in recorded human history suggests that Natural Selection won't get the job done."

This statement is baseless for several reasons:
1. "Nothing" is unprovable
2. Recorded human history is an arbitrary yardstick that has nothing to do with the theory in question
3. Relies on a tendentious definition of "evolution."

You asked about an experiment. That question is, in part, a red herring. Not all sciences are laboratory sciences. Astronomy is a science, but has precious few laboratory experiments. Evolution, being a description of natural history, means we are living in the laboratory, yet you reject all inconvenient information from that lab.

Secondly, posing any example of an actual experiment mimicking (sp?) the TOE inevitably leads to accusations of ID, despite the fact that the ID role played by the experiment designers is outside Evolutions problem space. There are network design programs that using evolutionary principles that produce far better results than human designers could. For any other discipline, that would qualify as a confirming experiment. It is only disqualified by theological axe grinders.

There is an ongoing experiment on the extinction side of evolution in the Olympia forest between the barred and spotted owls.

Finally, you engage in silly caricatures. Brit most certainly has not insisted the theory is true, only that it is the best explanation available that adheres to the rules of rational inquiry.

Jeff:

1) Yes, thus you can cling to your faith

2) what else do we have? That selection has not occurred for thousands of years when it would need to be incredibly frequent to drive evolution is at least suggestive.

3) It was Darwinists who changed the definition of evolution to try to cover their butts

We can make things extinct.

1) My faith is not in the Theory of Evolution. This has nothing to do with ToE, and everything to do rational inquiry, which is a process. Please note, I haven't argued for the Truth of ToE anywhere in this thread.

2) Do the math--incredibly frequent is not the answer. In fact, in using your tendentious "significant speciation" qualifier, it would be very infrequent. You can't have it both ways. If you use the non-axe grinder definition, then selection has in fact happened within human history. If you use the axe-grinder definition, then it would be remarkable if such a thing was to happen in the last 3,000 years. But you can't have it both ways.

3) Huh?

Yes we can make things extinct. But things can make other things extinct. The Barred Owl looks like doing just that. You must accept that as a valid instance, or admit your definition of the word "experiment" doesn't match anything in the dictionary.

Jeff:

1) No, your faith is in yourself, which requires that there be no God and that Reason suffice to explain the world. all are false propositions.

2) Okay, if any instance of selection happens less than every three thopusand years across all of the biosphere how long would Evolution take?

3) We're making the spotted owl extinct. You'll notice it isn't evolving to avoid the selection pressure?

1) This discussion has nothing to do with me, or with where my faith lies. It has to do with whether or not a particular explanation is consistent with a specific rubric.

2) Define what you mean by selection. Your use of terms is so abusive I want to know precisely what you mean in advance. Also, you need to know precisely how many species there are in order to answer that question. Do you?

3) See two above. We aren't making the spotted owl extinct, the Barred Owl is. That you ask this question in this way indicates the insuperable barrier separating you from comprehension. Evolution is just as much about the elimination of existing species as the appearance of new ones.

Jeff:

1) All the proposed theories are consistent with it because none are science.

2) A species evolves into something else.

3) Evolution isn't extinction, it's change.

That's not what Mayr said.

No one who wants to form an opinion for or against darwinism should do so until he has studied Mayr or some darwinist of similar stature.

Mayr is not obscure but he is more thoughtful than Orrin's selective quotation would lead innocents to think.

Harry:

Did the interviewer make it up?

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/014073.html

OJ wants to have it both ways.

On the one hand, he wants to say that 'reason' and 'the scientific method' are just alternative forms of Faith, so Darwinism, being reliant on these things, is objectively no more vaild than Creationism or ID.

And on the other hand, he wants to argue that Darwinism isn't science at all, because you "can't do experiments".

In other words, Darwinism is a science, and therefore it is flawed. And Darwinism is not a science and therefore it is flawed.

Is it any wonder we don't take his objections seriously?

1) That is a load of nonsense, as I have demonstrated above and you have failed to counter. Evolution is a classic example of hypothetico-deductive science. There are many deductions following from Evolution, some of which had significant impact beyond Natural History.

The competing hypotheses (they have a long way to go before they can be considered theories) do not have one deduction to share between them.

That is a significant difference not even you can deny.

2) More nonsense. A single species isolated into two or more reproductive groups will diverge from each other over time. (e.g. flightless birds) The Spotted Owls are a single reproductive group.

3) Evolution is in fact extinction, which is also change. Natural selection can only act on the variations present.

BTW, I have answered your experiment question. Now your turn:

"You have use the term 'macroevolution.'

The fossil record--the experiment done trillions of times--is very detailed between dinosaurs and birds.

Since you are such an expert at this term, perhaps you could point out that place in that lineage where the macroevolution occurred."

1) They have the same deductive properties. You say Nature, they say God or Martians or whatever.

2) They're owls.

3) Extinction is not change.

The fossil record supports Creation or I.D.--it's not an experiment it's an obbservation: Evolution occurred. The problem is no one iknows how.

Brit:

Precisely! Even by the standard of Reason Darwinism fails. Though Reason itself ultimately fails too. We've know the latter for thousands of years.

1) You have just conclusively proven you don't understand what a deductive consequence of a theory is. By now you should be able to list a half dozen, even if you don't agree with them. If you can't then you are out of your depth here.

2) Of course they are. And they are competing for something you didn't even bother to consider in your previous Malthusian obsessions: territory is a resource, too. One is more fit at obtaining it than another. Hence, on present trends, one is going to ultimately lose. A perfect example of Darwinism.

3) The heck it isn't. The state of nature at some initial time is different than the natural state at some later time if the number of species has changed. Contesting otherwise is just another attempt by you to drain yet another word of all meaning.

The fossil record certainly doesn't support YEC, and the other two suffer fatally from the lack of deductive consequences. No amount of hand waving will change that. Of course, if you can figure out what a deductive consequence is, then supply one for either Creationism or ID, then I will happily see it taught in the schools and hope it topples the Theory of Evolution.

For you neglect one other important consideration: neither Brit, nor Harry, nor I, nor Robert have a vested interest in the ToE being correct.

1) Every deduction that flows from natural selection flows from Creation and I.D. You list 'em, they apply to all three.

2) We limited the territory. We can unlimit it. It's intelligent design in action, as are all cases of extinction we've observed.

3) That's not Darwinism, it's evolution.

Hard to explain legs on whales flowing from either Creationism or Intelligent Design. Unless life has no purpose whatever, which is possible but not something you've been willing to accept so far.

Orrin, I'd trust your sincerity on Mayr more if you'd ever engage what he said. It requires a bit more space than we have to work with here, but his argument for 'population thinking' as a valid scientific approach is -- as he repeatedly says -- the core of his approach.

(Population thinking does generate proposals that can be tested experimentally, though it's true that no experiment to produce macroevolution in a single human lifetime has been devised. The experiment, however, has been run and has been observed.)

You can agree or not, but refusing to deal with it suggests you're afraid to engage Mayr on his own ground.

Harry:

Population thinking is a cop out. No matter how different two dogs are they're still dogs, not statistical vareages of dogdom.

1) Wrong. Here are two examples--there are many more.

For Evolutionary theory to be true, the Earth has to be old. Young/old/middle aged Earth, all the same to Creationism/ID.

For Evolutionary theory to be true, inheritance must be particulate. Particulate/blended/completely random are all the same to Creationism/ID.

2) Congratulations, you have tendentiously negated the experiment you insisted upon. Given competition for space, for whatever cause, the result is precisely what Darwinism predicts. Your axe-grinding is in insisting that the only cause can be man made (clearly nonsense), on top of taking that as proven when it hasn't even been shown. All anyone can say for sure is that the competition is going on to the Spotted Owl's detriment; no one knows for how long.

3) Re-read your last several comments and see if you can detect your moving goal posts. I sure can.

Jeff:

1) The Earth is old and things inherit their parents genes. That's not incompatible with faith.

2) Darwin predicts that extinction occures when Man causes it and that things don't evolve to avoid it?

3) No one doubts evolution but no one knows the mechanism.

Not only is the Earth old but also it is flat.

Proof: this thread is teetering on its edge and will drop off momentarily.

And I'm in a barrel and... YEEHAW!

Naw, the earth is round, you just managed to escape its gravity. Mighty powerful engines on that barrel of yours.

I believe we're nearing LOS as this thread rotates.

The Earth is, of course, a sphere, thus the music, but the Universe revolves around it.

I love the Sound of Music. The hills are alive with it. An intellegent designer created the hills and their music. The universe revolves around Him.

"That's not incompatible with faith."

Who said anything about faith? The sole point here is whether any deductive consequences attend Creationism/ID.

There are none.

Jeff:

Creation requires a Big Bang a gradual development towards planets and then to the biosphere and then of Man and then it's done--at least for now. Precisely what science suggests has happened.

OJ:

If I ever have trouble with the non-sequitor concept, I shall simply remind myself of this thread and your most recent response.

To catch you up: We are talking about competing explanations for Natural History, not cosmology. Creationism/ID and Creation are not even close to the same subject.

By your vapid response to my questions of which deductive consequences follow from Creatioism/ID, I can only conclude there are absolutely none.

The Theory of Evolution qualifies as science. C/ID does not.

None of them are science. All have the same deductive consequences. All that changes from one to the other is which Big Spook folks believe in--God, Intelligence, Aliens, Nature.

"All have the same deductive consequences."

By that single statement, you have demonstrated yourself so completely unhinged by theological axe grinding as to be unqualified to meaningfully address this topic.

Or you could try denying it.

I already did, and you completely evaded the point by introducing Creation despite its irrelevance to the discussion at hand.

If the Earth is not old, or inheritance is not particulate, or if isolated populations do not diverge, Evolutionary theory fails.

You cannot name one similar constraint upon Creationism/ID.

Darwinism is inductive, not deductive. None of those things matter to the believers. Suppose the Earth isn't 4.5 billion years old but only two billion--you'd stop believing in Darwin? The Pitcairn Islanders haven't diverged--is Darwinism junked? Suppose it's multiparticulate--you gonna say the theory was crap or it needed to be refined? Even Darwin didn't think it was particulate all the time.

OJ:

You misunderstand. Whether the source of Evolution (BTW--a sure sign of an theological axe-grinder is the use of the term "Darwinism." It makes no more sense to do that than to term physics "Newtonianism.")is inductive has absolutely no bearing on whether the theory has deductive consequences.

What matters is that the Earth must be very, very old, as evidenced by the fact Pitcarin Islanders haven't diverged in the better part of a couple centuries. Funny, though, you ignore obvious divergence among Native American populations over roughly 15,000 years.

Darwin did think it was particulate. In fact, the ToE faced rejection among scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries until Mendel's research was rediscovered, precisely because the theory required particulate inheritance and most scientists thought blended instead.

Never mind, though, you unwittingly made my point. If the Earth was found to be young, or inheritance wasn't particulate (what the heck is multiparticulate, anyway?), or that DNA bore absolutely no resemblance to the phylogenetic tree, or that variation wasn't heritable, then the ToE falls, or faces substantial revision in the face of incompleteness.

You cannot identify a similar circumstance facing Creationism/ID.

Indians haven't diverged--they're homo sapiens sapiens. You're talking about simple breeding exercises, which Darwin observed and then assumed must follow the economic theories of Smith, Malthus, etc. As we've observed since, there are no deductive consequences, for any of these faiths. They share all the same deductions--none.

OJ:

Stand a Plains Indian next to an Eskimo and either against a Tierra del Fuegan, then tell me there hasn't been any divergence, and either against a Tierra del Fuegan. Well, I suppose you will, but only by depriving "divergence" of all meaning.

For the Theory of Evolution to be true, isolated populations must diverge, and the degree of divergence must be a function of time. There are literally thousands of examples of precisely this outcome, and not one where that hasn't been the case.

Does that make the ToE correct? No.

But it is a perfect example of a deductive consequence, something utterly alien to C/ID.

As your inability to provide even one has loudly proclaimed.

Aren't you the one who denies there;'s even such thing as race? Both are human, no? Creation says that different peoples are different too, but it includes race--point for Creation.

OJ:

I have never denied there is such a thing as race; although, given the number of things you field, such a mistake is completely understandable.

What I actually said is: genetically speaking, the differences between races is smaller than the differences among races.

As for your continued silence on the deductive consequences of C/ID (never mind transparent sophistry) it is clear there are none.

remember, you're required to go first. No deductions follow from Darwin either--it just ties together observed facts with a bogus theory. Nothing has been deduced therefrom.

OJ:

That is just pure nonsense.

I already gave you three.

To reiterate: at the time of Origin of Species, the Earth was widely accepted to be ~6,000 years old. Darwin said at least hundreds of millions. Lord Kelvin set out to prove him wrong, using thermodynamics.

Long before (roughly 70 years) people understood the energy tied up in radioactive elements, Evolution forced a contradiction in another science.

That is a deductive consequence. Particulate inheritance is a deductive consequence. Isolated population divergence as a function of time is a deductive consequence. A single origin of life is a deductive consequence. DNA correlation with the phylogenetic tree is a deductive consequence.

They are deductive consequences because if any failed to pan out, the Theory of Evolution would collapse.

I guarantee that if you were to discover discrepant consequence, you would use it--as well you should--to invalidate Evolution. That you deny these consequences simply because they are inconvenient might cause some to lose respect for your intellectual integrity.

You cannot name one similar deductive consequence for C/ID.

Jeff:

Geology had already demonstrated the Earth was aged. Paleontology and mythology had shown earlier species. Farmers showed him breeding techniques. Mendel had discovered, though Darwin wasn't aware of, genetics. Smith and Malthus had created an intellectual climate wherein social evolution was commonly accepted. All Darwinism does is combine those things. However, everything you'd deduce from it, like things speciating or a complete fossil record or what have you has failed to pan out. Darwinism is identical to ID and Creationism, it takes what's known from other fields and places blind faith in an unscientific mechanism for Creating,

OJ:

You completely misunderstand. It doesn't matter whether these things were already known or not (you are wrong about geology, for instance).

What does matter is those things are deductive consequences of the theory, which you cannot deny.

Apparently, you also can't deny C/ID has nothing of the sort.

Jeff:

That which precedes the theory can't be a deductive consequence of the theory.

OJ:

That is where you are falling completely off the rails.

For instance, many things preceding Einstein's Theory of Relativity--conservation of energy being one--impose deductive consequences upon it. Precedence in time is completely irrelevant to whether something is a deductive consequence.

There is in fact a deductive consequence attending ID. I'm wondering if you are acquainted enough to know which it is.

Jeff:

Things will stay this way until God decides to change them. So far it's right.

OJ:

So I can take it you don't know what the word "deductive" means, and you aren't sufficiently familiar with ID to provide a deductive consequence.

It should be easy, there is only one.

From the fact of Creation only one thing follows--we are at God's whim.

Wonderful, but beside the point.

The Theory of Evolution is science because it has deductive consequences. Your argument against that so far is completely based on not knowing what deduction is.

C/ID, on the other hand, has none (I was wrong above). That means C/ID is not science.

It also means faith and science are quite different.

Jeff:

No it doesn't, as your inability to name one consequence that has followed from the theory demonstrates. But maybe you misunderstand consequence.

OJ:

Consequence: a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon; an effect that naturally follows and is caused by a previous action or condition; referred to as an outcome; is the direct effect of an event, incident or accident; effect that follows as a result of some cause.

The Theory of Evolution, since it is not a phenomena, doesn't cause anything; therefore, nothing can be a consequence of it. Just like any other theory.

I named above a whole raft of things that must be true for Evolutionary theory to be plausible--those are deductions.

You would make one lousy detective, because in your world the theory causes all the crime's evidence.

Real detectives pose theories whose deductions encompass the available evidence.

It seems you need to reacquaint yourself both with deductive logic and cause-effect relationships.

Ah, so it was just your not understanding: Natural Selection would be the phenomenon, but it causes nothing like the evolution that Mr. Darwin required of it.

No, it is your tendentious nonsense.

Every deduction following the Theory of Evolution is consistent with the theory.

C/ID has no deductions at all.

You certainly haven't named any.

Which highlights the difference between rational inquiry and theological axe grinding.

Jeff:

There's one from Creation/ID. Things won't evolve until the next intervention.

There's one from Darwinism: things will evolve continually.

The former is correct so far.

There's one from Darwinism: things will evolve continually.

Wrong. On two counts. One, only theological axe grinders use the term Darwinism, since the Theory of Evolution has developed considerably since Darwin. Two, by making that statement, you prove your ignorance.

C/ID. That is not a deduction, that is taking as true that which the theory is trying to prove.

You really don't get any of this, do you?

BTW--what I said for C/ID goes for your statement about Evolution, too.

Things stopped evolving. Creation wins.

So far, you have demonstrated you don't understand deduction or consequence and have trouble with circular logic.

On top of that, you can't stay on point. This discussion never had anything to do with the correctness of either C/ID, or Evolution.

It has everything to do with whether C/ID can be considered in any way a scientific theory.

Because it has no deductive consequences, it is not. Therefore, C/ID is not an alternative scientific explanation for Evolution.

For tendentious, logic chopping, quote mining, theological axe grinders, though, C/ID is just the thing.

The consequence that follows from Creation is true, at least so far, that follows from Darwinism is false.

"The consequence that follows from Creation is true, at least so far, that follows from Darwinism is false."

Deductive consequences do not follow from, they are attendant to.

Because C/ID has no deductive consequences, it need not be consistent with anything.

Evolution, since it has many deductive consequences, must be consistent with many things.

Your continued departure from the point at hand is dispositive.

Jeff:

Consequences don't precede, they follow. Of course Darwiniswm jibes with everything that was known previously, the problem is that it conflicts with everything since. That it only attempts to explain what was already true gives it its unfalsifiability.

Perhaps my wording is unclear. As a consequence of the theory (alternate wording, in order for the theory to be coherent) something or things must be true. This has nothing to do with precedence in time.

E.G.: In order for Evolutionary theory to be true (which is not the same as saying it is true) the Earth had to be far older than anyone believed at the time. It is a deductive consequence, not a cause and effect consequence.

That is an excellent example of a deductive requirement that, while ultimately proven true, was certainly not known to be so at the time. In fact, Darwin is the first person to predict an age way beyond what anyone thought possible.

There are at least a half dozen other examples of such deductive consequences attending Evolutionary theory.

This is not a matter of big-T truth here, only demonstrating that Evolutionary theory is consistent with scientific theory, and C/ID is not.

Without resorting to some very slippery definitions (you can't insist on "macro" evolution being the only allowable example, and simultaneously insist on short, arbitrary time intervals), I doubt you can point to any contradictions.

Jeff:

It was commonly accepted that the Earth was ancient by then. The precise age was unknown--still is--and Darwinism did nothing to help predict it. Because the Earth was old it was possible to posit Darwinism. Darwinism was the consequence, not vice versa.

OJ:

Read up on your history some more. It most definitely was not. The religiously accepted age was 6,000 years. And religion was virtually everything.

The scientific establishment, in the form of Lord Kelvin, even used the best Thermodynamics arguments of the day to prove Darwin wrong.

The Theory of Evolution forced a contradiction--either something was going on Thermodynamics didn't know about, or Darwin needed a much older earth than was possible.

C/ID, if it had been posed then, would have forced no such contradiction.

Jeff:

That's the myth y'all tell yourselves, but Darwin developed his theory from the fact of an ancient Earth:

http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/lefa/Lyell.html

"It was commonly accepted that the Earth was ancient by then."

Commonly?

Have you looked at any Bibles of the period? They all have Bishop Usher's marginalia in them.

BTW--how old did Lyell say the earth was? Defining separate geological eras says nothing about how long they were.

If there was any commonly accepted age, it was Bishop Usher's. Lord Kelvin calculated a maximum age of roughly 20,000 years.

Jeff:

Read a book. Not just ancientness but evolution too was commonly accepted. The Darwinian innovation was the mechanism he proposed, which turns out not to work anyway.

OJ:

Okay, which one? Actually, ones.

Certainly not the Bible. Usher's notations were ubiquitous until roughly the 1930s. Had you been alive then, you would have strenuously decried, no matter the evidence to the contrary, the Divine Revelation of 6,600 years.

The Mayr books on Evolutionary Thought are good, but try the Edward Larson book. He makes it clear that Lamarck, Cuvier, Lyell, Smith, Malthus and other had created the intellectual climate to which Darwin's sole contribution was Natural Selection.

So?

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the point under discussion, which is the ToE absolutely must take into account all known phenomena, as well as accomodate future discoveries, within its problem space. As I have presented, ToE has many such instances.

In contrast, C/ID together have not one claim to phenomenological specificity deductively associated with the theory.

That makes ToE overdetermined, and C/ID as yet unable to be considered as scientific theories.

Until C/ID has such a basis, it simply doesn't belong in science classes because their inclusion amounts to a lie.

Now, if one wishes to constitute a High School level comparative religion class that includes all (granting that "all" would need a line drawn under it somewhere) creation explanations, including ToE as one, then that is fine. But that isn't a science class.

Jeff:

It takles into account only what was known at the time Darwin wrote and everything that should follow from it has failed to come to pass--that is there has been no speciation observed. Creationism and ID say the exact same thing as Darwinism they just substitute a sentient actor(s) wherever you say Nature selected. None of the three are science.

OJ:

It was not known at the time that isolated populations diverge.

Evolution requires it, Lamarckism would find the concept irrelevant, and C/ID has nothing meaningful to say on the matter one way or another.

As it turns out, it happens the way Evolution says.

Your comment on speciation is your most tendentious. You apply an arbitrary yardstick while simultaneously applying two definitions of the term: one to make the yardstick short, and the other to disqualify any observed change without acknowledging that the second definition requires a very long yardstick indeed.

I have listed a good half dozen requirements--which is by far from a complete list--attending ToE that must be true--whether they were known to Darwin or not (and many of them were not) is irrelevant.

Here's another: In addition to DNA relatedness being very strongly correlated with the existing Linnean classification, the degree of difference has to be consistent with known mutation rates and be consistent with dating method results. Completely unknowable to Darwin, and potentially fatal to the theory; confirmatory, however, as it turned out.

The attending requirements and their observed consistency with ToE makes it science because the both overdetermine the theory and make it falsifiable.

By their lack, and your continued inability to provide any, C/ID is neither overdetermined nor falsifiable.

BTW--your list of references have nothing to do with how commonly accepted an idea of an ancient earth was, or how close that idea was to what Darwin predicted.

Jeff:

Farmers and breeders isolate populations in order to get them to diverge.

Lamarck is a good example of how widespread the idea of evolution was.

Words are a valuable addition to sentence meaning.

"Must" being one of them. It doesn't matter what the cause, it has to happen every time, or Evolutionary theory would be holed below the water line.

Contrast that with C/ID, for which such a phenomena is utterly no constraint at all.

Lamarck was an example that Darwin did not originate the idea that species were absolutely static over time. That does not make the idea "widespread." Nor does it matter.

Jeff:

Okay, if you're willing to cede the universality of belief in evolution too then we really are just down to the contest of faiths: Natural Selection, Lamarckianism, Intelligent Design, Creation, etc. Teach 'em all--they're all equally valid as science.

I am not talking about whether they are as valid as science; rather, as science, they are not equally valid.

Lamarckism qualified as science, since it entailed deductive consequences--the phlogenetic tree was strictly disallowed, for one--and was thereby found wanting. As a theory, it failed.

Evolution has many deductive consequences, and has successfully encompassed them all. As a scientific theory, it is so far overdetermined; hence, successful.

C/ID have none. It is neither over nor underdetermined, since they are bound by nothing. As science, they are not valid.

What is worse, because they survive only on appeals to incredulity, they represent the death of inquiry.

That most definitely is not science.

It has no consequences--it had partametersw it had to fit and so does. The others do too. But that's not science.

Name a parameter C/ID must fit, or Lamarckism, for that matter.

I have long since lost count of the number of times you have given that question a miss. That is dispositive.

The Universe has to have been Created. Creation of the Earth has to have been a linear process resulting ultimately in Man, whop has to be uniquely self-conscious, capable of recognizing absolute morality and potentially a Creator himself. Evolution has to be over until God decides on a next step. All the parameters are met.

OJ:

That is sheer, blinding, nonsense.

The Creator had to have been created. Oops...

Never mind the first 30 words have nothing to do with Natural History, what is a "linear process" that "has to" result in Man? What about all other life forms on earth, did it have to result in them too? If yes, how do you know? If not, how can you tell?

Name a parameter any alternative theory of Natural History on Earth must fit.

Jeff:

Yes. We've been told so. Any alternative must do exactly what Natural History does--get us to now. All do.

OJ:

You shouldn't parade your ignorance quite so prominently.

Lamarckism, for example, absolutely does not.

C/ID don't because there is no combination of observations that would disqualify them.

As I have noted, but you have singularly failed to engage, Evolutionary theory has many attendant deductive consequences that must hold.

Oh, and your "parameters" are inductive, not deductive.

No wonder you are having problems with this.

Jeff:

None of the observations--all of which deny Darwinism--can disprove it either. These are faiths, not sciences.

OJ:

Be serious. Of course they can, and none do.

Just for one specific instance, no existing theory of Natural History required all isolated populations to diverge over time.

Evolutionary theory does. And if it was found to be the case that even a couple isolated populations did not diverge, Evolutionary theory would fail.

Every one of Evolution's deductive consequences makes evolution falsifiable. Every one has failed to do so.

Your unwillingness to seriously (I know full well you are clearly capable in these areas) distinguish deduction from induction from circularity; or to meaningfully address the deductive consequences I have mentioned clearly shows you interested solely in theologically driven axe-grinding.

Jeff:

Everyone knew isolation led to variation--it's what the breeders told him.

Yet we now know species don't diverge in the way Darwin required of them. His finches don't speciate.

Everything that was already known to be true was incorporated into the theory, making it unfalsifiable. None of the predicted consequences have followed, making it dubious.

"Everyone knew isolation led to variation--it's what the breeders told him."

Breeders do one other thing besides isolate, they actively select with a goal in mind.

Isolated populations in the absence of breeders diverge absent any goal or externally directed selection. This ironclad requirement of Evolution has nothing to do with breeding.

I saw an article in the paper (Detroit Free Press) yesterday at least peripherally on this topic, and it noted that within 10,000 years all island populations diverge signifcantly from the founder populations. You say finches don't speciate. Just how the heck are there flightless birds on oceanic islands?

Any successful theory is going to incorporate everything known to be true at the time (something Lamarckism absolutely failed to do; and C/ID fails because it excludes nothing).

In addition, a successful theory has to be consistent with unforeseen phenomena within its problem space. ToE places severe requirements upon what had to be observed when comparing DNA to Natural History; otherwise, the ToE would be well and truly falsified.

It is only by picking one "definition" for speciation ("micro" in yourspeak) to build some arbitrary yardstick for how often speciation should happen, then using another ("macro" in yourspeak) to exclude everything observed within your arbitrary yardstick that allow you to assert none of the consequences have followed.

That makes your assertion very dubious.

They aren't flightless--they don't fly. Move them to a continent and they would.

Ever seen a kiwi?

Eaten them.