The Association for Science Education adds its voice for evolution

| 206 Comments | 1 TrackBack

The Association for Science Education adds its voice for evolution

From the NCSE we hear about the Association for Science Education which has issued a statement on science education, “intelligent design” and creationism

The Association for Science Education – a professional association for teachers of science in Britain and around the world, with over 15,000 members – recently issued a statement (PDF) on science education, “intelligent design,” and creationism, reading in part:

it is clear to us that Intelligent Design has no grounds for sharing a platform as a scientific ‘theory’. It has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations to support it. Furthermore it is not accepted as a competing scientific theory by the international science community nor is it part of the science curriculum. It is not science at all. Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.

The statement also cautions against presenting “intelligent design” as a case study of a controversy in science, commenting, “Intelligent Design … cannot be classed as science, not even bad or controversial science,” and recommends that “it should not be presented as an alternative scientific theory” if it is presented in religious education classes.

The statement cites the Interacademy Panel’s statement on the teaching of evolution, to which the Royal Society of London and the National Academies of Science are signatories, as well as the recently issued guidance to British teachers on the place of creationism in the science classroom.

My favorite part

Should Intelligent Design be included in other areas of the curriculum?

The ASE does not claim to have any authoritative voice regarding religious and moral education or other areas of the curriculum. However we recognise that an idea which suggests the existence of an ‘intelligent designer’is more likely to find a place in a course which deals explicitly with belief systems. Should Intelligent Design find such a place, we strongly argue that it should not be presented as an alternative scientific theory.

1 TrackBack

The Association for Science Education which has issued a statement (PDF) on science education, intelligent design, and creationism. (Hat tip to Panda’s Thumb.)  One section discusses whether intelligent design should be taught as part of science... Read More

206 Comments

Association for Science Education: “.…[SNIP] Intelligent Design [SNIP].…is not science at all. Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.”

Could we expect Darwinists to say anything else?

What is the point?

Could we expect Darwinists to say anything else?

What is the point?

What’s a Darwinist? Perhaps you mean scientist? What’s the point? To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms?

Of course, ID proponents may deny the charges, but the conclusion seems inevitable. Perhaps Ray can explain to us how ID explains the bacterial flagellum?

Yes, what is the point of telling the truth about ID lies and liars? We should just save our breath. It should be so obvious that anyone could figure it out for themselves.

Strangely, there are still a few around who haven’t.

PvM: “What’s a Darwinist? Perhaps you mean scientist? What’s the point? To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms?”

I meant what I said and said what I meant. A Darwinist is a person who accepts the modern theory as first proposed by Darwin (and his thinking), the foundation of which still stands strong among the purveyors of evolutionary “science.”

As to the original point and issue: again; what is the point since we already know that evolutionists (is that a better term) think that ID is not Science?

Can you answer a simple question?

As to the original point and issue: again; what is the point since we already know that evolutionists (is that a better term) think that ID is not Science?

It never hurts to spread the news, now does it? Many people still live under the flawed belief that ID is a scientifically relevant position.

I am here to give you people another article to refute which was given to me by a creationist: http://www.livingdinos.com/dinosaur.html The reason I’m asking you people to refute these things is that, although I believe evolution is true, I don’t have a degree in biology, so my arguments wouldn’t be as scientific or eloquent as yours.

Since we all use light bulbs, then we are all Edisonists. If someone had a beef against light bulbs, then he or she would slander Thomas Edison to cast a stigma onto light bulb use. But light bulbs and other electrical devices have gone beyond anything Edison could have envisioned. So the term ‘Edisonist’ is silly. So it is with ‘Darwinist’ or “Freudist’ or ‘Newtonist’. The term ‘creationist’ works just fine, because it’s base, the story in Genesis, never changes.

Izzhov, that livingdino article doesn’t deserve a response from someone with a Ph.D, since I don’t have one, I will comment. There have been thousands of Elvis sightings, so creationists must think he is alive too. All we have to do is catch him, fingerprint and DNA test him, then we have proof. Is proof too much to ask for? Apparently, for creationists, it is.

Darwinist, evolutionist, atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, anything that ain’t my religionist; these are all words to label as bad and evil anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the sectarian views of Ray Martinez. These are a few of the favorite hate-words of the religious fanatics gunning for a fight.

We can see Ray’s heroes on the religion TV channels railing against science and evolution as the cause of all the evil in the world. This is one of the techniques they use to rally their followers to sectarian wars against secular society. You can see the flashing hatred in the eyes of the congregation as the cameras pan the nodding heads of the faithful. You can sense it in the bills introduced into State Legislatures to crowd out evolution in the biology classes. You can see it in Philip Johnson’s diatribes against “naturalism”. You can read it in Dembski’s scorn of scientists who challenge him to present data or who point out his bollixed-up computer programs. It lies just beneath the surface in the letters-to-the-editors of local newspapers.

Such peaceful, loving people, these. War good, knowledge bad!

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 11, column 432, byte 1545 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Ray Martinez:

PvM: “What’s a Darwinist? Perhaps you mean scientist? What’s the point? To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms?”

I meant what I said and said what I meant. A Darwinist is a person who accepts the modern theory as first proposed by Darwin (and his thinking), the foundation of which still stands strong among the purveyors of evolutionary “science.”

Ray, you fail to realize that the Theory of Evolution has changed dramatically since Charles Darwin first proposed it over a century and a half ago, especially since we now know how traits are passed from one generation to the next, via genes, and how there are other forces that can influence evolution besides natural selection, such as random drift, and the exploration of the mechanics of genetics, and even the fact that so much more evidence, in the form of fossils, lab observations, etc, has been gathered in 150+ years that adjustments were practically demanded to be made.

Modern-day proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not call themselves “Darwinist,” as that term is only properly used by science historians to refer to Darwin’s immediate colleagues and supporters. Creationists use the terms “Darwinist” and “Darwinism” to unsubtly imply that supporters of the Theory of Evolution are heathen cultists, hence the reason why so many biologists bristle at the idea of being labeled a “Darwinist.”

What’s the point? Well, simple, really. Those indulging in the apologetics of creationism constantly maintain that evolution is somehow in “trouble”, that ID is a competing, viable theory that challenges evolutionary biology, and that it is backed up by a growing number of scientists. Because politicians and the public are largely ignorant of the actual evidence for biological evolution and the underlying religious/political motivation behind those pushing ID (as well as the lack of a scientific basis for ID), science education has come under increasing pressure, as intended by those pushing ID and creationism. Therefore, societies such as the ASE feel compelled to produce formal statements backed up by their membership to forcefully convey to the public the fact that mainstream scientists do not support ID, do not view it as science, and do not find any reason for its inclusion in science courses at any level, especially given that its stated purpose is to undermine accepted science in both fact and methodology. These are professional scientists who understand full well the implications of ID and creationism if taught as science.

Now it is true, Mr. Martinez, that those who live in a self-constructed “reality” where everything is based on pre-conceived ideological absolutes, will find such statements as evidence of some sort of weird conspiracy against those absolutes. Alternatively, those who feel they have a death-grip on cosmic truth on the basis of ideological dogma automatically assume that anyone disagreeing with them must be stupid and, ironically, deluded. Therefore such people are inclined to view statements such as those of the ASE as validation of the stupidity of those who disagree with them.

So, apart from the point mentioned above, the secondary answer is that to you, Mr. Martinez, there is no point whatsoever. No fact, no evidence, no logic, and no argument can possibly convince you that you are wrong. I may as well try to convince a pile of dog shit to smell nice.

I may as well try to convince a pile of dog shit to smell nice.

perfect.

Here’s what I have to say about the article “Are Dinosaurs Still Living?” linked above. I don’t have a degree in biology Izzhov, but I do have the internet.

When anyone tells you something like “Most people that have seen them, never tell anyone for fear that people will think they are silly and foolish”, it’s a safe bet to go ahead and say they’re full of crap. It takes two people to keep a secret. And one of them has to be dead.

What they said about the coelacanth is true (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth). However, I doubt anyone ever said they evolved legs (scientists thought it had gone extinct). A coelacanth is not a dinosaur, it is a fish, just like sharks, who have been around for hundreds of millions of years.

“During the flood most dinosaurs sank to the bottom, while the birds and lighter animals stayed near the surface of the mud and water” That’s crap. We don’t find elephants, rhinos, whales, etc in the same layers as dinosaurs. And what about all the small dinosaurs like compsognathus that appear at the same layers as those bigger dinos?

“If you were in a court of law and had 20,000 witnesses on your side, then you would have a very strong case.” Anyone who knows anything about the court system knows that witness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence. Like the other poster said, many people claim to have seen Elvis after he died.

I tried Googling Georg Von Forstner, but he doesn’t seem to exist outside of creationist websites. Curious.

The part about the 12,000 pound octopus is suspect as well, because it was probably a whale (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantic_octopus)

You can read about the “plesiosaur” photo here: http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-07/monster.html Not very convincing.

This article has absolutely no concrete evidence of dinosaurs being alive today. However, people see them all the time. We now call them “birds”.

mplavcan: I may as well try to convince a pile of dog shit to smell nice.

Last year an old friend passed away, at the advanced age of 15 years. Over her lifetime she deposited much dog shit in our yard. Over that time, I have dealt with the shit generated by several creationists. It was much, much easier to deal with the former than the latter.

My brother saw a dinosaur once, in the fog in the suburbs outside Vancouver.

He was on acid.

True story.

dinosaurs did in fact exist along side of humans, the proof is that Fred and Wilma saw many, and this is well documented, to confirm, just google “Fintstones”. also you can see a saddled dinosaur in Kentucky, some guy name “Hamm” allows kids to ride on them. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. The truth hurts all you non believers!

Ray Martinez Wrote:

Can you answer a simple question?

Do you have two brain cells to rub together?

Obviously (to those of us who can figure it out, anyway), the ASE is issuing a direct counter to the Wedge strategy.

Let’s hope the British wake up at last

Association for Science Education: “….[SNIP] Intelligent Design [SNIP]….is not science at all. Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.”

Could we expect Darwinists to say anything else?

They are identified as science educators, not “Darwinists”. If ID really was science, then we would expect something else. That you equate a science education association to “Darwinists” and have an a priori expectation that a science education association will say that ID isn’t science suggests that you recognize that ID isn’t science.

What is the point?

The point is that a science education organization took the sort of stand that defenders of science education would hope they would take. But I can understand how someone who treats “science educators” as a synonym for “Darwinist” or “purveyors of evolutionary ‘science’” wouldn’t be capable of grasping the point.

Can you answer a simple question?

He did: “To clarify to the public that ID is scientifically infertile and does not belong in science classrooms”.

We don’t call you people IDiots just because we disagree with you, but because, over and over again, you display the sort of intellectual ineptness that you display here.

Michael Roberts Wrote:

Let’s hope the British wake up at last

I think we’re getting there:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/200[…]-creati.html

I am here to give you people another article to refute which was given to me by a creationist: http://www.livingdinos.com/dinosaur.html The reason I’m asking you people to refute these things is that, although I believe evolution is true, I don’t have a degree in biology, so my arguments wouldn’t be as scientific or eloquent as yours.

Since this is off-topic, and because it seems unlikely that anyone who isn’t a creationist would find that article anything but absurd, I strongly suspect that you’re misrepresenting yourself.

What’s a Darwinist?

In this context he would mean science educators.

A Darwinist is a person who accepts the modern theory as first proposed by Darwin (and his thinking), the foundation of which still stands strong among the purveyors of evolutionary “science.”

Oops, I guess not. Then I’m a Newtonist most of the time, while changing to Einsteinist when I need to use relativistic formulas.

Because scientist aren’t faithful. Attesting to that is (as I understand it) that only the core of Darwin’s theory survived into the modern science.

I would advice Martinez to use the language used by scientists when discussing science to avoid looking like a complete fool. The term Martinez is looking for here is “biologist”, as any informed layman would know. But it is wrong since this was an association for science teachers, which include all of the sciences.

Modern-day proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not call themselves “Darwinist,” as that term is only properly used by science historians to refer to Darwin’s immediate colleagues and supporters.

I wish it was that simple. The core of Darwin’s theory, AFAIU hereditary traits, variation and selection, survived their subsumption into the modern theory. Some biologists who concentrates on selection as a default research strategy, seems to call themselves “darwinists” (small d), at least Dawkins seems to have done so at one time or other.

OTOH I don’t think that darwinists call themselves “Darwinists” or would identify any “Darwinism” as a subset of evolutionary mechanisms. That is AFAIU fully a historical term, another science term abused by the know-nothings of IDC shame.

Izzhov:

The reason I’m asking you people to refute these things is that, although I believe evolution is true, I don’t have a degree in biology, so my arguments wouldn’t be as scientific or eloquent as yours.

There is more recycled creationist crap Gish galloped on the Internet than anyone can reasonably discuss. Furthermore it only serve to massage creationists ego and needlessly engorge their impotent cause in front of the eyes of the public.

That is why the FSM in her noodly wisdom decided to inspire scientists to assemble The TalkOrigins Archive An Index to Creationist Claims. This is where you always go first to check out simple and referenced answers to the recycled crap.

If there is anything new that hasn’t been given a scientist’s answer before, you could always ask here. Seems biologists, physicists, and informed laymen frequently visit here, and much as scientists loathe dead issues they enjoy new questions.

Re. the Dinos article, let’s just pick out a few choice lines from early on:

“The Bible says there was a world wide flood that directly resulted in multiple layers being formed.”

The Bible doesn’t say anything but multiple layers. This guy apparently hasn’t read his own holy text. Imagine how reliable a source he must be.

“Noah’s Flood is the only way to explain how fish fossils have been found with undigested fossilized fish left inside them.”

Total non sequitur. How exactly is a _flood_ supposed to kill a lot of _fish_? And if he means that the fish were left behind on land when the flood receded… what does that have to do with stomach contents? In any case, conventional taphonomy can easily account for fossile with undigested stomach contents: they died before they finished digesting. Duh.

Anyway, we have much more interesting fossils than that. We have fossils of ichthyosaurs that died in childbirth. How cool is that?

“How trillions of creatures became fossilized (fossilization is rare), and how fossilized clams were found in the closed position (which proves they were buried alive).”

If fossilisation is rare, and we have trillions of fossils, then I guess fossilisation must have been going on for a very long time. Like, hundreds of millions of years. I have no idea what is point is about clams. Does he imagine that only Noah’s flood is capable of burying clams? I mean, what?

There you go, three sentences, every one filled with errors and lies. See why we don’t take creationists seriously?

Izzhov said, “although I believe evolution is true, I don’t have a degree in biology, so my arguments wouldn’t be as scientific or eloquent as yours.”

You know, so what that you don’t have a degree in biology? Science is about facts that anyone can, in principle, observe–not about pronouncements from authority figures. There is lot of material on evolution geared to intelligent non-scientists. A good beginning is the TalkOrigins website, but you can branch out from there to magazines, books, and other Internet sites– and, if the subject interests you enough, to scientific papers.

Since real, working scientists must concentrate their research in relatively limited areas where they have extremely detailed knowledge, their general understanding isn’t necessarily any more ‘expert’ than yours is– except that scientists have the confidence that they can understand the facts for themselves, without relying on an authority figure to interpret the world for them. But you don’t need a degree in biology to do that. All you need is a working brain. And you have that already, right?

Soteos wrote:

“When anyone tells you something like “Most people that have seen them, never tell anyone for fear that people will think they are silly and foolish”, it’s a safe bet to go ahead and say they’re full of crap. It takes two people to keep a secret. And one of them has to be dead.”

Agreed. I once had a family member tell me that a living dinosaur had been caught by people on a fishing boat and that proved that the Bible we right, the earth was 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were still around. When I asked where this supposed dinosaur was, he replied that they had to release it because they were afraid that it would die! Really! No pictures, no tissue samples, not even a drawing, nothing! Of course I replied that if they were really that stupid that they didn’t deserve to be believed even if they had caught a real dinosaur.

The point is that when people are willing to believe anything without evidence you can convince them of almost anything, as long as they want to believe it. And of course once they believe it it becomes true, so you can’t argue with them. Believe me, these are not the kind of people you want teaching science in schools.

And by the way, it’s a lot easier for two people to keep a secret if both of them are dead. Still no guarantees, but it helps.

Torbjorn Larsson Wrote:

The core of Darwin’s theory, AFAIU hereditary traits, variation and selection, survived their subsumption into the modern theory.

Yes, this is true. Darwin was aware of heritable variation but did not know its mechanism, and he was aware of artificial selection, and he (obviously) coined the term natural selection. However, he was unaware of such mechanisms as genetic drift, and he assumed that evolution would mostly happen quite slowly (he did allow for faster rates, but I do not think he envisaged rates as fast as those proposed by Eldredge and Gould in their hypothesis of puntuated equilibria).

Some biologists who concentrates on selection as a default research strategy, seems to call themselves “darwinists” (small d), at least Dawkins seems to have done so at one time or other.

OTOH I don’t think that darwinists call themselves “Darwinists” or would identify any “Darwinism” as a subset of evolutionary mechanisms. That is AFAIU fully a historical term, another science term abused by the know-nothings of IDC shame

The situation is more complicated still.

“Darwinism” is sometimes used to refer to Darwin’s original formulation of evolutionary theory.

“Neo-Darwinism” is a term from the 1920s - 1930s and refers to the combination of Mendelian inheritance with evolutionary theory.

The “modern (Darwinian) synthesis” is a term that postdates a deeper understanding of DNA. I believe it arose in the early 1980s and it refers to an evolutionary theory that accomodates knowledge of molecular biology and a more modern take on genetics.

Finally, there is what I refer to as MET (modern evolutionary theory), which is, essentially, the current version of evolutionary theory. It accomodates all the previous data and hypotheses as well as such ideas as punctuated equilibria and the latest understanding of phylogenetic relationships and molecular genetics.

So, in fact, the terms “Darwinism” / “Darwinist” can have three distinct meanings.

“Darwinism” and “Darwinist” aren’t nearly strong enough for a true creationist to use as a pejorative. A stronger suffix (that shows our true left-leaning, political-apostate, militaristic-atheism) is “-ista”.

We are Darwinistas! The brutally democratic crucible of scientific peer review is only a canard. It is the politburo of science that dictates the revelations of nature.

Science Nut, without authorization, mentioned the existence of the “Politburo of Science.” He will now be visited in the middle of the night by the Darwinista Storm Troopers - for relocation at the status of a non-poster.

He would have been spared if he had stuck with the dastardly cabal of repressive academics who only wish to stifle true knowledge.

Now that Ray has been exposed as an angry, self-righteous bigot, he seems to be wearing his bigotry with more bluster. His immaturity wants all attention directed to himself no matter how badly it reflects on his sectarian cohorts. His many “enemies” couldn’t produce a better caricature of his religious views than he himself does.

The major reason he isn’t censured is that people need to see inside the minds of these bigots in order to understand the political motivations behind the Wedge Document. So fire away, Ray; let everyone know how a bigot thinks. This is one of the best ways to help people to decide they don’t want your kind preaching to their kids in a biology class.

Ray Martinez Wrote:

The Bible says God controls desire for Him; therefore, if you have no desire to know God or do not care what He thinks of you, then He has probably withdrawn the urge and given up, on you, someone who claimed to be a “fence sitter.”

Classic bigot demagoguery; “The Bible says… (insert whatever bigoted opinions the bigot wants other people to believe and obey).”

In every case we have seen, using this tactic is another way of attempting to assert that the bigot’s views are sanctioned by the “highest authority in the universe” and therefore more correct than the religious (or non-religious) views of others.

Ray Martinez Wrote:

You are ignorant and unread if you believe that evolution and its philosophy does not presuppose the non-existence of God in reality. Educated persons know that it does.

Here is Ray faking erudition. Ray doesn’t know what an educated person is, but thinks he can intimidate someone into backing down by attempting to appear educated.

Ray Martiniz Wrote:

Then why do you accept the presuppositions of Materialism which are pro-Atheist? Logically, real non-Atheists would never accept suppositions that rule God out as a possibility to explain reality.

Here is Ray pretending to blast someone with irrefutable logic by making an “authoritative sounding” statement that makes no logical sense whatsoever.

This is starting to be fun. Ray, why don’t you provide us with more quotes we can dissect?

Ray claimed: Question presupposes that I have said that the Bible says that these things are wrong. I have never said any such thing.

Ray said, a few posts ago: You can think that you are a Christian, but the source of your Christianity (the Bible) does not support evolution. The Bible is hostile to evolution.

Allow me to channel Jon Stewart for a moment.

“Ray! Listen to Ray! Ray just said it, Ray! Listen to him!”

Ray continued: Evolution spends no time studying God’s word but says that Genesis is false. And we have a fourm full of ignorant and brainwashed evolutionists who actually think that evolution and the Bible are compatible and that evolution does not claim that the Bible is false from cover to cover.

Ray, do you need a hug? I’m here for ya, buddy.

But here’s the thing: how does the modern theory of evolution “[say] that Genesis is false”? Genesis is a book of the Bible which describes man’s relationship with God, and how by virtue of free will and choice, man can turn away from God, or turn back to Him. That’s it. Though the stories within that book, Genesis establishes the antiquity of that relationship (by telling stories of the earliest peoples).

How does the theory of evolution presume to speak on this? There’s nothing in it about man’s relationship with God, or the paradox of the gift of free choice and the capacity for sin. Not a bit. Origin of Species? I guess Chuck forgot his mean ol’ Atheist monologue, buddy. Maybe he hid it in his hat, or more likely, his beard.

But maybe you mean to say that the theory of evolution doesn’t agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis, Ray? That of course assumes that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. But I nearly forgot: you can excommunicate popes! I’ll be sure Benedict gets the message, buddy. Ah… but before I do, could you clear something up for me, Ray? An old chestnut has been really gnawing away for awhile, and I just have to know:

Why are your religious beliefs more valid than mine? Or anyone else’s in this thread? Or Lenny Flank’s Pizza Guy? Why are you the sole arbiter of what is and is not Christian? How is your interpretation of the Bible any better than anyone else’s, let alone Biblical scholars who find the idea of a literal reading of Genesis to unwarranted?

And I need to thank you, Ray. It’s always so refreshing to talk to a creationist who isn’t afraid to proclaim loudly that Intelligent Design is all about religion, that their beef with evolution is because of their particular brand of Christianity, and that their motivation is purely religious. You guys are so helpful! Really, you make our job of standing up for sound science education all the easier. Thanks a bunch, Ray, you ol’ rascal!

But if you need that hug, the offer stands, buddy. Hugs make the world go round.

…Actually, wait. That sounds like a perfectly valid scientific theory in the vein of Intelligent Design! The Totally Way-Scientific Theory of Friendly Gravity states that objects attract one another because deep down, everyone just wants a hug, and if people don’t give enough hugs out, then the planet will spiral out into space! So do your part and give Ray a hug before his grumpiness dooms us all! And call the Discovery Institute! I smell a grant! If those suckers’ll support Intelligent Design, they’ll support anything!

“Even the weakest disputant is made so conceited by what he calls religion, as to think himself wiser than the wisest who thinks differently from him.”
Walter Savage Landor (1775-1864)

Ray Martinez:

Darwin’s proposal was a direct reply to Paley’s positive argument for the existence of God derived through nature (Watchmaker thesis).

Evolution theory is a science, so theological ideas has no relevance on it.

I’m not a historian, but it is claimed that Darwin had many influences when he invented it, mainly his geological and biological material from his voyage on the Beagle. This is easy to check, so I can assume it is correct and you are wrong.

The watchmaker analogy goes back to Cicero (106 - 43 BCE). Paley continued a long tradition:

The germ of the idea is to be found in ancient writers who used sundials and ptolemiac epicycles to illustrate the divine order of the world. These types of examples can be seen in the work of the ancient philosopher Cicero, especially in his De natura deorum, ii. 87 and 97 (see Hallam, Literature of Europe, ii. 385, note.). During the Enlightenment, the watch analogy occurred in the writings of Robert Boyle and Joseph Priestley.

Thus, Paley’s use of the watch (and other mechanical objects like it) continued a long and fruitful tradition of analogical reasoning that was well received by those who read Natural Theology when it was published in 1802.

But why you think this has any relevance for evolution or why The Association for Science Education made a stand for evolution is more unclear.

Ray Martinez:

Darwin was an Atheist-materialist as early as 1837. … Darwin was an Atheist since his late 20s.

Even your bigoted mind has a hard time conflating science with atheism, as you must label known religious scientists as not really religious. Meanwhile, in the real world, it doesn’t matter whether Darwin was religious or atheist when he became a scientist.

But just to put the record straight, you are wrong. Charles Darwin lost his faith 1851:

Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver. His belief dwindled, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.

At the time, Darwin was in his 40s.

Now, why do you claim Darwin lost his faith 1837? Where are your references?

Could it be that Darwin sketched his first evolutionary tree in his notebooks that year? By your own admission no religious believer could study any science, so it would be easier for you or rather the person who rewrote history for you to believe he was an atheist than to push a bigoted No True Scotsman again. Or perhaps the bigotry comes first - an evolutionary hypothesis simply must mean that the author can’t be religious in spite of appearances, is that it?

But why you think this has any relevance for evolution or for The Association for Science Education stand for evolution is unclear.

Meanwhile, in the real world, it doesn’t matter whether Darwin was religious or atheist when he became a scientist.

Indeed it doesn’t, but then why do idiots like you, Ray, every day try to bring up the canard of Darwin’s “deathbed conversion”?

er, sorry, I mistook larsson’s comment for Ray’s.

still haven’t gotten used to this new display.

who said something used to be at the BOTTOM of a comment.

PvM:

Evolution spends no time studying God’s word but says that Genesis is false

What does the Bible say about Christians who spread falsehoods?

This is a great example of uneducated: evolution and Genesis do not contradict, that is, the source of special creation and evolution are totally harmonius.

It’s also hard to believe that all the Atheists who read PvMs comment have decided not to correct him. This tells us that the author of the absurd comment is not ignorant, but brazenly lying attempting to sell evolution to ignorant Christians, that explains Atheist silence.

Evolution is Materialism and both are synonyms of Atheism, that is objective truth.

“How do you explain Christian evolutionists?”

Like Judas the Apostle, he was close to Christ and walked with Him for three and one half years, but in John 6 Jesus said that He knew Judas was a son of the devil from the beginning. The point is that a claim of Christianity is just that - a claim. Any Christian who accepts evolution, which is pro-Atheist from beginning to end, is like Judas, walking with Christ (so he thinks) but in reality, he is like Jesus said: a son of the devil, totally deceived. Looks like Biblical typology corresponds to reality overwhelmingly and the same explains the Christian evolutionist masses.

It especially explains that “Christian” looking-grinning Judge Jones, who spread his legs for the AtheistCLU, and enjoyed the banging. Darwinian Judge ruled as expected.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 236, byte 295 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

evolution and Genesis do not contradict, that is, the source of special creation and evolution are totally harmonius[sic].

provided you can swallow a bunch of lies, sure.

mmm, mmmm, good.

Ray Martinez:

It especially explains that “Christian” looking-grinning Judge Jones, who spread his legs for the AtheistCLU, and enjoyed the banging. Darwinian Judge ruled as expected.

So, Raytard, by this are you implying that Judge Jones is a homosexual, or are you implying that he’s a woman?

And which would you consider the bigger insult?

Ichthyic:

evolution and Genesis do not contradict, that is, the source of special creation and evolution are totally harmonius[sic].

provided you can swallow a bunch of lies, sure.

mmm, mmmm, good.

That was MY point, it was PvM who said, or implied that they were compatible.

Darwinian Judge ruled as expected.

Liar. I don’t believe one creationist/IDer predicted the actual result.

indeed. I think some are still waiting for that case of scotch promised by one William Dembski.

That was MY point, it was PvM who said, or implied that they were compatible.

read for comprehension.

that is NOTHING like what he said.

try again?

it’s one thing to lie to others, but to constantly lie to yourself, IN PUBLIC, is just pathetic.

Richard Simons:

Darwinian Judge ruled as expected.

Liar. I don’t believe one creationist/IDer predicted the actual result.

You have misunderstood; since Jones is an evolutionist, his decision was predetermined and quite predictable. The DI was stupid to think that an evolutionist Judge would ever rule in favor of their enemy.

Though I find muddling through faith based points of view frustrating, I think there is real benefit here.

1. R. Martinez has insulted every faith but his own. It is important that Christians, Muslims, etc., get to see what they are up against first hand. Mr. Martinez is proving to theists, that establishing religion in the schools is dangerous. (Unless they all abandon their faith and all flock to his more acceptable church).

2. This much discussion would never happen on any of the ID sites; again, affording those who stumble in a first hand view of dishonesty and bigotry at the hands of ID supporters. If they thought ID “Isn’t so bad - just another point of view”, they got to see an ardent supporter in action, in all of his maniacal theocratic splendor.

Mr. Martinez has severe mental limitation; he thinks that everyone is like him. This is not a trivial problem. I can see from his circular arguments that he genuinely believes that all scientists are damned because they BELIEVE in evolution. His use of words like Evolutionist and Darwinist are not just to inflame - it mirrors his thought process, (or lack of it). He BELIEVES a thing. In his blind faith, he has come to think that everyone must have the same mental process. His opponents BELIEVE some other thing. Even in the face of revolutions that have rocked the world of physics, biology, chemistry, making nearly everything I learned in college (30 years ago) obsolete, Mr. Martinez has decided to ignore that scientists CHANGE THEIR MINDS based on the most current data.

He BELIEVES, therefore, scientists BELIEVE. Science is merely a different faith; his faith against science faith.

Mr. Martinez demonstrates time and again that he is not capable of understanding the difference. He cannot afford to.

He CHOOSES the position that scientists BELIEVE in evolution. All of this talk about evidence is merely a rhetorical tool - as a biblical parable. He MUST take this position. If he waivers for only a second and actually looks to the evidence, his entire world will be destroyed. He will never take that chance. His faith against your faith - that he can handle.

This posture is, of course, completely defensive. While Galileo had more than enough evidence to prove his case, the Church CHOSE to defend the literal nature of the Bible. (and it took 300 years to admit they were wrong!) That is the power of religion. There are no different facts - only different faiths. There are no different facts, only violations to the one true faith - BLASPHEMY!

Imagine how small a world is that can be defined by a single 2000 year old volume. I would pity him, if it were not for the fact that he wants our children to be forced to live in that small dark world with him. That is a horror that must never come to pass.

Thread cleaned up

Ray Martinez says:

“Darwin’s proposal was a direct reply to Paley’s positive argument for the existence of God derived through nature (Watchmaker thesis). Darwin was an Atheist-materialist as early as 1837.”

Wrong on all points. In 1837, Darwin was planning to become a minister. He was enormously impressed by Paley’s argument, and was basically trying to apply Paley’s principle of natural theology– that God should be studied through His works, not just through ancient texts– when he, Darwin, discovered descent with modification through natural selection. Even after Darwin had moved away from Paley’s ideas, his only reference to Paley in the 2nd edition of TOoS is entirely respectful.

It’s Ray who is diminishing Paley’s work, by equating it with the late 19th century fundamentalist movement, which pushed biblical literalism *instead of* observation of the natural world– the very tactic Paley objected to!

hoary puccoon:

Ray Martinez says:

“Darwin’s proposal was a direct reply to Paley’s positive argument for the existence of God derived through nature (Watchmaker thesis). Darwin was an Atheist-materialist as early as 1837.”

Wrong on all points. In 1837, Darwin was planning to become a minister.

False.

Darwin long abandoned his Father’s wish for him to become a Minister when he sailed on the HMS Beagle as ship naturalist in 1831. By the Spring-Summer of 1837 he abandoned creationism and had become a transmutationist.

He was enormously impressed by Paley’s argument, and was basically trying to apply Paley’s principle of natural theology– that God should be studied through His works, not just through ancient texts– when he, Darwin, discovered descent with modification through natural selection. Even after Darwin had moved away from Paley’s ideas, his only reference to Paley in the 2nd edition of TOoS is entirely respectful.

Your last phrase is unintelligible. But it seems this paragraph is basically correct.

It’s Ray who is diminishing Paley’s work, by equating it with the late 19th century fundamentalist movement, which pushed biblical literalism *instead of* observation of the natural world– the very tactic Paley objected to!

Evolution and Darwin reject Paley and design, no educated person disputes that Darwin and Paley held diametrically opposite views; the reason for being of the Creation-Evolution debate.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content[…]p;pageseq=89

Charles Darwin:

“The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.”

Rather than rewriting history, Ray should check out Lamoureux’s article Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design

ABSTRACT: Popular belief has led many to assume that Charles Darwin rejected outright the notion of intelligent design. As a consequence, the term ‘Darwinism’ has evolved to mean an atheistic interpretation of evolution. A review of the historical literature reveals that Darwin’s conceptualization of design was cast within the categories of William Paley’s natural theology, featuring static and perfect adaptability. Once Darwin discovered the mechanism of natural selection and the dynamic process of biological evolution, he rejected the “old argument from design in Nature” proposed by Paley. However, he was never able to ignore the powerful experience of the creation’s revelatory activity. Darwin’s encounter with the beauty and complexity of the world affirms a Biblical understanding of intelligent design (Ps 19 and Rom 1) and argues for the reality of a non-verbal revelation through nature.

In Christ

What Ray confuses is Darwin changing his scientific position with Darwin changing his theological position

Charles Darwin studied at Christ College Cambridge (1828-1831) where his mind was cast within the scientific categories of the early nineteenth century. He accepted that the earth was old, though catastrophism still played a part in geology to understand surface features. He also believed in the immutability of species, maintaining that God intervened to create life at different points in geological history (Bowler 1990: 40-52; Desmond and Moore 1991: 84-97). Darwin boarded HMS Beagle with these notions on 27 December 1831. He also embarked with Volume I of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology (1830). First-hand field experience in South America soon led Darwin to embrace uniformitarian geology. However, uniformitarianism did not extend to his biology. Late in his voyage, he was still an anti-evolutionist and accepted Paley’s notion of “the fitness which the Author of Nature has now established” (Herbert 1974: 233). Nine months before returning to England, Darwin’s interventionistic understanding of biological origins remained, as he records, “One hand has surely worked throughout the universe. A Geologist perhaps would suggest that the periods of Creation have been distinct & remote the one from the other; that the Creator rested in his labor” (Barlow 1986: 348). This progressive creationism was not an unusual understanding of origins since it was widely held throughout the scientific community at that time.

Hope this clarifies.

PvM Wrote:

Rather than rewriting history, Ray should check out Lamoureux’s article Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design

What Ray confuses is Darwin changing his scientific position with Darwin changing his theological position.

I suspect that Ray and Bornagain77 are attempting to make themselves appear to be experts in order to give themselves the authority to define scientific concepts and the histories of scientific concepts. Their audience wouldn’t know the difference between an expert and a fraud.

By posting something (anything) that has the appearance of contributing to the discussion, they also get past the troll filters with their proselytizing.

It’s a common tactic among the ID/Creationists to rattle off a bunch of scientific sounding junk, pollute the science, sew confusion, establish phony credentials, and then preach.

This is a good exercise in demonstrating in real-time how they do it.

PvM:

Rather than rewriting history, Ray should check out Lamoureux’s article Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design

ABSTRACT: Popular belief has led many to assume that Charles Darwin rejected outright the notion of intelligent design. As a consequence, the term ‘Darwinism’ has evolved to mean an atheistic interpretation of evolution. A review of the historical literature reveals that Darwin’s conceptualization of design was cast within the categories of William Paley’s natural theology, featuring static and perfect adaptability. Once Darwin discovered the mechanism of natural selection and the dynamic process of biological evolution, he rejected the “old argument from design in Nature” proposed by Paley. However, he was never able to ignore the powerful experience of the creation’s revelatory activity. Darwin’s encounter with the beauty and complexity of the world affirms a Biblical understanding of intelligent design (Ps 19 and Rom 1) and argues for the reality of a non-verbal revelation through nature.

In Christ

You and your article writer are simply ignorant: evolution rejects design to exist in reality/nature.

This portion of the quoted text.…

“However, he was never able to ignore the powerful experience of the creation’s revelatory activity. Darwin’s encounter with the beauty and complexity of the world affirms a Biblical understanding of intelligent design (Ps 19 and Rom 1) and argues for the reality of a non-verbal revelation through nature.”

.…by assertion contradicts the preceding portion of the text. Where does Darwin argue for Psalm 19 or Romans 1? What is the source for these lies?

Until you cough up a source for these wild assertions that no evolution historian would make you are a liar or horribly confused just like your article writer.

This portion of the text.…

“Darwin’s encounter with the beauty and complexity of the world affirms a Biblical understanding of intelligent design”

.…is the most illogical and contradictory and non-factual assertion imaginable: Darwin and evolution rejects the Biblical explanation for biological reality. Evolution rejects Intelligent Design. Darwin rejected Paley’s argument. You are uneducated.

Again, you and your article writer are blind to the objective claims of evolution and the Bible and are horribly ignorant.

“Darwin’s encounter with the beauty and complexity of the world affirms a Biblical understanding of intelligent design”

The only fact we need to know that the above assertion is false is the complete silence of Atheists in not protesting its utter ridiculousness. Their silence tells us that they know you are not serious but attempting to trick naive Christians into accepting evolution.

This means you are a brazen liar.

The following title is the title to Richard Dawkins 1986 book:

“Blind Watchmaker: Why The Evidence Of Evolution Reveals A Universe Without Design”

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content[…]p;pageseq=89

Charles Darwin:

“The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.”

Read the last sentence; it says design does not exist in natural selection and the preceding portion of the quote says an intelligent being did not create material things.

You are horribly confused or like I said a brazen liar.

PvM:

What Ray confuses is Darwin changing his scientific position with Darwin changing his theological position

Charles Darwin studied at Christ College Cambridge (1828-1831) where his mind was cast within the scientific categories of the early nineteenth century. He accepted that the earth was old, though catastrophism still played a part in geology to understand surface features. He also believed in the immutability of species, maintaining that God intervened to create life at different points in geological history (Bowler 1990: 40-52; Desmond and Moore 1991: 84-97). Darwin boarded HMS Beagle with these notions on 27 December 1831. He also embarked with Volume I of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology (1830). First-hand field experience in South America soon led Darwin to embrace uniformitarian geology. However, uniformitarianism did not extend to his biology. Late in his voyage, he was still an anti-evolutionist and accepted Paley’s notion of “the fitness which the Author of Nature has now established” (Herbert 1974: 233). Nine months before returning to England, Darwin’s interventionistic understanding of biological origins remained, as he records, “One hand has surely worked throughout the universe. A Geologist perhaps would suggest that the periods of Creation have been distinct & remote the one from the other; that the Creator rested in his labor” (Barlow 1986: 348). This progressive creationism was not an unusual understanding of origins since it was widely held throughout the scientific community at that time.

Hope this clarifies.

This clarfies nothing. It is quote-mine and you have said nothing as to what it allegedly “clarifies.” Nobody denies that Darwin WAS a Creationist.

This says Darwin was a Creationist. After 1837 he became a transmutationist and sought to refute design. The Autobio quote which I have posted was completely ignored in favor of the nonsensical assertions of some unknown article writer.

Darwin was an Atheist-materialist before 1839 (Ernst Mayr, “One Long Argument” 1991:75).

Darwin rejected design and intelligence in nature as the Autobio quote said and which you ignored. And your assertions about Darwin’s alleged theological position is silly and, of course, has no source cite or reference of a respected scholar.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on October 30, 2007 12:03 AM.

Full text of ‘The Edge of Creationism’ was the previous entry in this blog.

The Ghosts We Think We See is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter