"Refuting" Evolution Any Way You Can - Contradictions and All

My original goal was to restrict it to just ID claims, but as I was
reminded, "classic" creationists also make many of the same claims,
some of which even predate the ID movement. As usual, I don't want to
simply lump all anti-evolutionists under a "creationist" label
without noting the differences in strategies (hence the long
introduction).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Refuting" Evolution Any Way You Can - Contradictions and All

Anti-evolution strategies, collectively known as "creationism,"
have evolved from "Teach Scripture, not Evolution" to
"scientific" Creationism, to Intelligent Design (ID), to "Teach
the Controversy" (TtC). All the while, whether for proposed high
school science class instruction, or other outlets (e.g. books,
editorials, debates), the emphasis has steadily moved away from
defending specific alternate origins accounts and toward grasping for
weaknesses in evolution. One of the reasons for this trend is the fact
that all anti-evolution strategies have been found by the legal system
to be religious ideas, and thus not appropriate for public school
science education. But another, often overlooked reason is the apparent
growing awareness among leading anti-evolutionists that the alternate
accounts are fraught with scientific failures and contradictions, and
of course, lack a theory, even if their claims are stated in
nonreligious terms.

Some anti-evolution groups, particularly the young-Earth and old-Earth
creationists (YECs and OECs), valiantly (or foolishly, depending on
your perspective) insist on detailing their alternate positions, and
even occasionally criticize other creationists. But the groups now
dominant in the attempts to "reform" science education advocate
only TtC in class and ID outside of class. They have realized that all
it takes is to instill some unreasonable doubt about evolution, throw
in some "designer" language where legal, and most people will infer
their favorite scriptural account. In fact, ID/TtC may be the most
effective way to promote scriptural literalism, because teaching the
creationist accounts, even in designer-free terms, risks having them
critically analyzed, and thus found to be at least seriously inferior
to evolution.

The irreconcilable differences among the various creationist positions
and strategies are examined in detail elsewhere (1). This article lists
several other notable contradictions among anti-evolutionists that
arise from their insatiable need to find anything and everything wrong
with evolution and the nature of science. If any of the groups had an
alternate theory that they could support, they would have no need to
risk exposing all these conflicting viewpoints, some of which at times
come from the same person, and not necessarily from a documented change
of opinion, but from the desire to "have it both ways."
Anti-evolutionists may object that mainstream scientists (or what they
like to call "Darwinists") also change their minds, and disagree
with each other on many issues within evolution. But the huge
difference is that "Darwinists" are very public with their
disagreements and work hard to resolve them, even if it means admitting
that they had been wrong.

Conflicting claims are made by anti-evolutionists of all stripes, but
are most notable for ID advocates, who, because they prefer not to
state, let alone support, their position, have little else to work
with. These contradictory, bait-and-switch, double standard and "have
it both ways" claims include:

1. ID advocates claim that ID is strictly scientific, but never
disavowed the Wedge document, which clearly outlines ID's religious
intent. And they rarely challenge followers who assume that ID is
religious. See also Claim 8 below. (2, 3)

2. ID advocates claim not to be creationists, but then take most of
their misrepresentations of evolution out of the classic
creationists' playbook. They know that the public will define
"creationist" mainly as "YEC," so they are technically correct,
as they do not directly try to support YEC. But they know that their
critics define "creationist" as anyone who misrepresents evolution
and proposes a design-based alternative. (1, 4)

3. ID advocates claim that ID is not necessarily about God, but they
easily change their tune if they think that the audience is receptive.
(2, 3)

4. ID advocates routinely switch between "ID in the general sense"
and the ID strategy to misrepresent evolution. The former is merely a
belief that a designer is responsible for life - a belief that many
"evolutionists" hold. When they have trouble answering refutations
of their arguments against evolution, it's "only about the
design," but when the flaws in their arguments for design are
exposed, it's back to trotting out the misrepresentations of
evolution. (5)

5. ID is "shut out" of mainstream science publishing, but that
doesn't stop ID advocates from bragging about how a few of them
published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals anyway (never mind that
the papers neither challenge evolution nor support ID). Note, William
Dembski, one of the leaders of the ID movement, has admitted that he
just doesn't bother submitting papers anyway. (6, 7, 8)

6. Dembski complains about being asked for "mechanistic details" -
while nearly all ID theorists and proponents use mechanistic metaphors
("little trucks and buses" etc.), but do not think that they need to
provide any testable mechanistic details of the implementation of the
design. (6, 9)

7. ID advocates suggest that the fact that scientists can't create
life in the lab shows how complex and beyond our understanding it is -
they then go on to use human design and manufacture as evidence for
biological design. That implies that humans are not intelligent enough
to design life, but intelligent enough to catch the one who can red
handed. (10, 11)

8. In asserting the transcendental design of a structure/function ID
advocates presume to perceive intent, but when pressed for explanation
of the apparent contradictions of "bad" design they cavil that one
cannot know the mind of the designer. (12)

9. ID advocates recognize that science evolved out of religion and
sometimes note that most of the early "scientists" were creationists -
then in the next breath they'll complain that ID needs more time to be
allowed to develop as a viable scientific theory. Note: Some IDers will
avoid the contradiction by simply noting that ID and creationism are
different things. But not all of them do that; Phillip Johnson is quite
comfortable being labeled a "creationist." (13)

10. Science is stuck in a rut, and to fix it we need to abandon the
absolute requirement of methodological naturalism, but ID is not a
religion and it doesn't require that the designer is a supernatural
entity. If the designer is not supernatural and not a deity, why won't
the naturalistic methods of science do? (2, 14)

11. Dembski, reminds us that Behe accepts common descent and asserts
Carl Woese "explicitly rejects" it - and does it in the same
article, no less. That is meant to fool nonscientists into thinking
that Woese rejects human-ape common ancestry, which he does not. It
merely switches the scientific definition of "common descent" with
the caricature definition. (15)

12. ID advocates frequently brag about a small list of real scientists
who signed a vague "dissent from 'Darwinism'" statement, but are
unimpressed by a larger list of "Steves," and a much larger list of
members of Christian clergy, who signed unambiguous statements
endorsing evolution. (16, 17, 18)

13. Evolution is unfalsifiable and falsified. (19)

14. Pope John Paul II was misinterpreted, or was he "bullied" by
"Darwinists?" (He was neither) (20, 21, 22)

15. Stuart Kauffman is a "Darwinist", or is he a fellow
"dissenter?" (23, 24)

16. Most ID advocates claim to be uncertain of evolution's less
extraordinary, and well-supported claims, such as the age of the earth
and the common ancestry of humans and apes. Yet they express no
uncertainty about their "scientific" answers to the ultimate
questions, such as whether life is designed. All science, not just
evolution, simply does not ask the ultimate questions, because both
affirmative and negative answers make extraordinary claims that science
cannot back up. (25, 26)

17, ID advocates claim that science is taking IC and ID seriously.
Have they forgotten how Behe's own testimony at Dover and the ruling
by Judge Jones shows that IC has nothing to do with ID but is merely a
negative argument against the ability of variation and selection to
explain a particular feature? (27)

18, ID is a scientific theory, just like evolution. But evolution is
just a belief, like ID. Most ID advocates start with the former, but
when they need a "plan B," resort to the latter. Phillip Johnson in
particular, likes to emphasize the latter. To cover the tracks of this
discrepancy, and the one in Claim 13 above, William Dembski shows his
exceptional skills at defining terms to suit the argument, by claiming
that ID is testable and "Darwinism" is not. (28)

Acknowledgements

The above entries are edited from contributions from Noctiluca (No. 6
to 9), Neverbetter (No. 10) and PvM (No. 17).

To all of the above: If my editing has changed any of your intended
meanings, please let me know.

Special thanks to Mark Isaak, whose "Index to Creationist Claims"
(29) was an invaluable resource, and to Ronald Bailey (30), who
explained why anti-evolutionists would promote what they do not
necessarily accept in private, and hence risk repeating so many
falsehoods and contradictions.

References

(1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

(2) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html

(3) http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

(4) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html

(5)
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?ID=3090
Note how Behe does not ask Haught to reject evolution.

(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski

(7) The Chronicle of Higher Education Dec. 21, 2001

(8) http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html

(9) http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000152-p-3.html

(10) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

(11) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI131.html

(12) http://www.ooblick.com/text/id-fabnaq.html

(13) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html

(14) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html

(15) http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/dembskincse.htm

(16) http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

(17) http://www.natcenscied.org/article.asp?category=18

(18) http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm

(19) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

(20) http://lordibelieve.org/twotw/pope.PDF

(21) http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c017.html
Note, Cal Thomas changed his mind from the Pope "succumbing to the
tyranny" to just "misinterpreted" and is apparently not trying to
have it both ways. But there may be others who do, and even if not,
there's little or no public debate about it among anti-evolutionists.

(22) http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

(23) http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/dembski172.htm

(24)
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2253_pr91_10142001__kauffman_rej_10_14_2001.asp

Note: Kauffman does not think that natural selection alone is
responsible for the origin and diversity of life (does anyone?), but
unlike pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists, he tests his alternate
hypotheses, admits where he may be mistaken, and is clear about what
more work remains to be done to better validate his ideas. Because of
that, he rejects the ID approach.

(25) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.html

(26)
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?id=2671

(27) http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/evolution_of_ic.html

(28) http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

(29) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

(30) http://www.reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

I would like to nominate this for Post of the Month....

Ken

Seconded.

> Ken

Bill

Self-contradictory creationist claims are sometimes known as White Queen
events. (The White Queen Hypothesis, first advanced by Dr. J. Harshman,
states that creationists are able to believe as many as six impossible
things before breakfast.) It would be nice if you maintained that name.

A dubious candidaate. Silence is not contradiction, merely convenient.

Again, dubious because no explicitly contradictory claims are being
made. Lies, per se, don't count as contradiction.

Again, more of a lie than a true contradiction.

Still not a contradiction. Perhaps you need to change the description of
what this list is intended to be.

I'll just page down until I find a genuine contradiction.

That one might achieve contradiction if developed a bit further.

Finally, a genuine contradiction. I suspect that a creationist might be
able to argue that evolution is not falsifiable in the same senses that
we all think creationism isn't: 1) it's followers refuse to recognize
falsifications and 2) the mere word (creation or evolution, take your
pick) is not a well-defined scientific theory but an infinite bundle of
possible theories; if one is falsified, another can be erected in its place.

You need to find the same writer simultaneously holding both views. Can
you do that? Otherwise it's not contradiction, but a case of
disagreement or of changing one's mind.

Or is the definition of "darwinist" sufficiently changeable (especially
for creationists) that he can be both?

Not all stupid positions are contradictions.

This one could be developed too. But you need to find someone
simultaneously holding the views that evolution (or creation) is
testable and untestable in order to get a contradiction.

I find this rather amusing.

Most scientific theories in the history of science were failures and
most were abandoned; there are few survivors. Darwinism was in the
scrap until the rediscovery of Mendelism rescued it.

Even the theories that have survived all----more or less----have some
problems, flaws and contradictions. And while we don't expect
adherents to give up on a theory at the first sign of trouble we do
expect that they welcome its critics to do what they can't bring
themselves to do-----harshly test it. This what the scientific
enterprise is supposed to be about.

But for the atheists the evolutionary framework has been elevated to
something beyond a provisional theory. It has become religious-like
dogma to under write metaphysical beliefs about
nature-----materialism, naturalism, uniformitarianism, atheism. Here
Frank J guided by our resident philosopher-comedian-atheist sets out
to show that creationist criticism is nothing of the sort but
something akin to apostasy.

Since when is offering alternative possibilities a violation of the
scientific enterprise. It is only a sin when certain pet theories
have been elevated to sacrosanct dogma----as is the case with
evolutionism.

The majority position among anti-evolutionists is to teach the
significant problems with evolutionary theory as opposed to the
current practice of teaching it as undisputed truth. One need not
breathe a single word of creationism or ID theory.

The position by the likes of Eugenie Scott and Frank J that teaching
evolutionism's significant problems will create little skeptics.
Creating skepticism through the presentation of truth is treated by
them as something to be avoided. Yet the scientific enterprise is not
in the business of protecting theories but criticizing them and
harshly testing them. It is often in focusing on even a minor problem
that break through or some new, better theory is generated. Insulating
pet theories that have become sacrosanct leads to nothing but
stagnation. neoDarwinism and abiogenesis have stagnated and
languished for 40 years.

Again in what way is this something to be avoided by the scientific
enterprise? Logically there are a very large number of theories
(perhaps an infinite number) that may be able to explain the same
collection of observations. There is no logical necessity that any of
possible theories or frameworks be consistent with one another.

When one is attempting to investigate unique non recurring events that
have long since past the more theories one offers to explore and test
the better. Each one may entail empirical consequences that others
don't allowing us to focus our empirical investigation in places that
only one theory wouldn't.

Atheists are satisfied with evolutionism not because it is true, or
that it has been justified but because it allows them to be self
fullfilled atheists. Only Dawkins had the gonads to admit what the
others hide.

snip.

Regards,
T Pagano

snip

Here Frank J fails to show how advocating "ID is scientific" is
logically inconsistent with "advocating the Wedge Document." It would
be analogous to arguing that Richard Dawkins was logically
inconsistent when he advocated both "neoDarwinism is scientific" and
"neoDarwinism makes one a self-fillfilled atheist."

Wilkins, who should know better, should have informed Frank J that
metaphysical doctrines often guide what scientific theories we will
offer and our scientific theories often have metaphysical
implications. For example, Gould's "panda's thumb" was an
evolutionary argument which he thought had implications about what a
supernatural creator would and wouldn't do. Darwin offered a similar
connection.

A scientific theory is one which connects statements about nature with
nature itself. That is, the theory directs our attention where to
look AND often more importantly tells us what we should never see if
the theory were true. To suggest that a theory which tells us
something about nature can't also be consistent with one or more
metaphysical doctrines which offers similar guidance is pretty
obviously false. I suggest that the rabid evolutionist and atheist
Dawkins would agree.

more to follow if time permits

One suggestion: Get a new advisor.

Regards,
T Pagano

Glad to see Pagano is still alive and kicking. I see your thread title
and raise you some sarcasm.

aint it beautiful when a plan comes together?

oh...where's the proof for THAT assertion? none?

well i suppose in tony's world, atheists would be put to death. that's
what early christians did with non believers.

funny that most scientists in the US..who are christians...accept
evolution. tony, it seems, has relegated to himself the ability to tell
who is and isn't a christian.

funny that scientists are satisfied with evolution...and who knows what
'evolutionism' is...

Right. We're still waiting for the harsh test. Did you bring it with you?

When the 'alternatives' contradict one another yet are offered
interchangeably by the same people - as is the case with creationists.

The majority position among antievolutionists is to instill doubt about
evolution by sound bite and innuendo.

From you lips to your god's ear.

The 'position' is that teaching false problems with evolution will
create little morons. It's a rational thing. You wouldn't understand.

Using the word 'truth' in this context is a sin.

Except when they're posited interchangeably by the same people, as in
creationism.

The majority of 'evolutionists' are not atheists. What percentage of
antievolutionists are not religious?

CT

Hmmm. I've always seen that class of claims, while perhaps subsuming
contradictions, as being significantly broader. Not all impossible
creationist beliefs find contradiction in other creationist dogma.

Perhaps Frank could leave out mention of rare challenges and allow the
Wedge document to stand for itself. The Wedge document is certainly not
silent, has not been repudiated, and specifically contradicts many ID
proponent's subsequent claims about ID's lack of religious commitment.

But they might if they include reversals of prior positions. The
problem I have with this one is that while some ID "theorists" sound
more and more like traditional creationists (e.g. rejection of human
evolution) the work they cite (such as it is - Behe and Snoke, Wells in
Rivista etc.) doesn't seem to represent a position of convenience so
much as an evolution of their earler tactics. Of course the arguments
have evolved so as to be less susceptible to problems like the
establishment clause but even so I don't think it's fair to qualify
this as a contradiction unless proponents shift back and forth between
YEC and ID positions. They don't seem to do so.

I don't know. It seems pretty contradictory to me when Dembski says,

"Intelligent design is a winner in the public debate over biological
origins not only because it has the backing of powerful ideas,
arguments, and evidence but also because it does not turn this debate
into a Bible-science controversy. Intelligent design, unlike
creationism, is a science in its own right and can stand on its own
feet." - Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design, 2005

and also,

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in
the image of a benevolent God." - Science Test, Church & State
Magazine, July/August 2000.

I think this is an important point. It seems a creationist might be
able to rejoin, as you've implied elsewhere, that "evolutionists
disagree too, sometimes even saying contradictory things." Pagano tried
this tack in his own post (yeah, I read a bit before I caught myself).

But don't we have to look at this from the perspective of the scale of
the putative contradictions? Gould and Dawkins arguing about the pace
of speciation is not at the same scale as Behe saying he accepts common
descent and others like Kenyon and Johson rejecting it. Sure, if we
caught Behe alternately accepting and rejecting CD then we'd have a
bullet-proof example. However the point is not just to indict an
individual "theorist," but to point out the ad hoc nature of ID
"theory" by noting how their web of arguments against evolution has
resulted in cross-threads.

I think as long as the individuals in question are seen, by ID
proponents, as qualified to speak for ID itself then a contradiction
between their statements, assuming a broad enough scale (e.g. "ID is
science/we need to restructure scientific methodology" - actually, this
example is one of those where you *can* find the same person offering
contradictory statements) can legitimately be seen as contradictory.
Sure, proponents can say they simply disagree but that won't wash when
we're talking about broad foundational concepts, as it wouldn't if
Gould and Dawkins differed on common descent.

Wouldn't a qualification as "dissenter" by an ID proponents imply an
unspoken "from Darwinism?"

Well, Dembski, who has previously said that ID is testable, comes
pretty close to admitting the opposite when he says,

"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your
pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is
correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for
certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of
connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there
may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is
what ID is discovering."

Although I agree with some of your points, it seems to me Frank J. has
done a pretty nice job on this overall. Either you're looking too
closely for nits, or I'm too blithely willing to scratch now and then.

Robert

<snip references>

The "Wedge Document" advocates ID as a political and religious program
to benefit society. Note that such benefits require a particular
version of ID to be correct; i.e. it assumes ID as dogma. One cannot
advise that a theory be accepted in order to overturn "materialism" or
"naturalism," at the same time professing utter agnosticism as to
whether the theory even contradicts "materialism" or "naturalism."

Strictly speaking, assuming that the Designer will be either efficient
(and use the same thumb design for pandas and primates) or meticulous
(and use a different thumb design for each "created kind") is not
metaphysical (it depends on no assumptions about the nature of
existence as such, or what the meaning of "is" is), although it is
perhaps theological.

Note two things in this connection. First, the panda's thumb argument
is not simply that "creation" or "design" cannot explain something, but
rather than common descent with opportunistic modification can explain
it, and (if you wish to invoke "common design" rather than common
descent) that common design cannot say why these things are one way
rather than another way. No comprehensible account of the Designer's
motives can explain it.

Second, and one of my pet peeves: ID proponents from Phillip Johnson on
have complained that this objection is "theological" rather than
"scientific." But it is theological only if one assumes that the
Designer is God (as, indeed, virtually all ID proponents do). It is
absurd to invoke God as an explanatory principle in a theory, and then
dismiss all requests to explain how God is supposed to operate (as
though Newton had tried to fob of a "law of gravity" with no
inverse-square law, or any other account of how "gravity" was actually
supposed to work. And, of course, if the Designer need not be God,
then an inquiry into the Designers motives, methods, and design
philosophy is not religious or theological, and cannot be avoided
honestly.

You have (or pretend to) an extremely naive view of falsification; no
theory can tell you what you will *never* observe (under any
circumstance, given any possible combination of forces).

But in what sense does ID direct our attention? It does not even
purport to tell us whether any particular aspect of nature will be
perceptibly designed, and shies away from posing any testable theories
about how the Designer designs or implements His designs.

A better suggestion: don't make yourself that advisor.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

-- Steven J.

Common descent was not "in the scrap" before the fusion of Weismann's
neoDarwinism with mutation theory. There was a dispute over whether
large mutations could do most of the work of evolution (with natural
selection just cleaning up afterwards), or whether some unknown source
of small variations could serve, with natural selection doing most of
the work of "generating novelty," but there was no significant dissent
over evolution itself. Yet note that, although ID is not inherently
opposed to common descent, it encourages the teaching of "evidence
against evolution" (which isn't: see below).

Of course, a geocentrist creationist could (indeed, has) said exactly
the same thing about the dogmatic Copernicanism of modern science and
modern education. It is not a mark of dogma to refuse to abandon a
theory in the face of fallacious criticisms based on irrelevant or
simply untrue statements.

It is, for example, utterly untrue that "neoDarwinism" prohibits
"irreducibly complex" structures; indeed, such structures are not only
explicable in terms of the theory, but were predicted on the basis of
the theory before Behe was even born. It is untrue that common descent
is contradicted (as _Of Pandas and People_ and several other ID texts
or articles have claimed) by the fact that trout are genetically closer
to humans than to lampreys; it is more accurate to say that this is a
prediction of common descent. It is untrue to suggest that Dembski's
filter has ever identified the bacterial flagellum or anything else as
having "specified complexity," or shown these things as not the result
of "neoDarwinian" evolution.

It would be more correct to say that young-earth creationism offers
alternate impossibilities. It is a violation of the scientific
enterprise to lie about the data or about the theories to which one
purports to offer an "alternative."

The difficulty, of course, is that antievolutionists have mistaken and,
occasionally, deranged notions of what the "significant problems with
evolutionary theory" are. Very little if any of the "evidence against
evolution" actually constitutes a "significant problem with evolution."
Nor, again, is evolutionary theory taught as "undisputed truth" to any
greater extent than, say, heliocentrism is. It is merely the existence
of greater religious (not scientific) opposition to the theory that, to
some, makes it appear otherwise.

No, Tony, pay attention. Their position is that creating "skepticism"
through the presentation of lies (or, to be charitable, idiotic
mistakes) is to be avoided. Note that no ID proponent has shown the
slightest interest in subjecting ID theory to "harsh testing" (or,
frankly, in defining ID theory consistently and rigorously enough to
make such testing possible -- which was more or less the point of Frank
J.'s post).

Actually, given the amount of data available to modern biology, any
theories in contention should be very consistent with each other as far
as predictions for a wide range of conditions (otherwise, they would
yield false predictions for some aspects of nature, and stop being
contending theories).

Is there a logical necessity, in your opinion, that theories be
consistent with themselves? AiG (a YEC rather than ID organization,
but quite happy to use ID arguments) has, as I've noted before, argued
simultaneously that distant galaxies don't look (to creationists) as
though they are billions of years old, and advocated the Humphries
cosmology that requires distant galaxies to be billions of years old,
even though the Earth is mere thousands of years old.

But then, ID hasn't really offered any competing theories in the first
place. What it offers are contradictory critiques of actual theories,
with no alternative theory to put in their place.

ID, the apologetic technique posing as an inquiry into "mode of
causation," has no such theories. And so far, more explicit forms of
creationism either offer theories that have been falsified, or escape
falsification by invoking arbitrary miracles to explain away the
evidence (e.g. undetectable changes in radioactive decay rates).

That is not what Dawkins said. Are you dishonest or incompetent? Or
am I overgenerous in assuming that you are only one or the other?
>
>
> snip.

I'm not an atheist, if you are referring to me.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos,
puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

Uh huh. The title addresses "evolutionism," and above you start talking
about "Darwinism." Not only do I not want to shield them from
"criticism as if it were a sacrosanct dogma" I think that those ideas
are fully discredited. If you notice I don't even use those weasel
words except to mock the pseudoscientists who can't spin their nonsense
without them.

Theories are by definition incomplete. Anti-evolution strategies have
not even taken step 1 to be theories, and are even retreating from the
speculative ideas of YEC and OEC to the "don't ask, don't tell" shell
game of ID.

Who exactly is this "resident philosopher-comedian-atheist" who guides
this theist down the same deadly path traveled by most major religions?
If you mean Dr. Wilkins, alas, he is a fellow follower.

Offering alternative possibilities would be a wonderful idea - even to
the atheists. Except that that has never been done. And the whole ID
movement attests to the fact that the previous attempts (e.g. YEC &
OEC) are indeed failures.

Backwards again., "Evolutionists" want to, and often do (particularly
at the college level -after the basics are taught) teach the
"significant problems with evolutionary." Anti-evolutionists merely
want to spin their misrepresentations.

No. There are plenty of opportunities to pitch the false dichotomy
outside the classroom.

Name one such "place".

But alas, it (evolutionary biology) among other scientific ideas, helps
me and many others to be *intellectually* fulfilled *theists.* BTW,
Dawkins didn't say *self* fulfilled, as I heard misquoted before.

>
>
>
> snip.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

Then please stop complaining about "Darwinism" and "evolutionism" and
state your specific alternative, instead of providing yet more evidence
that all previous attempts have failed.

You are now. You have been drafted by the nonexistent EAC. ;-)

A definite add.

I'm not specifically trying to find only "contradictions," and as I
qualify above (e.g. in the footnote about Cal Thomas), I am not trying
to make it sound like it is usually a case of the same
anti-evolutionist trying to have it both ways at the same time. But in
the anti-evolution movement as a whole, there is this systematic - and
apparently increasing - tendency to find so much wrong with evolution,
that they stop at nothing - contradictions, falsehoods, half-truths,
switching definitions, "stupid positions" etc. Anything but trying to
come up with a better theory.

And as I also note, but Pagano ignores, evolutionary biology also has
its difficulties and differences of opinions, and proponents debate
them openly. So much for the pretense of "sacrosanct dogma." But then
again, he addresses "evolutionism" and "Darwinism," not "evolutionary
biology".

(snip)

Most religions in the history of humans were/and are failures and most
were abaondoned; there are few survivors. Christianity was on the
scrap heap until Constantine rescued it.

Even the religions that have survived--more or less-- have massive

adherents to give up on a religion at the first sign of trouble, we do
expect that they welcome its critics to do what they can't do
themselves--to harshly test it. Is this NOT what our religions are
suposed to be about?

The White Queen hypothesis is specifically stated as being about
self-contradiction, even thought the White Queen's own statement wasn't.
It was a convenient label.

Perhaps. But I would like to see the contradiction explicitly backed up.

Might. Though a change of mind would also be a possibility.

Not a contradiction at all. A position that is purely scientific may end
up supporting some range of religious views. It's the same as Dawkins
saying that natural selection allows him to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist, even though natural selection is not an atheist
philosophy but a scientific theory.

That't certainly legitimate. You just can't call it contradiction.
Pointing up the huge disagreements within the ID camp is worth a FAQ all
its own, and perhaps most of these claims belong there.

Again, that's legitimate. But we have to be clear on what we're talking
about. These are fundamental (sic), papered-over disagreements within
the movement. They aren't contradictions, even contradictions of the
movement as a whole, because none of the disagreements are important to
the purpose of ID. That's why they can have a big tent. None of this
matters to them. Their goal is political and religious, and on that they
agree. Scientific disagreements are (to them) unimportant. (And that's
an excellent clue that ID has nothing to do with science.)

However, highlighting the internal disagreements of the movement is a
great approach. Perhaps this whole FAQ should be reconfigured for that
purpose. And the most basic disagreement is over common descent, yea or
nay. One problem is that because of the big tent, few IDers are willing
to commit themselves on the question. Fortunately Behe, the biggest gun
of the group, has done so publically and repeatedly.

Yes. But "Darwinism" is vague enough that we can't tell what that means.
Kauffman could be a darwinist in one context and an anti-darwinist in
another. It's not a contradiction but a convenient use of a term that
the IDers and creationists have rendered nearly meaningless.

No, all this means (if it means anything) is that we can't very well
study the mechanism of ID. But the fact of ID, Dembski would maintain,
is rigorously testable. No contradiction, merely weaselling.

I think it's a nice start, but it's not a start on what it claims to be.
Anyway, if you're not as hard on your own reasoning as you are on the
creationists, you will get lazy, and there are a few creationists clever
enough to pounce on that. I see way too many invalid or unclear
arguments made by people on our side.

I don't agree (but I must admit that that there is an ambiguity here
that renders my proposed contradiction rather toothless).

I don't think Dembski is saying that ID produces theory that allows
personally fulfilling interpretations. I think he is saying that ID
produces, or will produce, direct evidence which supports the
created-in-the-image concept.

Everything I've read by Dembski indicates he doesn't simply believe
that his methodology will result in empirical data which can
accommodate a God inference among other interpretations. He believes
that it will, if it hasn't already, force a God conclusion. The
difference betwee Dembski and Dawkins here is the difference between
"allow" and "obligate."

If I'm right about this then I think his statements above have to be
read as contradiction. He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth
depending upon the audience. However, it seems clear I could've chosen
a better sample quote to make this point.

I don't think we, or whoever reads the FAQ, need to know what
"Darwinisim" means to understand that alternate references to a person
as a "Darwinist" and a "dissenter" from Darwinism by ID proponents is
contradictory.

If you're suggesting that ID proponents can have so broad a usage of
the word that in different cases it could actually represent opposing
meanings, then perhaps we could sacrifice the contradiction above in
favor of this more fundamental one.

Not just weaselling. This is weaselling that also gives away part of
the game. His tepid concession that there may be dots to be connected
is a sweetening prelude to a much larger admission. When he says there
may be fundamental discontinuities he is covering himself, and all ID
"theorists" with a blanket of operational untestability. Noting that
there may be empirical gaps, and asserting that ID is revealing them
allows him to fall back on a methodology wherein there is no need to
create a connection between causal agency and effect, leaving his
designer safe from scrutiny.

Granted, he talks a lot without saying much. But I do think he has said
enough here to contradict himself. You just have to dig through the
bilge to get to it.

Absolutely. And I think responses such as yours do much to help refine
the product.

We don't seem to disagree on substance, just on the use of the word
"contradiction." For my part I don't really care, the important thing
is to continue, as you say, "highlighting the internal disagreements of
the movement."

Robert

Even if that's so, the support is (according to the claim, not reality)
flowing the opposite way from what you need to generate a contradiction.
A scientific theory might easily support some person's religious belief.
It stops being science when the religious belief is the reason for
supporting the theory. *That's* why ID isn't science. But that's not the
claimed contradiction.

True. But that's not a difference that renders the example invalid. If
Dawkins said that evolution forces atheism, that wouldn't make evolution
unscientific either. Only if he said that atheism forces evolution would
there be a contradiction.

If you can find an example, fine. But it has to be one where religion is
given as a reason to like ID, not the other way around.

It doesn't have to be opposing meanings, just more and less inclusive
meanings. Consider a Venn diagram with two concentric circles, labeled
"darwinism A" (inner circle) and "darwinism B" (outer circle). Now put a
point between the circles and label it "Kauffman". If you adopt
darwinism A, he's a dissenter; if you adopt darwinism B, he's a
darwinist. IDers may be purposely trying to blur the definitions to fit
their purposes of the moment -- bait and switch, more or less -- but
that's dishonesty of a different sort than self-contradiction.

Nevertheless, this is not a contradiction. There may be areas of inquiry
that are outside our ability to test, and thus not science, even though
other areas are within science. He's claiming that the fact of ID is
testable, and science, even if its mechanism is not. This is not
contradictory. It's suspiciously convenient, but no more.

And I don't see it. He is wrong, but not self-contradictory.
Self-contradiction requires that his position be logically incompatible
with itself. That's a high standard to meet.

It's also important to make that clear by using the correct words and to
understand just what you are doing. And to make valid arguments only. If
you're looking for contradiction, there are contradictory creationist
arguments, and the incestuous nature of creationist apologetics makes it
inevitable that the same creationist will often end up using such
contradictory ones. Long lists of arguments (like Walter Brown's) are
your best source. ID, the upscale end of the movement, indulges in this
sort of thing much less frequently. Go with the disagreements and
inaccuracies.

[snip]

snip

Even if this were true how is it a contradiction of the ID position
for ID advocates to agree with ANY group on the problems, shortfalls,
and failures of evolutionism? The Gould Camp certainly agrees with
creationists that the absence of genuine transitional fossils is both
a real and a grave problem that needs explaining. Does this mean
Eldrege-Gouldians should be smeared as creationists and ignored?

When ID advocates argue that neoDarwinian evolution cannot produce
irreducibly complex systems, this is certainly consistent with what
creationists have been arguing in generalized terms for a few decades.
Yet there agreement about a shortfall in evolutionism is hardly
inconsistent with any statements encompassed by ID theory.

The attempt here (apparently inspired by Wilkins) has less to do with
identifying internal contradictions in the ID camp then with the
worst sort of polemics. This tactic is hardly novel. If one can
successfully brand someone a Nazi, or a child molestor or a
creationist one doesn't have to take anything they say seriously. So
far psuedo contradiction (1) and (2) are attempts in that vane.

It isn't the public at large who have attempted to misrepresent ID as
"creationism in disguise," but faithful evolutionists and atheists.
The public doesn't know much about ID theory because those in secular
authority have---so far----been able to brand it as religion and have
it kept from the public square. It is the atheists and faithful
evolutionists not the public at large who smear anyone as a
"creationist" who attempts to show that their sacrosanct dogma of
evolutionism is not nearly as blemish free as they have lead decades
of students to believe.

ID theory does NOT presuppose nor does it require the existence of a
supernatural creator for its efficacy. And ID theory does NOT attempt
to reconstruct or model prehistory. It attempts modestly to identify
the mode of causation of an observable object or event without
knowning much of anything about its causal history. On the other hand
creationism unabashedly presumes the existence of a supernatural
creator who created everything by design. Creationists don't test for
design they already presume it. Creationism is an attempt-----however
weak-----to model prehistory. To suggest then that ID theory is a
"creationism disguised" is the worst sort of intentional deception.

snip

Regards,
T Pagano

<snip>

No, but it would create a contradiction with any other statements from
Dawkins that claim evolution to be science. If evolution is science it
cannot evidentially obligate conclusions as to the supernatural.

If I say - ID is science, and - ID empirically obligates
acknowledgement of God, are these not contradictory statements?
Regardless of any understandable scientific naivete on my part in the
larger context these statements wouild seem to be mutually exclusive.

<snip>

Then the task in this case would be to establish that ID proponents use
darwinism B when attacking Kauffman as a enemy, and use darwinism A
when embracing him as a fellow dissenter. Not an impossible task, but a
lot of buck for a little bang.

I think you're right about the possible interpretations here, I just
don't think it's worth getting that deep into it. The claim itself is
rather a bit of low hanging fruit for both sides and just doesn't seem,
to me, to require that kind of analysis.

How can you in one breath claim that your theory is testable and
science, then in the next operationally insulate your hypothesized
mechanism from testing, and not be in contradiction? Are these not
logically incompatible positions?

Of course. I just don't see that you have made the point that the word
contradiction is inapplicable in many of these examples. It seems you
are demanding a higher standard than simple contradiction when you talk
about *self-contradiction.* I get the feeling you are looking for
positions that when offered include within themselves paradoxical or
contradictory arguments or concepts. But I don't think such examples
are the sum total of what we are justified in considering
contradictory.

If an ID proponent supports a (internally consistent) position in one
context, then for the purposes of rhetorical convenience turns around
and supports an opposing (internally consistent) position in another
context - that, to me, is legitimately labelled contradictory. And if a
different ID "theorist" offers an opposing (internally consistent)
position I think this is legitimately labelled contradictory as well
(keeping in mind my proviso about the scale of the claim, e.g. common
descent).

It is my impression that you would rather call these events
disagreements or changing perspectives. I would agree with this if the
overall context was scientific. But as you pointed out earlier this is
almost entirely about politics and, I would add, marketing strategies.
As such, and as been suggested by myself and others, the
"contradictions" seem to occur in direct correlation to rhetorical
convenience much more so than they arise out of evaluations of
evidence.

If you think that it is this point which has not been strongly enough
supported then I can agree with you there. It's more than simply citing
two references, it requires discussing the context of those references
and demonstrating the flip-flop.

But I just don't see that the word "contradiction" is inapplicable, or
that these arguments are invalid. And I think ID does just fine in
mounting its own set of whoppers, though they may be couched and
obfuscated more so than those of traditional creationists (but that may
just be an artifact of where I like to spend my time).

Robert

Why not briefly explain Woese's "rejection" of universal common
descent? IIRC, Woese narrows down common anscestry to two anscestors,
one for archeabacteria and one for everything else. (Someone please
correct or confirm this.) This will clearly show the trickery of
language by Dembski in this case.

[snip]

Never said it was a "contradiction of 'the' ID position," because there
is no 'the' ID position. Still talking about "evolutionism" I see.

No. because they work on the problem, and don't try to cover up their
differences.

And I never said that it did. ID is consistent with the designer being
an alien. And as Behe said under oath at Dover, the designer might no
longer exist. The only reason that YECs rave about ID is political. And
some YEC leaders, at AIG in particular, have criticized the ID
strategy. Since you defend ID, is it safe to assume that you disagree
with AIG? On their age of the eath? Their denial of common descent? Or
just with their audacity to object to a politically correct "big tent"
strategy?

But if it wants to compete with real science it will have to. Classic
creationism tried to and failed. Hence the ID strategy. Sooner or later
ID will either have to:

1. Agree that evolution is correct and just posit a designer as the
ultimate cause, or:

2. Pick one of the discredited creationist positions, and try to revive
it, or:

3. Come up with a new one (e.g. Behe's front loading scenario)

And if you actually read my posts, you will know that I am perhaps the
*only* regular TO "evolutionist" who constantly says *not* to call ID
"creationism disguised."

really? where did THIS chestnut come from? NO ONE says transitionals
are absent. no one. so pagano's claim is, out of the gate, wrong.

and both are, of course, wrong...

1. pagano conflates evolutionary biologists with atheists. the overlap
between the 2 groups is non existent and pagano's presented NO evidence
supporting his assumption

2. there is nothing wrong with being an atheist. in the good old days,
i suppose, pagano's ilk would have murdered atheists much as his
ideological colleagues in islamist countries do today. that does not
make atheism immoral or wrong.

uh, no. since ID adherents have presented NO concept about what ID is,
have done NO research and can't articulate what it is about ID that
makes it science, the public has, amazingly enough, picked up on this
problem.

pagano's hate filled bigotry against atheists is breathtaking. what's
next? blacks? jews?

pagano disagrees with ID stalwarts such as phillip johnson and mike
behe who have identified the ID as god.

what mode of causation? not a single ID'er has ever said HOW ID works.
does pagano know something about ID he's hiding from other ID'ers?

a lie by any other name would still smell like a dead fish.

and pagano's bigotry stinks, so to speak, to high heaven.

Another good point. IIRC, that's Woese's position, or close to it.

To all: thanks for the responses - yes you too Pagano, for showing once
again how vacuous ID is.

There's probably much more to be said about these points (and I just
thought of another one reading another recent Behe whopper). What I'd
really like is if somone with more time and better writing ability
would expand on them, add more, delete some if necessary. And take
credit too (tho I'd appreciate a footnote :-) ).

Why? Is this an argument that science is incapable, by definition, of
offering evidenc about supposed supernatural phenomena?

Why?

[snip]

No. We could as easily claim that common descent itself is testable but
be unable to come up with a mechanism that would produce the observed
differences among species. Now it happens that we can come up with a
mechanism, but the point is that whether we can or can't is irrelevant
to our ability to test common descent itself.

The things Dembski says are untestable are not the same things he says
are testable. There is therefore no contradiction.

No, I'm not requiring that single statements be internally
contradictory, merely that separate statements by the same person be
incompatible with each other. By that standard, few of the
"contradictions" listed are really contradictions.

Agreed. Few of these fit that requirement.

And I disagree with that standard. It's disagreement, not contradiction.
It deserves to be noted (frequently, loudly), but call it what it is.

Where the contradictions come from is not relevant to evaluating whether
they are contradictions. But of course that's where they come from.
These people don't care about agreement, except on one thing, or about
consistency except where it's a tactical advantage. Nevertheless...

If indeed there is a flip-flop. And I also think that, purely from a
tactical perspective, you should give them the benefit of the doubt in
ambiguous cases, concentrating only on those cases where the
contradiction is inescapable. Very few of the cases above are clear
enough to warrant discussion as "contradictions". They may warrant
raising questions about meaning, but we may not be able to answer those
questions without help from the IDers themselves.

>>If

Are you claiming to be a philosopher-comedian?

Paggers thinks that being a comedian is a Bad Thing. So he's called me this
for a while. I don't mind. All I want is Robin Williams' income stream.

pagano claims that "sacrosanct dogma" should be shielded from
questioning. isnt that exactly what he believes christianity to be? why
is pagano utterly uninterested in questioning his most cherished
beliefs? if they are indeed true, what does he have to lose?

next time pagano changes the thread title, he should first ensure that
it does not undercut his own positions, as it often does.

snip

ID theory is NOT about God but about intelligent agents in general.
The theory has no capability to identify the intelligent agent or
his/her nature. It's adherents also make quite clear that they
neither assert nor deny the possibility of supernatural action. These
three facts are made clear in virtually every full length work
produced.

Since ID theory does not presume nor does it require the existence of
a supernatural agent, it's advocates would certainly be prudent to
highlight this fact in front of a body which is inherently secular. At
the same time ID theory does not exclude the possibility of
supernatural action. Accordingly it would not be inconsistent with
its framework to address what implications ID theory has on the
metaphysical doctrines of christianity to such a predisposed audience.
In these instances ID adherents can play both sides of the fence
without contradiction. The same is not the case with evolutionists.

Evolutionism implicitly presumes the metaphysical doctrine of
naturalism and as a PRACTICAL matter denies the logical possibility of
a supernatural creator. This is undeniable and Dawkins has said as
much. Yet many secularists have gone out of their way repeatedly to
deny this very fact. This is a contradiction----to assert the
negation of an undeniable presupposition.

snip

Regards,
T Pagano

What does ID exclude?

No. As a PRACTICAL matter evolution IGNORES the the logical possibility
of a supernatural creator. Denying logical possibilities as a matter of
practicality is absurd. It is logically possible that fairies will come
and do my dishes while I sleep, but as a practical matter I will do
them anyway. I don't deny the existence of fairies, I just act as if
they do not affect the outcome of the task.

You already have the hair.

And the drug induced brain damage.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Note, also (this has been pointed out to you repeatedly) that
"irreducibly complex" systems were described (under the term
"interlocking complexity) by Muller in 1939 as an expected result of
"neoDarwinism." Behe's argument that such systems cannot evolve
ignores entirely the possibility that parts can be modified or deleted
rather than simply added, or the possibility that the function (or
essentiality) of a system can be modified over time, although both are
rather crucial features of "neoDarwinian" evolution.

So you are arguing that creationism and ID make the same mistakes.
There's an essay in the FAQ about the significance of shared mistakes
in demonstrating common ancestry.

If you can demonstrate that someone's claims are self-contradictory
gibberish, one doesn't have to demonstrate any degree of moral
turpitude to establish that that person need not be taken seriously.

Tony, you are indulging in paranoid nonsense. First, ID is discussed
in newspapers, in myriad publications of the Discovery Institute and in
the publications of more open creationists as well, and of course in
churches that oppose evolutionary theory. And, judging from some of
the comments made by ID supporters in the Dover case (and elsewhere),
there are plenty of creationists who have concluded that ID is
creationism in disguise. Second, if you are lying about evolutionary
theory and the evidence that supports it, and if you are determined to
rescue society from the evils of "secularism," "materialism," and
"Darwinism," it is perfectly reasonable to assume that you are in fact
a creationist.

ID is not a theory; it is an apologetic tool. It has two functions:
first, to serve as a figleaf for creationism in attempts to interject
creationist deceptions into the school curriculum, and second, as an
attempt to justify creationist deceptions to "confused Christians."

-- Steven J.

Christians typically thank God for their food and possessions, although
they work to earn the money to buy these things; they do not drop into
their homes like manna from heaven. That is, their possessions are
"naturalistic" and they come by them "naturalistically," yet they
attribute them to a supernatural cause that operates behind and through
these naturalistic means. I assume you have no problem with any of
this. Or, to take an example closer to "Darwinism," children are often
called a "blessing from God," and taught to regard themselves as
creations of God, although, again, they originate through naturalistic
means. It is no great stretch to extend this way of thinking to see
God as creating through naturalistic evolution. If it is a
contradiction, it is a contradiction that runs throughout Christianity
and the Bible, which repeatedly sees the hand of God in naturalistic
events and in the actions of purely human intelligenct design with no
thought of doing God's work.
>
> snip

Never did speed; can't tolerate dope (it's even worse going down
than tobacco, ferchrisakes!); acid was initially interesting, but
I didn't find any new "pure forms of intuition" so I gave it up...
(visual effects from acid could have been produced by Disney, and
I have better taste than to indulge in that...)

I did both but neither impressed me, although there was this one night....

John,

Did I ever tell you about my going to Woodstock when I was sixteen?

If I could live my life over, I would be sure to do that one thing aged
more like 24 and I would have joined in with at least one of the groups
on my harmonicas. What a waste. I went to Woodstock and didn't
even get laid. (I did find out that some people my parents age were
quite happy to smoke pot with us teens however.)

(signed) marc

..