Principia

"Guts" has a familiar <edited> ring to his posts... My, now the Mike-Gene parrotting IDiots have started to trickle over to IIDB -- must be because they've exhausted all those "serious discussions" over at ISCID and ARN.

Albion

The basic difference betwen the pro-evolution people and the anti-evolution groups, whether young-earth creationist, old-earth creationist, intelligent-design creationist ro whatever, is that the latter are all claiming that natural processes are insufficient to account for observed phenomena and that supernatural intervention, of a sort that's (a) distinct from natural processes but (b) detectable scientifically, is required. The basic difference is that the biblical creationists claim that current science is just giving wrong results and ID creationists claim that science needs to be redefined (or renewed, as the relevant DI department used to put it) to account for this supernatural intervention.

Any time a group starts to claim that supernatural intervention outside the parameters of the laws of nature is required to explain observed phenomena, I don't see what's wrong with calling it creationism. The whole point of the claim is that a creator is required.

Principia

Yes, well let's take a look at the bibliography that Bohlin himself cites:
My my. A publication in the CRSQ... and all of this before his dissertation was published. In other words, the two articles that "Gutsy" kept citing -- from J. Thermal Biology and J. of Mammology -- were in fact published before Bohlin had a graduate degree (not to mention an undergraduate one). Which all goes to show even more clearly that Bohlin had no research career, and that his motivations for obtaining for a graduate degree were purely for apologetics.

But, if "Gutsy" wants to prop up Bohlin as evidence of yet another Darwinian conspiracy, I guess that's his prerogative.

Principia

Which is irrelevant , since my point was that the ID umbrella does not preclude creationist research. In fact my quote from AiG shows clearly that PJ is quite willing to embrace Creationists under the "big-tent" strategy for this express purpose. There is nothing about ID which demands only a front-loading paradigm. Interventionalism is perfectly consistent with ID, and for the sake of the ID movement, it has to be. But then again, Mike Gene yes-men have an interesting way of twisting ID for rhetorical purposes.

Principia

Yes, less than a dozen links -- all of which exist on Internet forums. I am speechless about the evidence for ID "research".

Here, let me help you out some more with those online ID research articles, "Guts":

http://www.icr.org/research/ma/ma-r01.htm
http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r06.htm
http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r04.htm
http://www.icr.org/research/jb/runawaysubduction.htm
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq..._1/LaBrea3.htm
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...omb_eagles.htm
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...cceldecay.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od20...tionism201.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od19...heology191.htm
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/langan_ctmu.php
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/finley_cs.php
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/m...itive_cell.php

So I guess your point is that ID proponents do research of the same quality as Creationists... I agree.

Albion

Kettlewell's results have been supported by later experiments. The fact that staged pictures are used in textbooks is irrelevant to the correctness of the theory under discussion. Textbooks are full of errors, partly through using out-of-date material and partly through needing to just skim the surface of subjects. A problem with an illustration isn't necessarily an indication that the process it's illustrating is incorrect, it's often just a matter if an incorrect illustration.

Jerry Coyne's review of the book "Of Moths and Men" in Nature points out the way creationists (and he seems to think ID advocates are creationists, since Jonathan Wells is the highest-profile person pushing this particular argument) are managing to misinterpret the state of play in this field.

"The biggest shortcoming, however, is Hooper's failure to emphasize that, despite arguments about the precise mechanism of selection, industrial melanism still represents a splendid example of evolution in action. The dramatic rise and fall of the frequency of melanism in Biston betularia, occurring in parallel on two continents, is a compelling case of evolution by natural selection. No force other than selection could have caused such striking and directional change. Hooper's grudging admission of this fact occupies but one sentence: "It is reasonable to assume that natural selection operates in the evolution of the peppered moth."

This issue matters, at least in the United States, because creationists have promoted the problems with Biston as a refutation of evolution itself. Even my own brief critique of the story (Nature 396, 35–36; 1998) has become grist for the creationists' mill. By peddling innuendo and failing to distinguish clearly the undeniable fact of selection from the contested agent of selection, Hooper has done the scientific community a disservice."

Principia

Which is yet another continuation of the BS that you said before.

But, I guess we should give you the benefit of the doubt about what is "a lot" in your own worldview.

After all, you had argued that Bohlin's two articles was "a lot" of support for a Darwinian conspiracy against Bohlin.

After arguing that, maybe then you would have us believe that your "sample" of ID internet discussions is also "a lot" of support for ID research.

And then after that we could entertain another argument from you that 136 scientists is "a lot" of support for ID.

Maybe, "Guts," readers will think you have "a lot" of credibility left.

RufusAtticus

<cough>Dawin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution</cough>

And which ones involve actual investigations by idists? Even Behe admits that he never investigated the examples in his book.

Because I can find more scientists named Steve that support evolution than you can find "scientists" that doubt it.

Yes I've seen the list. You still didn't answer the question. How many is "many of them?"

Sure they like to assert this, but they offer no evidence of it. It's a simple arguement of personal incredulity. But why should we care if a bunch of religiously motivated engineers, doctors, and chemists, or even biolgists doubt the power of evolution? They haven't offered us any reasons why it won't work, except to say "does not."

I haven't shifted any goal posts. Show me exactly where did I reject your names because they weren't population biolgists.

What assertions? I never asserted that there weren't biolgists on the list.

Yeap, you are. You trot out these names as if they are authorities on the subject of evolutionary biology, i.e. that their opinion on evolution actually means something.

Entomology is not population biology. I can be an entomologist and study the nutrition requirements of beetle and not ever study their poulations. In fact one can study apiculture without studying the evolution. It is difficult to argue that someone with this on his webpage objects to evolution for scientific reasons.

My reasons for not liking Mozart are that my pastor told me that if you play the the "Marriage of Figero" backwards you hear Satan talking. (BTW: I didn't ask about rights; I asked if I should go lobby the local school board to get my opinion taught in the curriculum.) Now should I go to my local school board and present my opinion as a critical review of music history and theory?

Which one?

Really? Then what percentage of BCMB programs require their PhD students to take a couple of courses in evolutionary biology?

Although its not irrelevant, plenty of biochemists get along just fine without studying evolution. How many biochem programs can you find that require their students to study population biology? In my own department (genetics), we have to teach remedial evolutionary biology to molecular students. And these are PhD students in their second year, in a department world renowned for its study of evoluion.

For someone who is plainly not a chemist, it sure must be odd for him to teach a course in carbohydrate chemistry and run a program in carbohydrate structural analysis.

Actually its quite relevant.



I've seen and heard about his shenangans on campus. The idists he has hosted in the past years are through the Christian Faculty Forum, not the Biochem department. I know people who have been in his classes when he has brought up his religious objections to modern biology.

Talk about a fallacy.
Blackburn and Hirst are physical chemists and they study evolution. Combs is a physical chemist. Therefore, Combs studies evolution. Sorry, but that dog wont hunt. How about you give us a reference the body of Combs work in which he studies evolution? Until you do so,this doesn't speak well for your case.

RufusAtticus

Well there were only 28 signers from Georgia, only three of which were biologists. I collected 19 anti-ID signatures of Faculty in my department (Genetics) alone. (100% coverage of who I could get a hold of.)

Whose objection to evolution is clearly not scientific.

theyeti

As a grad student in a Biochemistry and Molecular Biology program, I can tell you that Darwinian evolution is indeed highly relevant to my field of study, and in fact is an extremely helpful guide in my own research.

I can also tell you from first-hand experience that most biochemists have a piss-poor understanding of evolution. But this is part of a much broader problem, in that they often have a piss-poor understanding of biology in general. A large percentage of biochemists, if not the majority, come from a strict chemistry background. Those of us who studied biology during our undergraduate careers were required to take several chemistry classes, but the opposite does not hold. Those who majored in chemsitry were not required to take any biology classes. Unfortunately, it turns out that many biochemists who have a strict chemistry background know little or nothing about biology above the biochemical level. During their graduate careers (assuming they are in grad school now as opposed to 30 years ago), they're unlikely to pick up on much of anything above the sub-cellular level. Most of the time that's not a problem, if for example they specialize their research on the physical or chemical properites of macromolecules. (Which is precisely the case with Behe.) But it leaves them in a poor position to judge the "big picture" of the whys and hows of biological phenomena, which is a prerequisite for a comprehensive understanding of evolution. I believe that most biochemists would benefit greatly from a better background in biology, including evolution.

As far as those dumb anti-evolutionist lists are concerned, the problem has more to do with who's on them rather than who's not on them. These lists tend to contain just about anyone with an advanced degree who's willing to sign, including engineers, dentists, educators, and other non-scientists. The problem with this is that the population of potential signatories increases greatly when one broadens the requirements for signing. For example, if the list is limited to biologists, you mght have X potential signatories. But if you include all scientsist, you now have 10X potential signatories. If you include all PhDs, you're now talking about 100X potential signatories, or something like that. The more inclusive the signatory pool is, the less impressive it becomes. Creo/IDists use these lists as a propaganda tool, and they probably work with their uninformed followers. But what they really demonstrate is just how pathetically insignificant the proportion of relevant scientists who agree with the creo/ID agenda really is.

theyeti