Wesley Elsberry reminds us that the tenth anniversary of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District is fast approaching. In his inimitable low-key but hard-hitting style, he writes:
Because religious antievolution since the Epperson v. Arkansas case has mostly adopted the strategy of deception, I see the time since Dover as confirming that as the approach. After Epperson, the proponents of creationism could have used a strategy of cultural resistance via Sunday school and church. Instead, they seized on phrasing in the Epperson decision’s dissenting opinion that of course science of whatever variety could be taught in public school science classrooms, and decided that they would use a subset of the old arguments they used to promote creationism, and claim that those were science. The history of the antievolution movement since then has been a process of iterative cloaking of intent as the courts prove time and again capable of discerning the sham. (‘Sham’ is the phrasing used in the Edwards v. Aguillard decision in 1987.)
Given that view of history in mind, it is easy to see that the application of the deceptive strategy is still the primary focus of the antievolution movement. The intent is to get as many of the old, shabby, awful arguments from creationism mentioned in public school science classrooms as if they had never been refuted.
Given that our legal system has recourse for teaching sectarian religious doctrines, but not for teaching bad science*, this looks to be a process that will continue. ‘Intelligent design’ as a commonly accepted, given the benefit of doubt notion is dead, but the arguments that comprised IDC go on under new names, sowing confusion and mistrust of the scientific endeavor.
*There are some provisions for removing incompetent teachers, but applying them is usually difficult and uncertain of achieving good results.
I remember the events building up to the Dover trial as it coincided with a period of illness and treatment that meant I had plenty of time on my hands to surf the net and, having come across “Intelligent Design” by accident, I was able to follow events and personalities quite closely. Since then, I’ve predicted (wrongly and prematurely) the demise of the movement. That puzzles me. The strategy to get alternative ideas to evolution taught in public schools has pretty much failed. Seems to me that ID proponents need to look at two options. Develop another strategy for bypassing Church-state separation or actually put some effort into developing ID into a genuine scientific hypothesis with entailments and predictions. Otherwise, why go on?
Then try to post things that are relevant to that, Alan.
Sure, but as I asked you first, you first.
Look, if you don’t like ID all YOU have to do is actually step up and support unguided evolution. Attacking me and ID doesn’t help you.
It’s been done. The assumption is that evolution is unguided evolution. See Lenski et al.
Or is this admitting that you can’t actually do the same for your “guided evolution” idea? Which would be hi-lar-ious as that means you are admitting you can’t do the very thing that you are complaining about others being unable to do. In that case, you’ve already lost.
But you can’t show anything. Your position has nothing but bald declarations.
No, Frankie, I asked what’s the difference. Or differences. In your own words, take your time.
No one has modeled unguided evolution. No one has said what unguided evolution entails.
And there we have it again, so many times. ID simply boils down to being upset with evolution.
My side can explain low IQ creationists with boilerplate go-to moronic stock phrases. Frankie, you’ve failed the reverse turing test, Patrick can write a bot smarter than you.
Yes, a GA is an EA. It is a specific type of EA. All GAs are also EAs but not all EAs have to be GAs.
Look, if you don’t like unguided evolution all YOU have to do is actually step up and support guided evolution.
I didn’t ask for relationships or subsets. I asked, in your own words, what are the difference(s). Try again.
What’s that go to do with if you can support your claims about it being guided? Answer: nothing
You can’t attack a position that does not exist. “mutations are guided, so there” is not attackable. Rather you’d step over it like the turd that it is.
Oh really? Citation please.
This is reification, Joe. Hard to form any opinion of a non-existent theory. There is no theory of ID. Ask anyone. Ask your fellow-commenters at Uncommon Descent. Be bold! Be the first to make a testable claim about ID “theory”.
Evolutionary theory doesn’t need my support. It’s the only testable theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth.
Again with the projection. Your side has no theory!
And the fact that you steadfastly refuse to even try to support your position says it all. You won’t even try to support the idea that mutations are guided!
When and where was this revelation published?
Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation, Occam’s Razor and parsimony. This isn’t the first time you have been schooled in this, cupcake. Your inability to learn is getting legendary.
And yet I have supported my position.
He also uses EA and GA without knowing what they mean. 😀
Moved a comment to guano. Please address the comment, not the commenter.
And that’s why there is no mention of any “intelligent designer” in biology. It’s unnecessary. It adds nothing. Hence it is discarded.
Unless, of course, you can step up to the plate and demonstrate a single instance of a guided mutation?
Better get such a revolutionary idea in print then. Whilst it looks like your playing “courtiers response” I’m sure ‘your position’ will be in a peer reviewed journal soon.
If it is your position that some/all mutations are guided then where can I read the scientific work that supports that position?
Alan, there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. There are just you guys bloviating away. You cannot say how to test the claim that a bacterial flagellum evolved via NS and drift from a population that never had one. You have nothing, Alan.
You cannot say how to test the claim that a bacterial flagellum was designed via design from a population that never had one.
And when will unguided evolution make it to peer-review?
And yet I have said exactly that.
Call a waaaaambulance! Unguided flailings against evolutionary theory!
McClintock and James Shapiro,
Quote? Link?
Yeah, I guess the margins of the comment box were too small however, right?
What paper can I read of theirs that demonstrates that some/all mutations are intelligently guided then?
Paper/pagenumber/paragraph please.
Read “Darwin’s Black Box”
Then why can’t you answer the question? The inference to best explanation is that you don’t know.
Buy My Book!
What paper shows that all mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes?
Sure. Here’s the first one that came up: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1460660/pdf/10388826.pdf
Ah, is this you admitting you can’t support your claim that mutations are guided?
Thanks. I already knew, of course, but it’s nice that you actually say it (more or less).
Indeed, let’s see that claim. I’m surprised it hasn’t featured on EN&V.
Oh dear, Frankie. That’s not how science works, at all, Go away and learn about science. From science books, not the old testament.
Of course I can support the claim. You are just a waste of time as you are scientifically illiterate. I am trying to find out what level of evidence you will accept. And it is very telling that you won’t say.
You seem to define belligerence as “unwillingness to agree with Frankie about his unsupported claims”.
I guess the world must be a painful place for you huh?
Go file a complaint with your Intelligent Designer, when you work out how to anyway.
They are, yes.
So how come you can’t tell us the difference(s) then?
LoL! Thank you for continuing to prove that you are scientifically illiterate. Of course all claims require evidentiary support, cupcake.
I told you what the difference is.
We’re all evolved deuterostomes here, Joe, including you. To put it in layman’s language we’re all doughnuts, topologically speaking.
Indeed, let’s see that claim. I’m surprised it hasn’t featured on EN&V.
It’s in “Darwin’s Black Box” and ENV has also said how to do so.
Your “support” seems to be referencing authorities that I already know don’t agree with you. Odd.
I can see straight through you though.
When you present some evidence I’ll let you know how convincing I find it. Yet so far when I asked you for evidence for your claim that mutations are intelligently guided you said “McClintock and James Shapiro”. That’s evidence is it? No, it’s not. It’s an appeal to authority, an authority that would laugh at your claims.
Yes, the evidence says that today’s humans evolved from human ancestors. There isn’t any way to test the claim that humans evolved from some other type of animal.
Odd how in the 20 years since that was published nobody has bothered to do so. Have any thoughts as to why that might be?