Replies

Not picking sides in the debate with this comment, but the article showed a pretty big skew in favor of Dawinism.

One illustration of bias in this article, is not in the text of the article, but in the web page. Embedded in the article (which is adressing ID vs Darwin) is a link to "Top 10 Creation Myths". One would naturally infer upon first glance that the link would take them to the top 10 ID myths, with the refutations, since that is the subject of the encapsulating article. Instead, one is taken to various creation stories from cultures around the world.

Another example:
The CSC is using a campaign called "Teach the Controversy" to carry out the first part of the strategy. The campaign is aimed at public schools and teachers are urged to expose students to the "scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory." It exploits disagreements among biologists, pointing out gaps in their understanding of evolution in order to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis."
Can anyone find a teeny slant to that stucture?

But the ID people could just as easily say:
"It examines disagreements among biologists, pointing out gaps in their understanding of evolution in order to expose evolution as a "theory in crisis."

There are many more examples mostly relating to the stucture of his arguments, and the deflections from the stated topic to superflurous issues, but this post has grown WAY longer than I intended...

Rather than address the arguments for and against Darwinism in juxtaposition with those for and against ID, the article proceeds to simply bash ID as unscientific. Darwinsim slips from the scientific realm and into the myth realm when it is argued not as a mechanism of natural selection and adaption, and diversification of species but as a starting point for those species.

Examples of stuff that would have been relevant:
Darwin explains nicely how DNA allows creatures to adapt. Darwin fails miserably in explaining how DNA comes into being from seawater, miscellaneous inorganic molecules, and very simple carbon compounds, namely CO2 and methane. Given the concentrations of the various compounds in the ocean, and given the temperatures involved, kenetics suggests much difficulty in building up relatively simple molecules even over geologic time spans. Very complex organic molecules forming naturally are quite a leap of faith, even given billions of years. The need for faith is the argument against ID, so why is Darwin given a pass?

Agreed that creationism has big problems with matching up with scientific evidence - fossil records, geologic strata, etc. But Darwin has problems with fossil records too. Where are all these intermediate transition species that failed? Scientific method does not allow the false dichotomy "Not A therefore B". Honest scientific method says "If Not A AND Not B, then something else".

I guess my point is that I would much rather see an honest debate than this type of coverage. And, yes, if the article were supporting ID using the same slanted coverage, I would have to bash it too. At some point both sides need to actually examine the weaknesses of their own arguments as well as the strengths of the opposing argument, and somewhere below the tornado of hyperbole, will be the truth.

Opinion in the Evolution vs ID argument for schools:
Should ID be taught in school? If evolution is taught as the "BRANCHING of the species" then no. If evolution is taught as "The ORIGIN of the species" then yes. Darwin showed plausible evidence of the former, but the latter has not been shown to be any less speculative than ID.

the article showed a pretty big skew in favor of Dawinism

Yes, it is--because Darwinism is science, and the current 'controversy' re: ID is a religious matter. You raise some interesting points about the nature of ToE (some have been answered in other posts), but the main thrust of this overview article is not to 'resolve' the controversy, but to show the political dimension.

You may disagree, but my view is that this is a 'fight' which a minority religious group has picked to advance a specific political agenda--and that is worrying. In a 'fight' between science and political unreason, I would not expect a science journal to be anything other than "skewed" in favour of science.

Darwin explains nicely how DNA allows creatures to adapt. Darwin fails miserably in explaining how DNA comes into being

Since Darwin never even tried to explain the origin or life, and was quite up front about the fact that his theory assumes life already exists, I can hardly see how you can say he "failed miserably."

Dawinism is just a theory about how life diversifies, how new speices form from older species, and the like. It has nothing to do with the origin or life.

You are quite right that scientists do not understand how life origniated, and they openly admit it.

But Darwin has problems with fossil records too.

Such as...

Where are all these intermediate transition species that failed?

In the fossil record.