Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Tech Central Station ^ | 11/10/2005 | Uriah Kriegel

[Nicholas Conradin]

In an election in Pennsylvania this week, voters tossed out eight members of the Pittsburgh school board who wanted Intelligent Design theory to be taught alongside evolution in school. But should Intelligent Design -- the theory that living organisms were created at least in part by an intelligent designer, not by a blind process of evolution by natural selection -- be taught in public schools? In one way, the answer to this question is simple: if it's a scientific theory, it should; if it's not, it shouldn't (on pain of flaunting the Establishment Clause). The question, however, is whether Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory.

Opponents dismiss ID's scientific credentials, claiming that the theory is too implausible to qualify as scientific. But this reasoning is fallacious: a bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory, just as a bad car is still a car. There may be pedagogical reasons to avoid teaching bad scientific theories in our public schools, but there are no legal ones. The Constitution contains no interdiction on teaching bad theories, or for that matter demonstrably false ones. As long as theory is science and not religion, there is no legal barrier to teaching it.

To make their case, opponents of teaching ID must show not just that the theory is bad, but that it's not science. This raises a much more complicated question: What is science? What distinguishes genuinely scientific theories from non-scientific ones?

In one form or another, the question has bothered scientists and philosophers for centuries. But it was given an explicit formulation only in the 1920s, by Karl Popper, the most important 20th century philosopher of science. Popper called it "the problem of demarcation," because it asked how to demarcate scientific research and distinguish it from other modes of thought (respectable though they may be in their own right).

One thing Popper emphasized was that a theory's status as scientific doesn't depend on its plausibility. The great majority of scientific theories turn out to be false, including such works of genius as Newton's mechanics. Conversely, the story of Adam and Eve may well be pure truth, but if it is, it's not scientific truth, but some other kind of truth.

So what is the mark of genuine science? To attack this question, Popper examined several theories he thought were inherently unscientific but had a vague allure of science about them. His favorites were Marx's theory of history and Freud's theory of human behavior. Both attempted to describe the world without appeal to super-natural phenomena, but yet seem fundamentally different from, say, the theory of relativity or the gene theory.

What Popper noticed was that, in both cases, there was no way to prove to proponents of the theory that they were wrong. Suppose Jim's parents moved around a lot when Jim was a child. If Jim also moves around a lot as an adult, the Freudian explains that this was predictable given the patterns of behavior Jim grew up with. If Jim never moves, the Freudian explains -- with equal confidence -- that this was predictable as a reaction to Jim's unpleasant experiences of a rootless childhood. Either way the Freudian has a ready-made answer and cannot be refuted. Likewise, however much history seemed to diverge from Marx's model, Marxists would always introduce new modifications and roundabout excuses for their theory, never allowing it to be proven false.

Popper concluded that the mark of true science was falsifiability: a theory is genuinely scientific only if it's possible in principle to refute it. This may sound paradoxical, since science is about seeking truth, not falsehood. But Popper showed that it was precisely the willingness to be proven false, the critical mindset of being open to the possibility that you're wrong, that makes for progress toward truth.

What scientists do in designing experiments that test their theories is create conditions under which their theory might be proven false. When a theory passes a sufficient number of such tests, the scientific community starts taking it seriously, and ultimately as plausible.

When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the first thing he did was to make a concrete prediction: he predicted that a certain planet must exist in such-and-such a place even though it had never been observed before. If it turned out that the planet did not exist, his theory would be refuted. In 1919, 14 years after the advent of Special Relativity, the planet was discovered exactly where he said. The theory survived the test. But the possibility of failing a test -- the willingness to put the theory up for refutation -- was what made it a scientific theory in the first place.

To win in the game of science, a theory must be submitted to many tests and survive all of them without being falsified. But to be even allowed into the game, the theory must be falsifiable in principle: there must be a conceivable experiment that would prove it false.

If we examine ID in this light, it becomes pretty clear that the theory isn't scientific. It is impossible to refute ID, because if an animal shows one characteristic, IDers can explain that the intelligent designer made it this way, and if the animal shows the opposite characteristic, IDers can explain with equal confidence that the designer made it that way. For that matter, it is fully consistent with ID that the supreme intelligence designed the world to evolve according to Darwin's laws of natural selection. Given this, there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false.

It is sometimes complained that IDers resemble the Marxist historians who always found a way to modify and reframe their theory so it evades any possible falsification, never offering an experimental procedure by which ID could in principle be falsified. To my mind, this complaint is warranted indeed. But the primary problem is not with the intellectual honesty of IDers, but with the nature of their theory. The theory simply cannot be fashioned to make any potentially falsified predictions, and therefore cannot earn entry into the game of science.

None of this suggests that ID is in fact false. For all I've said, it may well be pure truth. But if it is, it wouldn't be scientific truth, because it isn't scientific at all. As such, we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says.

The writer teaches philosophy at the University of Arizona.

[goldstategop]

Yes, its based on observation of the underlying data. And speciation does occur today and will still occur millions of years from now.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Ichneumon]

But both of them got an audience.

So does ID -- and it's getting laughed off the stage, and rightly so.

Funny ... ID is the only non religious body of thought I have ever seen

ROFL!! Yeah, pull the other leg now, liar:

And if you were honest, you'd admit that what really honks you off is that your *religion* is not being allowed to be taught as science. Come on now, you believe the "designer" is the God of the Bible, right? Just like 99+% of all the other "IDers". "ID" is just creationism dressed up in a Trojan Horse with a sign on the side that says "science".

which is been so vociferously attacked

It has been "so viciferously attacked" because it is grossly dishonest and fatally flawed, and because it has viciously attacked science with lies and propaganda. It deserves as much abuse as Michael Moore gets, and for exactly the same reasons.

and being denied an audience.

Horse manure. Please stop posting lies. It gets to much of an audience that it's being overwhelmed by the volume of the critical response it has earned. The only thing it is being "denied", and rightly so, is being treated as a science, when it's not. It's being rejected from science journals, and rightly so, and it's being rejected from science classes in schools, and rightly so.

The same goes for astrology, too, but you don't hear them whining about it all the time.

[Ichneumon]

Wow, just from reading the headline I could tell that this article is a slanted, biased, puff piece of propaganda.

You're dead wrong. Its analysis of "ID" is right on the money.

[Ichneumon]

The real debate is not over science, which is concerned with the observable, but over whose underlying metaphysical view one accepts: materialism vs. some form of theism. The problem is that those on the Darwinism side of the debate refuse to see or studiously ignore the fact that the natural sciences do not contain all possible knowledge.

The *majority* of Americans who accept evolution are Christians. Sorry if that shatters your simpleminded presumption.

[Thatcherite]

Very elegantly put.

[Ichneumon]

One of the problems with the Origins of the Species, is biologists hava a CRAPPY definintion of what a species is.

...for good reason. If evolution is true, then populations of organisms should often "fuzz" into each other, making for no clear line of separation between them. And that *is* exactly what we find in nature. Thanks for confirming evolution for us, we appreciate your assistance.

Getting a clue yet? Nah, probably not. Ok, then try reading this and see if the little light comes on:

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CB801:

Complaints about creationists not defining "kind" are unfair since evolutionists can't define "species" consistently.

Response:

1. Species are expected often to have fuzzy and imprecise boundaries because evolution is ongoing. Some species are in the process of forming; others are recently formed and still difficult to interpret. The complexities of biology add further complications. Many pairs of species remain distinct despite a small amount of hybridization between them. Some groups are asexual or frequently produce asexual strains, so how many species to split them into becomes problematical.
   
   Creation, defining things as kinds that were created once and for all, implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of kind or species. Since there is not, creationism, not evolutionary theory, has something to explain.
   
   
2. Different definitions of species serve different purposes. Species concepts are used both as taxonomic units, for identification and classification, and as theoretical concepts, for modeling and explaining. There is a great deal of overlap between the two purposes, but a definition that serves one is not necessarily the best for the other. Furthermore, there are practical considerations that call for different species criteria as well. Species definitions applied to fossils, for example, cannot be based on genetics or behavior because those traits do not fossilize.

Further Reading:

Schilthuizen, Menno., 2001. Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: the Making of Species, Oxford Univ. Press. See especially chap. 1.

Cracraft, Joel, 1987. Species concepts and the ontology of evolution. Biology and Philosophy 2: 329-346.

Cracraft, Joel, 2000. Species concepts in theoretical and applied biology: A systematic debate with consequences. In Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: A debate, edited by Q. D. Wheeler and R. Meier. New York: Columbia University Press, 3-14.

Hull, David L., 1997. The ideal species concept -- and why we can't get it. In: Species: The units of biodiversity, M. Claridge, H. Dawah and M. Wilson, eds., London: Chapman and Hall, 357-380.

Kottler, Malcolm J., 1978. Charles Darwin's biological species concept and theory of geographic speciation: the Transmutation Notebooks. Annals of Science 35: 275-297.

Mayden, R. L., 1997. A hierarchy of species concepts: the denoument in the saga of the species problem. In: Species: The units of biodiversity, M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah and M. R. Wilson eds., London: Chapman and Hall, 381-424.

Mayden, R. L., 1999. Consilience and a hierarchy of species concepts: advances toward closure on the species puzzle. Journal of Nematology 31(2): 95-116.

Wilkins, John S., 2003. How to be a chaste species pluralist-realist: The origins of species modes and the Synapomorphic Species Concept. Biology and Philosophy 18:621-638.

The same issue arises at higher taxonomic levels as well. For example, from a creationist standpoint, where do "apes" end and "humans" begin? From an evolutionary standpoint, one would *expect* there to be "gray area" cases where one form "fuzzes" into the other, and a simple "either or" determination is difficult to make in an objective manner. And that's exactly what we do find. What's really hilarious is when the creationists try to force-fit these specimens into their preconceived (but false) "either or" categories -- the creationist notions crash into reality and go down in flames. For example:

[From here:]

The following table summarizes the diversity of creationist opinions about some of the more prominent items in the human fossil record.

Creationist Classifications of Hominid Fossils

Specimen		Cuozzo (1998)	Gish (1985)	Mehlert (1996)	Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979)	Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995)	Taylor (1996) Lubenow (1992)
	ER 1813 (510 cc)	Ape	Ape	Ape	Ape	Ape	Ape
	Java (940 cc)	Ape	Ape	Human	Ape	Ape	Human
	Peking (915- 1225 cc)	Ape	Ape	Human	Ape	Human	Human
	ER 1470 (750 cc)	Ape	Ape	Ape	Human	Human	Human
	ER 3733 (850 cc)	Ape	Human	Human	Human	Human	Human
	WT 15000 (880 cc)	Ape	Human	Human	Human	Human	Human

As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.)

It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.

Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case.

ER 1813 (H. habilis?, 510 cc) is almost totally ignored by creationists, but it is safe to say that they would all classify it as an ape. Few mention ER 3733 (H. erectus, 850 cc) either, but those who do seem to consider it human (although it's hard to be sure in Bowden's case). As one would expect given its essentially human skeleton, virtually all creationists consider the Turkana Boy to be human, although Cuozzo has been a recent exception. (Cuozzo recognizes that it is different from any modern ape, of course; he believes that apes have degenerated from Homo erectus, just as he believes that modern humans have degenerated from Neandertals.)

It would be fascinating to know what creationists think about fossils such as OH 12 (H. erectus, 750 cc), Sangiran 2 (H. erectus, 815 cc), OH 7 (H. habilis, 680 cc), OH 13 (H. habilis, 650 cc), but unfortunately few creationists even mention these fossils, let alone discuss them in any depth. The recently-discovered Dmanisi skulls overlap the erectus/habilis boundary so perfectly that creationists have almost totally ignored it - and when they have mentioned it, they've carefully avoided making any judgement as to what those skulls might be.

Okay, *your* turn now. If as you say "biologists hava [sic] a CRAPPY definintion [sic]" of species, then give us *your* definition. Base it on the Bible to make it even more amusing, if you wish. Then I'll show you why your alternative definition falls flat when compared against reality (i.e. nature). Be sure your definition properly handles atypical cases such as ring species, asexually reproducing organisms, hybrids, and so on. We'll wait.

Then the theory is elevated to a fact,

Wrong again.

shutting down all rational discussion.

Horse manure. Have all the rational discussion you want. But when you or the other anti-evolutionists engage in *irrational* discussion, or make false slanderous attacks on science or scientists, then yeah, expect to be treated with all the scorn you've richly earned.

Hint: The first requisite to critiquing an issue -- especially a well-established field of science -- is knowing what in the hell you're talking about, and a having a firm knowledge of the field you're attempting to discuss. Unfortunately, anti-evolution creationists and IDers almost without exception are complete idiots on the subject they attempt to attack, and they end up making utter fools of themselves over and over again. It's pretty funny, actually, but it also gets annoying when they fail to learn anything from their failures and just keep coming back in endless hordes of arrogantly insulting but grossly ignorant naysayers. It's like arguing with know-nothing liberals. It gets old after a while, especially when they have absolutely no interest in actually learning, but an overwhelming desire to attack anyway.

Think I'm exaggerating? Just check out the hundreds of bogus claims and arguments they use on a regular basis.

ToEs like Natural Selection have not shown much utility up to this point in time. Definitions are changed, exaggerated claims are made, without any real utility, it is strictly not very useful. It is not a very important theory.

ROFL!!! Wow, speaking of ignorance... Here, let's see if you're capable of learning something for a change (those creationist pamphlets have filled your head with garbage):

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA215:

The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application.

Source:

Lindsey, George. 1985. Evolution -- Useful or useless? Impact 148 (Oct.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=252
Wieland, Carl. 1998. Evolution and practical science. Creation 20(4) (Sept.): 4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp

Response:

1. Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.
   
   This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.
   
   
2. Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
   • Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
   • Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
   • Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
   • Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
   • Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
   • Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).
   
   Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.
   
   
3. Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
   • Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
   • Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
   • Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
   • Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
   • Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).
   
   
4. Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
   • enzymes (Arnold 2001)
   • pigments (Arnold 2001)
   • antibiotics
   • flavors
   • biopolymers
   • bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
   Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).
   
   
5. The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).
   
   
6. Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other uses. For example:
   • Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical techniques have much wider application today.
   • The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript (Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005).
   
   
7. Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.
   
   
8. Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances.
   
   
9. Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application.

References:

1. Arnold, Frances H. 2001. Combinatorial and computational challenges for biocatalyst design. Nature 409: 253-257.
2. Barbrook, Adrian C., Christopher J. Howe, Norman Blake, and Peter Robinson, 1998. The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales. Nature 394: 839.
3. Benner, Steven A. 2001. Natural progression. Nature 409: 459.
4. Branca, Malorye. 2002. Sorting the microbes from the trees. Bio-IT Bulletin, Apr. 07. http://www.bio-itworld.com/news/040702_report186.html
5. Bull, J. J. and H. A. Wichman. 2001. Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 183-217.
6. Cherry, J. R., and A. L. Fidantsef. 2003. Directed evolution of industrial enzymes: an update. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14: 438-443.
7. Conover, D. O. and S. B. Munch. 2002. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science 297: 94-96. See also pp. 31-32.
8. Cummings, C. A. and D. A. Relman. 2002. Microbial forensics-- "cross-examining pathogens". Science 296: 1976-1979.
9. Dunn, M., A. Terrill, G. Reesink, R. A. Foley and S. C. Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309: 2072-2075. See also: Gray, Russell. 2005. Pushing the time barrier in the quest for language roots. Science 309: 2007-2008.
10. Eisen, J. and M. Wu. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: Phylogenomics in action. Theoretical Population Biology 61: 481-487.
11. Futuyma, D. J. 1995. The uses of evolutionary biology. Science 267: 41-42.
12. Galvani, Alison P. 2003. Epidemiology meets evolutionary ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(3): 132-139.
13. Gaschen, B. et al.. 2002. Diversity considerations in HIV-1 vaccine selection. Science 296: 2354-2360.
14. Howe, Christopher J. et al. 2001. Manuscript evolution. Trends in Genetics 17: 147-152.
15. Marczyk, Adam. 2004. Genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
16. Nesse, Randolph M. and George C. Williams. 1994. Why We Get Sick. New York: Times Books.
17. Relman, David A. 1999. The search for unrecognized pathogens. Science 284: 1308-1310.
18. Searls, D., 2003. Pharmacophylogenomics: Genes, evolution and drug targets. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2: 613-623. http://www.nature.com/nature/view/030731.html
19. Sutherland, William J., 2002. Science, sex and the kakapo. Nature 419: 265-266.
20. Taylor, Sean V., Peter Kast, and Donald Hilvert. 2001. Investigating and engineering enzymes by genetic selection. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 40: 3310-3335.
21. Vogel, Gretchen. 1998. HIV strain analysis debuts in murder trial. Science 282: 851-852.

Furthermore, outside of direct biological applications, evolutionary theory has proved *enormously* powerful when applied to "hard" problems which resist a good "design" solution (oh, the irony) -- see for example: Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation. Yes, that's right -- evolution is capable of achieving *better* solutions to problems than "design" is. Getting a clue yet?

[hawkaw]

Thanks for good post.

[hawkaw]

Thanks for [the] good post.

Sorry about that.

[Coyoteman]

Ooooh, Ichny dropped the big nuke on 'em ===> Placemarker <=== !

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Popper concluded that the mark of true science was falsifiability: a theory is genuinely scientific only if it's possible in principle to refute it. ... Popper showed that it was precisely the willingness to be proven false, the critical mindset of being open to the possibility that you're wrong, that makes for progress toward truth.

Ding ding ding.
Evilution Theology is not science.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Ding ding ding.
Evilution Theology is not science."

Perhaps, but Evolutionary Biology is. And it is falsifiable, as Popper himself agreed.

[AnalogReigns]

Anyone who is at least a theist, let alone a Christian, or especially an elder, must by necessity believe in some form of intelligent design.

What part of "Maker of heaven and earth..." (from the Apostles Creed) do you not understand?

As to the tactics and push of the political movement named IE, that's a different matter.

[Dimensio]

Evilution Theology is not science.

And here I thought that only people who were parodying the "raving lunatic creationist" stereotype used the word "Evilution".

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Wrong!

[Thatcherite]

What is evilution theology then. Is it an alternative name for ID?

[PatrickHenry]

[Thunderous applause!]

[wallcrawlr]

Youre not an official crevolist Freeper until Dimensio calls you a liar.
Welcome aboard!!

[Thatcherite]

I still say this linkage of evo as equal to physical observations of phenomena like gravity is a false one.

You can make unwarranted, unevidenced assertions until you are blue in the muzzle. It was garbage the first time you said it, and it is still garbage no matter how many times you repeat it. See if you can find a practicing physicist who agrees with you on that particular point before repeating it. We'll wait.

[Sofa King]

Good show.

[Ichneumon]

I read through 3/4 of "Origin of Species" when I was 14. OK, I get it. I can explain how the theory works. That's all I need to do. (Finches, are, to me, a really boring subject, by the way.)

Actually, the word "finch" appears only 3 times in "Origin of Species". That's hardly enough to get "bored" by the topic while reading Darwin's book.

The Galapagos finches were one of the clues which led Darwin to develop his theory, yes, but he subsequently actually used them very little as an example (instead, he mostly referred to examples with which his audience would already be personally familiar). Someone who hadn't read his book might *presume* that he would have written a lot about finches, however.

It thus appears to me that you are lying about actually having read the book. Please explain.

All mentions of finches in "Origin of Species":

"The short-faced tumbler has a beak in outline almost like that of a finch..."

"...when I first kept pigeons and watched the several kinds, knowing well how true they bred, I felt fully as much difficulty in believing that they could ever have descended from a common parent, as any naturalist could in coming to a similar conclusion in regard to the many species of finches, or other large groups of birds, in nature."

"...for instance, the canary-bird has been crossed with nine other finches, ..."