Replies

And for you science freaks:

Intelligent Design
The scientific alternative to evolution:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

For your reading pleasure. :)

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

Funny that the writers compare the 'research' in ID to that of SETI. Both projects have had about the same amount of luck finding what they're looking for.

Hmm. The author starts with establishing his false dichotomy up-front -- that is, stating that Darwinian evolution is consistent only with a purely "naturalistic (non-designed) universe". Later he presents a statement from the Natural Association of Biology Teachers that they have since retracted because, while the idea of a supernatural intelligence "guiding" evolution is not scientific, it is also not possible to rule out -- moreover, there is always the possibility of a natural intelligence secretly and subtly guiding evolution, thus their original statement was presumptive. Thus the author uses a retracted statement to "prove" a bogus point. Meaning that, deliberately or not, he has already given a premise for the theory of evolution that is not true.

The author dishonestly claims that "evolution" refers both to common descent theory and origins of life. He claims that it is used interchangably for both sciences by "most scientists (and laymen)". This is false. While many laymen mistakenly believe that the theory of evolution covers the ultimate origin of life (as is evident by the many creationists here who refuse to back down even when it is explained very clearly why the theory cannot address life origins), it is hardly common for professional biologists to lump the theory of evolution with abiogenesis. I have to wonder exactly how much research the author has done on the current state of the theory of evolution at this point.

The author then states firmly that he will be using the word "evolution" to refer to darwinian evolution, life origins and even cosmic origins, introducing yet another dishonest misrepresentation of the theory of evolution into the mix. The theory of evolution says nothing about how the universe came to exist, but the author says that amongst the uses of the term "evolution", he will use it to refer to "naturalistic theories regarding the origin and development of the universe". The author demonstrates that he is either fundamentally ignorant of the theory of evolution or a shameless liar. Given the amount of research he would have had to do in order to obtain the various quotes that he sprinkles through his paper, I strongly suspect the latter

The author then restates the "naturalism" issue, which is that evolution posits that we are just "here" and not here for any specific purpose. Which is actually a fundamental misrepresentation of the nature of science itself. Science only deals with the natural universe. Evolution, as a science, can only deal with a subset of the natural universe. As such, any speculation on a supernaturally-derived reason for our existence may well be correct, but it cannot be studied by science. As such, evolution cannot address such issues. Unfortunately, the author here dishonestly claims that evolution denies such things, when the fact of the matter is that it can't say anything one way or another about them. He even quotes Professor Richard Lewontin's "Divine Foot" statement, wherein Lewontin explains that we cannot allow supernaturalistic explanations into science because once we allow for any miracles we can come up with explanations for anything that are fundamentally meaningless by simply saying "divine intervention" when we come to an impasse in our understanding. But the author dishonestly misrepresents the statement as a "committment to a naturalistic worldview", as if no scientist who accepts evolution can be anything but an atheist.

Should I go on? The author's ignorance and/or deliberate dishonesty are really putting me off.