The trackback URL for this entry is:

One could, of course, rephrase their statements as:

objects are attracted to one another relative to the mass of each object are just as religious as the people you bash.

Oddly, no one is saying we need stickers on textbooks explaining how God makes all the planets hang together in the sky.

The truth is --though you are loath to admit it-- that we dont know jack about the origin of the species.

Complete and utter nonsense, if he means the origins of particular species (e.g. humans).  If he means the origin of life, well, that’s another topic - but confusing the two would also show a distinct lack of knowledge on the matter.

If there is indeed some mechanism built into organisms to repair flawed genes, the whole theory -which is already mathematically astronomically improbable- is now a few dozen more orders of magnitude more improbable.

Based on what?  Is it inconceivable that a particular species or line of lineage might - through the process of evolution - develop a means to preserve genes, particularly since the “repair material” isn’t comprised of DNA?  While it’s a fascinating discovery, I don’t see where it spells the downfall of evolutionary theory in the least.

It’s also convenient that they leave out the part of the article indicating that “up to 10 percent” of the offspring revert to the corrected gene.  Well, I’m no math major, but that still leaves “90 percent of more” with the flawed copy to happily be passed along.

Further, I love it when creationists invoke mathematics to prove the improbability of life.  First, it shows a lack of appreciation for the size and complexity and age of the universe.  Second, it’s not very rigorous to attempt to assign probabilities to something of which we have no knowledge (conditions of primordial Earth, the specific actions required to form life, etc).

And, third, it’s laughable to say life is so very improbable but a necessarily, by definition, more complex entity that created life is the likely answer.  This is called “shooting a hole in one’s own argument.”

There is something other than DNA that apparently carries some sort of genome and we dont even have a name for it yet, much less understand it!

Wizbang folks conveniently neglected the part of the article that says a genetic template has to exist somewhere and that it is most likely in the form of RNA - anyone who has taken a high school biology class probably realizes we know a lot about RNA.

Sorry, but their victory dance is much ado about nothing (at least nothing that damages evolution or supports creationism).

Too funny.

Evolution Collapses!
So sayeth Wizbang!My argument about evolution* is and will always be, that all you loud mouth people who accept as some sort of fact etched in stone that man evolved from some primordial ooze are just as religious as the...

Well, crap, my first example got screwed up - in short, I was saying that the same thing could be said about gravitation.

The odd thing is that the first comment looks right on the backend, and it doesn’t seem to be changing as I change it.

Darnit.

Primer: Intelligent Design/Creationism proponents often claim that ID is a purely secular, scientific theory which explains the similarities and differences in extant and extinct taxa more or less as well as ‘evolution’, which they often refer to as Darwinism, Materialism, Naturalism, etc. (All of which are code words for atheism BTW).
Evolution can mean two basic things in biology: The first is the inferred fact of common descent. The second is the theoretical process by which an ancestral population might split into two or more subpopulations, and build up enough morphological divergence from one another over time, that they can be considered two separate species. It’s SOP for creationists to play bait and switch with these two meanings for the term ‘evolution’. Typically ID/Cists will use the theoretical aspect, attack it, distort, present it misleadingly, and then smoothly transition form that and discredit the idea of common descent. The most infamous creationist soundbite, “Evolution is only a theory”, being the textbook exemplar. Lets be crystal clear: Natural selection, or the present incarnation of the theory of Evolution called The Modern Synthesis, could be dead wrong, and common descent would be unaffected.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. What does this mean? In science, unlike in everyday usage, the term theory is a general statement that unites a wide array of facts under a single explanatory framework, and which makes testable predictions. IOW, it’s possible in principle to find some data or perform an experiment which either supports or does not support the theoretical explanation. ID/C explains nothing and rests almost entirely on arguments against various aspect of evolutionary biology, and then implies or directly states that whatever flavor of magic the individual creationist professes wins by default. These elementary logical fallacies are well known, and are referred to as a False Dichotomy and an Argument From Ignorance, and ID/C makes no testable predictions (With the exception of denying common descent, which is in itself reason for rejecting ID/C).

And of course, when speaking to religious fundamentalist audiences, the ID/C advocates are open about their motivations. The Wedge begins with “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.”

What a lot of folks don’t know, even some who are sympathetic to ID/C, is that the goal of The Discovery Institute, the PR arm of ID/C, is to replace not just evolutionary bio with theistically approved dogma, but all of science! This is where The Wedge gets its name.

“Evolution is the ‘thin edge of the larger wedge’ the ID/Cists plan to drive into science. As plainly stated by autheor Philip Johnson “The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points.”

Their goal is to practice and teach ‘science’ as a series of religious decrees; By Fatwa. And they have a very restricted idea of precisely which religion, demonination, and clerics, are to bo so empowered, and which are not.

Lastly, despite misinformation spread by creationists preying on their Christian victims, evolutionary biology, be it common descent or The Modern Synthesis, is not synonymous with atheism or any political ideology. This is self evidence considering the vast number of scientists who profess some version of theism, cover the politcal spectrum, and who accept evo as the most plausible explanation by far, for observed biodiveristy.

Evolution and Creationism
Update: Ongoing discussion debate of evolution Vs creationism now available at Resurrection Song and Wizbang. HT: World Wide Rant I just became aware of this excellent Blog, Thoughts From Kansas, owned and operated by Joshua Rosenau. Joshua comments on Intelligent...

P.S. For those interested, Wizbang’s Paul is getting his testicles ripped off (figuratively speaking) at both the World Wide Rant and on Wizbang in the comments.  Whoops.