Darwin's Darkest Hour

I am very glad that this program has been mentioned! Enough of "Expelled" type trash, Darwin was not just right about evolution, but about the potential for a misunderstanding/cariacture of his brilliant theories to take place.
PBS. Two hours. Previews...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darwin/

I am very glad that this program has been mentioned! Enough of "Expelled" type trash, Darwin was not just right about evolution, but about the potential for a misunderstanding/caricature of his brilliant theory to take place. Hopefully this aspect will be evident in this production (and the pending movie).

Hi RBH, here's the latest on my end of our discussion:

http://yeahokbutstill.blogspot.com/2009/09/pseudoscience-ii-observations-from.html

Am hoping to attend a public memorial service for my favorie high school teacher, memoirist Frank McCourt, but tickets are scare. If I had to miss his memorial service - and I know Frank is probably a bit peeved off that it's being held - then seeing this would be a most worthy substitute.

It's kinda cool that the actor they got to play Darwin plays a character named Hume on another program (LOST), both men having something to do with the refutation Paley's structuring of the arguement for Design.

What do people here think of John Van Wyhe's thesis that Darwin was not nearly so tormented of an evolutionist as he has come to be portrayed in films such as this one and the upcoming movie "Creation."

To read VanWyhe's paper go to:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A544&pageseq=1

The California Science Center's darkest hour

wamba said: The California Science Center's darkest hour

Be sure to click on Join the Discussion on the companion site after the show. You can bet all the fundies will be there trashing Darwin! If you miss the show, I believe it will be viewable from the web site.

Darwin's darkest hour is yet to come...

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no
place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free
to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any
evidence, to correct any errors."
—J. Robert Oppenheimer, The Open Mind, p. 114 (1955)

"This is the story of how biology of the 20th century neglected
and otherwise mishandled the study of what is arguably the
most important problem in all of science: the nature of the
evolutionary process. This problem has suffered the indignity
of being dismissed as unimportant to a basic understanding of
biology by molecular biology; it went effectively unrecognized
by a microbiology still in the throes of trying to find itself; and
it became the private domain of a quasi-scientific movement,
who secreted it away in a morass of petty scholasticism, effectively
disguising the fact that their primary concern with it was
ideological, not scientific. Despite this discouraging beginning,
our story will end well: the study of the microbial world at the
beginning of the 21st century is liberating biology from the
Procrustean bed of dogma on which it has been cast for so
long, and a new understanding of evolution as a process is
already beginning to form, in a manner that will eventually
supersede the scientifically stultifying language-culture of the
20th century."

Carl R. Woese, and Nigel Goldenfeld, "How the Microbial World Saved Evolution from the Scylla of Molecular Biology and the Charybdis of the Modern Synthesis" [8-page PDF], doi:10.1128/MMBR.00002-09, p14-21 v73, Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., Mar 2009.

More from the paper...

"Today, we know that horizontal gene transfer is a powerful evolutionary force in the microbial world, well-documented in the phylogenetic record, and one whose ecological significance is only beginning to be fully understood.... The power of horizontal gene transfer is so great that it is a major puzzle to understand why it would be that the eukaryotic world would turn its back on such a wonderful source of genetic novelty and innovation. The exciting answer, bursting through decades of dogmatic prejudice, is that it hasn’t. There are now compelling documentations of horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes, not only in plants, protists, and fungi, but in animals (including mammals) as well. The evolutionary implications have not yet been worked out, but we are confident that a fully worked out theory of the evolutionary process is required in order to properly meet the challenges posed initially by microbiology." — Microbiologists/physicists Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfeld

For those who didn't see it tonight, please try to catch it next time PBS airs it.
Very nice.

My guess is that the show will be available for viewing from the web site. And be sure to check out the discussion forum on the site-- You can be sure the fundies will be flocking there!

I just finished watching it. Excellent program! If you missed it, be sure to catch it later.

I did miss it, dangit.
Since I'll be awake anyway, I'll try to catch the re-run at 2 a.m. EST.

Charlie Wagner said: "There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry." ...

DavidK said:

Charlie Wagner said: "There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry." ...

But that inquiry ends where the supernatural nonsense begins, doesn't it, Charlie? I think Charlie is a fan of and is referring to the FSM, a legitimate candidate for the "Designer of the Universe" award, right Charlie?

PS, why is Charlie Wagner allowed to post here again? I thought he was banned forever for sockpuppeteering and trying to support his moronic, pathetic and illogical "arguments" by quoting his own sockpuppets.

In NM, they're showing it again on Thursday night.

Whoa! Charles Darwin is Desmond from Lost!

Dave

Hey, Charlie, good to see you.

What would you recommend for an accessible first read on Woese's work?

Bob

Hi Bob..

Read this paper first. It's a brilliant overview of the whole problem.

"The basic understanding of evolution, considered as a process,
did not advance at all under its tutelage. The presumed
fundamental explanation of the evolutionary process, “natural
selection,” went unchanged and unchallenged from one end of
the 20th century to the other. Was this because there was
nothing more to understand about the nature of the evolutionary
process? Hardly! Instead, the focus was not the study of the
evolutionary process so much as the care and tending of the
modern synthesis. Safeguarding an old concept, protecting
“truths too fragile to bear translation” is scientific anathema.
(The quote here is Alfred North Whitehead’s, and it continues
thus: “A science which hesitates to forget its founders is lost”
[32].) What makes the treatment of evolution by biologists of
the last century insufferable scientifically is not the modern
synthesis per se. Rather, it is the fact that molecular biology
accepted the synthesis as a complete theory unquestioningly—
thereby giving the impression that evolution was essentially a
solved scientific problem with its roots lying only within the
molecular paradigm."

Charlie/realpc, whoever you're quoting is either an idiot or a liar, mindlessly spouting that tired old "the establishment accepted evolution without question as dogma" refrain, without ever specifying which questions, exactly, "the establishment" refused to address. The fact is, plenty of honest scientists have questioned evolution at every turn -- and then managed to answer the questions. And all of the answers just happened to refine and reinforce what we now call "modern evolutionary theory."

Besides, little man, you've explicitly admitted you accept evolution (ever since you first came here to defend Dr. Egnor, remember?); and you've never shown us an example of "the establishment" shielding MET from any troublesome questions or disproof.

Your "establishment" rhetoric is nothing more than a bluff to attract new-agey and pseudo-hip suckers who want to think they're cutting-edge rebels bravely questioning establishment dogma. Every time we call your bluff, we find there's no substance to any of it.

Charlie, could you link to some quotes where Woese and Goldenfeld talk about the vast evidence for intelligent design, and how it will soon be included in evolutionary theory? I can't find the full paper but that sure ain't in the abstract!

Or are we just supposed to accept that the obvious and openly-admitted fact that science and scientists aren't always 100% correct is somehow positive evidence that goddidit?

Charlie sounds like a pseudonym for Stephen Meyer or similar IDiot.

Richard Dawkins will be in Seattle at the UW 10/8 - free lecture.

He has rightly refused to "debate" the creationist Meyer, who's always trolling for victims on whom he can spew forth his creationist nonsense outside of the church groups he talks to.

http://www.discovery.org/a/12801

Well, yeh, PBS, says it all.

PBS's slogan : Every issue has only one side.

Please do not feed this troll. They have already been fed on the Ardipithecus thread.

Charlie quoted some yahoo:

“The basic understanding of evolution, considered as a process, did not advance at all under its tutelage. The presumed fundamental explanation of the evolutionary process, “natural selection,” went unchanged and unchallenged from one end of the 20th century to the other."

Right. Evolutionary biology has not advanced one bit due to Darwin or due to the sutdy of natural selection. Really? Then perhaps you can explain all of the success of population genetics models and modern molecular population genetics. Perhaps you can explain the success of all of the artificial selection experiments and the success of selective breeding in domestic varieties of dogs, livestock, horses, crops, etc. Or perhaps you can explain this:

Via (2009) Natural Selection in Action During Speciation PNAS 106:9939-9946

This is something that you claimed that there was absolutely no evidence for, remember.

Look Charlie, no one disputes that there are other processes that are important in evolution besides natural selection. However, no one really disputes the importance of natural selection in the history of life on earth. What point is it exactly that you are trying to make?

John Kwok said: Am hoping to attend a public memorial service for my favorie high school teacher, memoirist Frank McCourt, but tickets are scare. If I had to miss his memorial service - and I know Frank is probably a bit peeved off that it's being held - then seeing this would be a most worthy substitute.

Charlie quoted some clueless nutjob:

"Rather, it is the fact that molecular biology accepted the synthesis as a complete theory unquestioningly— thereby giving the impression that evolution was essentially a solved scientific problem with its roots lying only within the molecular paradigm.”

Really? Is that why there are no scientists working in the field anymore? Is that why there are no more papers being published in the field? Is that why there has been no revolution in the field due to the application of completely new molecualar techinques and completely new data sets, any one of which could easliy have falsified all of the previous hypootheses?

Is ther any field which the above adequately describes? Is it the field of modern evolutionary biology? Me thinks the weasel doeth protest too much.

Al said a lot of things. So what? He was a physicist and spiritual loon, with zero qualifications to criticize modern evolutionary theory. Besides, this quote of yours is from 1917.

Talk about quote mining. The context of that snippet you stole from Woese is as follows:

"...for it is microbiology and molecular biology, so
long unfairly divided from their proper evolutionary context,
that are sowing the seeds of biology’s next and greatest flowering."

They were excited about the unification of microbiology and molecular biology, you lying windbag, and only the rant about "truths too fragile" is from that Whitehead nutjob.

Hey folks, Matt is correct. Don’t feed this guy.

We have been all through it with him before and he never corrects his mistakes. You can go over to his website and verify this.

For example, his crap about thermodynamics is exactly wrong as it always has been, even after he was thoroughly debunked on a thread right here on PT dealing with thermodynamics. He didn’t go back and correct anything on his site. Everything else there concerning science and evolution is bullshit also.

It is apparent that these repeated troll fests are nothing more than disruptions and “evolutionist baiting”.

In fact, here is the thread where Charlie Wagner was thoroughly debunked.

Don’t waste any more time with him.

It would seem, on a quick look, that Woese's convictions,discoveries. and conclusions - which were evidently initially trashed - are now accepted by most researchers in the field, and are SOP.

What am I missing here?

It would seem, on a quick look, that Woese's convictions,discoveries. and conclusions - which were evidently initially trashed - are now accepted by most researchers in the field, and are SOP.

What am I missing here?

Bob Maurus said: What am I missing here?

fnxtr said: Al said a lot of things. So what? He was a physicist and spiritual loon, with zero qualifications to criticize modern evolutionary theory. Besides, this quote of yours is from 1917.

Is this for real? Some Deception Institute documentary in a regular museum?

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/intelligent-design-documentary-to-premiere-at-smithsonian-affiliated-california-science-center-63527687.html

Darwin's Darkest Hour is available on the NOVA website, and it appears to be the entire program:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1286437550/program/979359664

I was going over the "Science, Non-Science and Pseudoscience" thread a couple of days ago. There were some great discussions going on... until people stopped to feed the trolls! Don't do it! It wastes everyone's time and effort, drags the level of discourse down to the gutter, and feeds the persecution complex they strive to maintain. Ignore them - paying attention to them is what keeps them around.

Sorry, but this program badly needs some Hurley.

I don't know where to post this so I'm putting it here.

There was a news story on the BBC web site headlined "We are all mutants say scientists." (Sept 2 2009. By Sudeep Chand.) The story was about scientists at Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute tracing the genes of two Chinese men who had a common ancestor 200 years ago, and reports they were able to come up with "200 to 300 new mutations per person" confirming Haldane's guess of 150 mutations per person back in 1935.

My question is - is anyone bothered by that headline? Is this what you might call a pre-Darwinian translation of an evolutionary finding? I mean have we veered so far off course that we're giving the impression that we weren't all "mutants" before this piece of news? Has all this arguing with creationists somehow left the impression that evolution could happen without genes mutating. That the distance between we humans and our Post-Cambrian ancestors could have happened in some other way?

What am I not getting here?

Speaking as a layman slightly less benighted than I was few years ago, I always had the impression of variation in a species as between existing alleles, and only the extremely rare new "mutation" -- I think that word and it's variants still bring up images of The Chrysalids for most non-scientists.

The Woese and Goldenfeld commentary does not, of course, mean what a certain poster would have us think it means. It is an interesting read, and is quite accessible to a non-biologist like me.

Has all this arguing with creationists somehow left the impression that evolution could happen without genes mutating.

I just watched the NOVA on tivo last night and although I enjoyed it, I thought it was a bit dull (but I could gaze at Francis O'Conner all day). I actually prefer the Darwin biography from the PBS's "Evolution" several years ago.

So, as I've asked before fruitlessly, in what way are the 7 billion folks on earth evolving? Or does evolution proceed faster with a few thousand humans in an ice age? Funny Eskimos are so few (check out Nunavut).

Thurs. 17:30

Novparl said: So, as I've asked before fruitlessly, in what way are the 7 billion folks on earth evolving? Or does evolution proceed faster with a few thousand humans in an ice age? Funny Eskimos are so few (check out Nunavut). Thurs. 17:30

Novparl might not appreciate an answer, but I run into that idea all the time from normal, sane people too. There's this popular perception that humans aren't "evolving" anymore. I reckon part of it has to do with the naive conceit that we're at the top of the "evolutionary ladder" to which all other things aspire, and part of it having to do with the idea that humans are now so mobile that we'll eventually "homogenize."

The neutral evaluation of nature?

Neutrality while hypothesizing, exploring, testing, retesting, debating, and challenging is the stuff of science...open to reevaluation if there is new information, bottom up to the conclusions. Religion works the other way, top down.

But as data pointed in one direction, Evolution has come to qualify as reality, overwhelmingly documented, and missing links in disproving evolution fail to show up.
evolution long ago became "fact" in everyday meaning, and no longer "just a theory".

At that point, as it has been for ions, science and scientists owe nothing to neutrality of opinion, if they have been neutral in the evaluation.

At that point it does not matter if the fact or theory of Evolution is acceptable to one religious point of veiw or another. That is not a scietific question. The fact or theory of evolution remains open to counterproof. Show us the facts that disprove it. Only occasional holes that are a pitance compared to the overwhelming evidence for it.

It isn't necessary to make it palpitable to various religionists.

Neutral inquery does not mean we must make the conclusions neutral and acceptable to everyone.

If Evolution fits within your religion, fine, but the Baby, Evolution, does not have to be split and shared with a Solomon's knife, so religion and science tolerate each other, so Evolution is palitable, and people's religious sensitivities aren't questioned.

The only place it matters is in legislation over money for research. For that reason, maybe we need to be tolerant, but not because we need to be neutral about our conclusions, and find a way to accept Evolution and a belief in God in one breath.

DavidK said: Charlie sounds like a pseudonym for Stephen Meyer or similar IDiot.

Novparl said: So, as I've asked before fruitlessly, in what way are the 7 billion folks on earth evolving? Or does evolution proceed faster with a few thousand humans in an ice age? Funny Eskimos are so few (check out Nunavut). Thurs. 17:30

My question is - is anyone bothered by that headline? Is this what you might call a pre-Darwinian translation of an evolutionary finding? I mean have we veered so far off course that we’re giving the impression that we weren’t all “mutants” before this piece of news?

fnxtr -

They are called Inuit in Nunavut, but in Alaska, the term Eskimo continues to be preferred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo

However, your reply to the ignorant Novparl is otherwise accurate.

Matt G said: Darwin's Darkest Hour is available on the NOVA website, and it appears to be the entire program: http://video.pbs.org/video/1286437550/program/979359664

harold said: fnxtr - They are called Inuit in Nunavut, but in Alaska, the term Eskimo continues to be preferred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo However, your reply to the ignorant Novparl is otherwise accurate.

fnxtr said: Speaking as a layman slightly less benighted than I was few years ago, I always had the impression of variation in a species as between existing alleles, and only the extremely rare new "mutation" -- I think that word and it's variants still bring up images of The Chrysalids for most non-scientists.

harold said: Steve Long wrote -

My question is - is anyone bothered by that headline? Is this what you might call a pre-Darwinian translation of an evolutionary finding? I mean have we veered so far off course that we’re giving the impression that we weren’t all “mutants” before this piece of news?

Yes, the headline reveals tremendous ignorance on the part of journalists. What a surprise. A genetic mutation is a relative change in nucleotide sequence, usually in a copy sequence that was transcribed from an original. Neither sequence is necessarily "better", but the difference between the original and the copy is the mutation. Less commonly, a nucleotide change can occur in a DNA sequence even when it is not being replicated, for example with exposure to a high dose of UV radiation...

CORECTION TO THE POST ABOVE- add the word "not" -- sorry

That there are variations in organisms that are NOT ultimately the result of mutation? How does that work?

Well, recombination (sexual reproduction) merges the mutations from separate lineages into one lineage. But without mutation, that wouldn't maintain variety against the effects of genetic drift and selection (not indefinitely, anyway).

Horizontal transfer between species can insert DNA into a lineage as well; I'm unsure if that's regarded as a type of mutation or not (doesn't sound like it to me).

Henry

Article on the hijaking of Darwin

http://vdare.com/misc/091007_troost.htm

What he said. :-)

Really, the average J doesn't really think about genetic variation or its origins very much, we just get this "mutant=bad" image early in life. Few of us unlearn it.

Richard H said: Article on the hijaking of Darwin http://vdare.com/misc/091007_troost.htm

Richard H said: Article on the hijaking of Darwin http://vdare.com/misc/091007_troost.htm

By that I do not mean that one can treat people of different races in unfair ways, but that the races themselves show variations of ability to be honest. All other factors being equal, some groups are more dishonest than others. Dishonesty correlates highly with crime, so one expects blacks, with their very high crime rate, to demonstrate more dishonest behavior than Asians and whites-which is exactly what they do on things like student loan default rates. IQ, aggression, and impulsivity show systematic racial differences, as well.

Really, the average J doesn’t really think about genetic variation or its origins very much, we just get this “mutant=bad” image early in life. Few of us unlearn it.

fnxtr said: What he said. :-) Really, the average J doesn't really think about genetic variation or its origins very much, we just get this "mutant=bad" image early in life. Few of us unlearn it.

Frank J said: As you say, "mutation" has taken a negative connotations, so I say "genetic change" whenever possible. Same for "evolution" - if I mean "natural selection" or "common descent with modification" I use those specific terms instead of the catch-all E-word. And you might have noticed that I use "anti-evolution activist" far more than "creationist."

Next you’ll tell us it’s called “climate change!”

— Wheels

Novparl trolls: So, as I’ve asked before fruitlessly, in what way are the 7 billion folks on earth evolving? Or does evolution proceed faster with a few thousand humans in an ice age? Funny Eskimos are so few (check out Nunavut).

Once you take the Alpo away...

— stevaroni

Ravilyn Sanders said: Is this for real? Some Deception Institute documentary in a regular museum? http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/intelligent-design-documentary-to-premiere-at-smithsonian-affiliated-california-science-center-63527687.html

According to Glenn Branch of NCSE, the Los Angeles Daily News reports that the show has been cancelled. The reason for the cancellation depends entirely on whom you listen to.

Frank J said: That's another area where mainstream science often shoots itself in the foot by allowing anti-science activists to bait-and-switch terms. AIUI what is "challenged" by a small minority of "dissenters" is not global warming itself, but anthropogenic global warming. But a skilled activist will make sure to conflate GW with AGW and the completely separate question of what government's role ought to be.

Matt Young said: According to Glenn Branch of NCSE, the Los Angeles Daily News reports that the show has been cancelled. The reason for the cancellation depends entirely on whom you listen to.

Matt Young said: According to Glenn Branch of NCSE, the Los Angeles Daily News reports that the show has been cancelled. The reason for the cancellation depends entirely on whom you listen to.

ID is “more modern”??? The News should insert “Neo-Paleyism” into their word processor lexicon.

— fnxtr

Speaking of ID from the Dishonesty Institute, our friend Luskin has put out a guide book, "The College Student’s Back to School Guide on Intelligent Design" intended to "prepare" students to intelligently question Darwin this fall - link here http://www.discovery.org/a/12791). The guide can be downloaded here.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/BacktoSchoolGuide_Sept2009_FN.pdf

Interestingly, the first pic in the PDF is a classroom in German. Perhaps Luskin wanted to test students to see if they could recognize the difference between an American and a German classroom?

An execelent post. For those Spanish speaking people, I recommend www.leonardomoledo.blogspot.com, with interesting artivles on science, literature, and cinema.

DavidK said: Speaking of ID from the Dishonesty Institute, our friend Luskin has put out a guide book, "The College Student’s Back to School Guide on Intelligent Design" intended to "prepare" students to intelligently question Darwin this fall - link here http://www.discovery.org/a/12791). The guide can be downloaded here. http://www.evolutionnews.org/BacktoSchoolGuide_Sept2009_FN.pdf Interestingly, the first pic in the PDF is a classroom in German. Perhaps Luskin wanted to test students to see if they could recognize the difference between an American and a German classroom?

Intelligent design is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. Specifically, it detects design by using empirical data to test its positive predictions. ID is based upon empirical data and uses well‐accepted scientific methods of the historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present‐day observations, are derived from intelligent causes. One can disagree with ID, but one cannot characterize it fairly as a “faith‐based” argument.

One can disagree with ID, but one cannot characterize it fairly as a “faith-based” argument.

The story by Troy Anderson, "Cancellation of Darwin film creates uproar" is not quite what it seems, the term "uproar" depends on which side you're on. Anderson is hardly a non-biased reporter, as one might suspect:

Troy Anderson LA Daily News Reporter & Freelance Magazine Writer
... local government and investigative reporter ... also freelance for various magazines and Web sites including ... Christianity Today
Specialties: ... Politics, government, investigative reporting, faith, ... I cover local government and write investigative series and faith stories.
... [member] Evangelical Press Association

Uproar? Hardly, but sensationalism on the DI's part. Will Luskin bring a lawsuit and is there DI martyrdom in the makings?

Wheels said:

DavidK said: Speaking of ID from the Dishonesty Institute, our friend Luskin has put out a guide book, "The College Student’s Back to School Guide on Intelligent Design" intended to "prepare" students to intelligently question Darwin this fall - link here http://www.discovery.org/a/12791). The guide can be downloaded here. http://www.evolutionnews.org/BacktoSchoolGuide_Sept2009_FN.pdf Interestingly, the first pic in the PDF is a classroom in German. Perhaps Luskin wanted to test students to see if they could recognize the difference between an American and a German classroom?

Even more interestingly, the Original Article link goes to a conservative Christian webpage. But ID isn't religious! I like this part in the PDF:

Intelligent design is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. Specifically, it detects design by using empirical data to test its positive predictions. ID is based upon empirical data and uses well‐accepted scientific methods of the historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present‐day observations, are derived from intelligent causes. One can disagree with ID, but one cannot characterize it fairly as a “faith‐based” argument.

I suppose that's the case, if one's definition of "science" includes Astrology.

I, myself, wear contact lenses. A trivial inconvenience in my pleasant suburb, but I suspect that if I’d been born instead on the plains of Asia 5000 years ago my fate would instead include the terms “snow leopard” and “lunch”.

Intelligent design is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. Specifically, it detects design by using empirical data to test its positive predictions. ID is based upon empirical data and uses well‐accepted scientific methods of the historical sciences...

DavidK said:

Ravilyn Sanders said: Is this for real? Some Deception Institute documentary in a regular museum? http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/intelligent-design-documentary-to-premiere-at-smithsonian-affiliated-california-science-center-63527687.html

... a public facility that was beholden to rent out space to anyone who requested it. I asked them for a clarification and they had no choice, but they in no way sponsored or advertised the show.

"This movie is not sponsored by the museum. They have merely rented this space and we are legally obligated to rent it to them."

so a genetic clone of you (or me) in a hunter-gatherer society probably wouldn’t be myopic.

Intelligent design is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

I dunno. Archaeology is a field of study; it isn't a concept that somebody is claiming as an explanation for something.

The reason I.D. isn't science is because there isn't a consistently observed pattern that would be a logical consequence of the concept that life was deliberately engineered. (Plus, the simplest interpretations of "life was deliberately engineered" are contradicted by evidence.)

Henry

Matt Young said:

Intelligent design is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

Actually, I think, intelligent design could be science...

I agree completely with both of the previous commenters: ID creationism is not science. I think it would have been more accurate if I had said that it would have been science if its practitioners had honestly searched for evidence of design and it had panned out. Phlogiston was science, until it turned out not to have validity. Alchemy was science until it was subsumed by chemistry. Not so sure about astrology, but it was certainly subsumed by astronomy. ID creationism, however, has led nowhere. If it ever was potentially scientific, it certainly is no more. That is pretty much what I was getting at, but I was too terse.

The Dishonesty Institute has a new rant, "Did the Smithsonian Bully the California Science Center to Expel Intelligent Design Film?" - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/the_kneejerk_response_of_darwi.html

Would anyone be willing to bet that they had this written days ago? I'm sure their well-oiled propaganda machine had this article composed as soon as the event was announced, hoping this "expulsion" would happen (proving that intelligent design creationism can predict something).

Matt Young said:

Intelligent design is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

Actually, I think, intelligent design could be science in the same way that archaeology is science, provided that it actually used the scientific method to make its claims. When I first learned about intelligent design, I was mildly sympathetic, despite my own lack of religious belief. Unfortunately, intelligent design has not delivered the goods -- has not even made a plausible case. The proper term, I think, is intelligent-design creationism, because it emphasizes the religious roots of intelligent design. Its scientific roots, if it has any, are tenuous at best.

Paul Burnett said: The Dishonesty Institute has a new rant, "Did the Smithsonian Bully the California Science Center to Expel Intelligent Design Film?" - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/the_kneejerk_response_of_darwi.html Would anyone be willing to bet that they had this written days ago? I'm sure their well-oiled propaganda machine had this article composed as soon as the event was announced, hoping this "expulsion" would happen (proving that intelligent design creationism can predict something).

Paul Burnett said: The Dishonesty Institute has a new rant, "Did the Smithsonian Bully the California Science Center to Expel Intelligent Design Film?" - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/the_kneejerk_response_of_darwi.html Would anyone be willing to bet that they had this written days ago? I'm sure their well-oiled propaganda machine had this article composed as soon as the event was announced, hoping this "expulsion" would happen (proving that intelligent design creationism can predict something).

Dave Thomas said: Briefly, the American Freedom Alliance (on behalf of the Disco Institute, one can presume) contracts to show Cambrian creationism film at the California Science Center; the California Science Center has a strict policy requiring Center approval of "promotional materials mentioning the California Science Center"; The Discovery Institute comes out swinging with an un-approved Press Release; and the contract is cancelled, for cause.

Paul-- The after-show was going to be a Q&A with a troupe of DI fellows. If AFA didnt tell them the rules, thats their mistake. They should have sent a copy of the contract to everyone directly involved with the event.

And, its not as if the DI issued that comment via the EN&V blog, eg "Hey Im going to be at the California Science Center! -- Meyer". They issued an official press release that gave the impression the event was Smithsonian/CSC sponsored, exactly what CSC was trying to avoid with their policy.

And, our guess about why the event was canceled could be wrong :P

Paul Burnett said: The American Freedom Alliance will now bleat that it has been wronged by the California Science Center because it has no control over the Dishonesty Institute's issuance of Press Releases. Whattaya bet?

It may help to be reminded of the Dover Pa, ruling on Di where a conservative Bush appointed Federal Judge called the DI people dishonest and guilt of perjury. He also ruled that DI is a religious belief and had no part of Science education. PBS has a documentary on the trial that is worth watching.

Mitchell Kent said: It may help to be reminded of the Dover Pa, ruling on Di where a conservative Bush appointed Federal Judge called the DI people dishonest and guilt of perjury.

He also ruled that DI is a religious belief and had no part of Science education.