Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

More on Wells. In a recent article Wells 'argues'
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/darwinist_or_darwinian_theyre.html

<quote>No, Darwin went much further. He claimed that all living things
are descendants of a common ancestor, modified by unguided natural
processes such as random variation and survival of the fittest.
Darwinian descent with modification – as a comprehensive explanation
for what we see in living things – is scientifically controversial,
because it doesn't fit the evidence.

So what's the easiest way to persuade people that they should accept
something so controversial? Word play.</quote>

Wordplay indeed is what drives the ID movement. Confusing the
distinctions between Darwin's theory and materialism/atheism/secular
religion, conflating terminologies such as complexity, design and
misunderstanding the differences between methodological and
philosophical naturalism, the DI and the ID movement proceeds on its
path to drive their wedge into science and religious faith, at all
cost.
Note in the above that Wells claims about Darwin and evolutionary
science. The term unguided, random and scientifically controversial
are all based on 'word play' at best.

First of all, unguided in the sense that it does not require the
intervention of Deities. Random in the sense that variation does not
arise preferentially to environmental needs.

Finally, at a scientific level, there is little controversy about
evolutionary science, the relevance of 'random' variation and the role
of selection.
Nothing controversial and certainly the evidence strongly supports
Darwin's thesis of common descent.

Wells has also some interesting, though unsupported claims about the NCSE

<quote>
The August 29, 2007 issue of The Seattle Weekly features an article
quoting Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for
Science Education (NCSE). Despite its name, the NCSE is not about
teaching science but indoctrinating students at public expense in
Darwinism, the creation myth of modern secularism. Whenever critics of
Darwinism raise their heads, the NCSE rushes in to bop 'em, kind of
like a carnival game. Except that when the NCSE bops someone on the
head it usually means the end of that person's career in science
teaching.
</quote>

Some examples would do nicely. This kind of empty rhetoric which forms
the basis of most of Wells' claims helps understand why I consider his
contributions of limited scientific value, and worse, doing
significant damage to religious faith as it 'educates' its followers
to believes about evolutionary theory which are clearly at odds with
the facts.

Ironically, Wells accuses Eugenie Scott of 'playing with words' and
causing confusion

<quote>Eugenie Scott makes it her business to misuse words to confuse
people about Darwinism and evolution. On a web site maintained (at
public expense) by the University of California at Berkeley, she
recommends: "Define evolution as an issue of the history of the
planet: as the way we try to understand change through time. The
present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no
debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on... I have
used this approach at the college level." [6]</quote>

What is wrong with maintaining a website (at public expense) by the
University of Berkeley btw?

ending in

<quote>So rather than learn Scott's word games, biology students
should begin by learning to distinguish "evolution" from "Darwinism"
and "evolutionist" from "Darwinist." Or "Darwinian" – it's one and the
same.</quote>

A simple misunderstanding of the facts. Darwin was the first to
present a scientific explanation for the fact of evolution, his
mechanisms of variation and selection have since then been shown to
play a significant role though not unique role in evolution. Darwin
himself was quick to realize that selection was likely to be but one
of various mechanisms, although in Darwin's mind, the most important
one.
It's the Discovery Institute and its followers who are confusing
Darwinism and evolution and believe that rejecting or refuting
Darwinism is sufficient to show 'Intelligent Design".

Wells' arguments show imho a clear confusion and lack of understanding
of evolutionary theory, Darwinian theory, as well as the meaning of
random, and unguided.

<quote> Wells: Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me
that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of
my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to
destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen
other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed
the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.</quote>

http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm

But at what a cost...

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 2 15:38:04 2007