Just like misrepresenting someone's position doesn't actually change that person's position, so does using different words to describe similar events do nothing to actually change the nature of those two events.

If you are unhappy about the things written in my post, I suggest you direct your complaints elsewhere first. To take the issue of Gary Hurd's drinking, that wasn't an issue I raised. That was your "pro-science" buddy Ed Brayton, who made that accusation several times, disclosing confidential information from the Pandas' internal forum. Yet I notice that you haven't been over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, accusing Brayton of "going down the Pianka debacle road". Why is that? Is it because you think only ID critics are allowed to talk about the mud-fest over at PT? Or is it because rather than standing on principles, you're just trying to score some cheap rhetorical points?

As for "going down the Pianka debacle road", I happen to think there's a pretty clear distinction between making factually incorrect statements (that are likely to have some very serious real-life consequences for those involved) and referencing a discussion that those involved would rather want to keep quiet. But I suppose that when you look at the world in terms of black and white, those things tend to blur together.

Mung:
I do have a basic question though. It seems to me that RM + NS can explain any phenomenon in the living world. As you point out, it's simple, clear, elegant, and has great explanatory power. So why the need for additional theories?

Well, three major reasons that I can think of. Firstly, because there are clearly features of living things that are not the product of natural selection. At the molecular level particularly, genetic drift rules; only a small fraction of the human (or any other) genome carries the signature of recent selection. And if Michael Lynch is correct, even features of living organisms that are generally thought to be self-evidently the results of adaptive evolution (e.g. the maintenance of duplicate genes) may actually have originated through non-adaptive drift. There also now appear to be mechanisms of heritable change that do not involve random mutation (such as changes in epigenetic modification of DNA). So regardless of how good an explanation RM+NS is for many features of living things, it's clearly not the whole story.

Secondly, there are several important aspects of evolutionary theory that are logically independent of the mechanism of evolutionary change. For instance, common descent stands or falls quite independently of the mechanism by which organisms evolve.

Finally, even though the origin of most adaptive features of organisms could probably ultimately be explained through RM&NS, these features are so complex and emergent that higher-order explanations are required. I guess it's like chemistry - ultimately, all of chemistry boils down to particle physics, yet most chemists don't use the equations of particle physics on a daily basis. Instead, they describe, explain and predict their observations using higher-order equations. So fields like evo-devo (i.e. evolutionary developmental biology) and palaeontology describe higher-order patterns of change that (presumably) ultimately reduce to RM&NS in most cases, but can't be described in those terms with our current level of knowledge.

That dog don't hunt, Andrea. It's an expansive attempt to turn tables, but you won't be fooling anybody here. Might as well go ahead and accept the fact that we got a lot of yucks out of the circus and leave it at that. What "deeper meaning" could it possibly have, other than to demonstrate what happens when the common enemy loses its threat status? Ulterior motives take a front seat, and the allies turn on each other. Reminds me of the French Revolution, and is worthy theatre for that alone.

But that was exactly my original point (see my first post). You can go for yucks, laughing at people loosing control and hurling insults at one another, but what have you got left after that?

If you try to give it some profound meaning, it comes back to bite you in the ass as soon as it is shown, as in the DS-JAD spat, that ID advocates are not immune from the same, or worse, rhetoric against each other. Or you go into obviously gross generalizations, in which the occasional fisticuff between a handful of ID critics somehow becomes representative of the general mindframe of pro-science activists, which tells more about the prejudice of those engaging in the speculations, than about the psychology of their targets.

Bizarre, and coupled with the tabloid-like attention to the most lurid details of the story in the o.p. here, unworthy of the tone some of the contributors to this blog generally try to maintain. (Look, guys, there is a reason that I am telling this to you, and not to the knuckle-draggers at UD - and it's not just that I know they would censor my comments before they even showed up on their blog!)

I am surprised however that you think ID and creationism have "lost their threat status" to science education. I, and all PT contributors (PZ, ironically, among the first) tend to be way more cautious about that, actually.

Teleologist:
nothing whatsoever in those quotes contradicts anything I said, in particular that it is neither PZ's nor Dawkins's position that science be used as a tool for atheist "evangelizing".

Andrea

even if all atheists agreed to bite their lips from now on, it wouldn't stop the fundamentalists from attacking evolution as atheistic,

Why would they do that?

For every fundamentalist getting their breeches in a knot about evolution being synonymous with atheism, we can point to the Vatican Astronomer, and for every mealy-mouthed paean about the Plan of Creation Shining Through Evolution published, we can suggest the reading of "A Devil's Chaplain". So keep at it, folks. As crude and inept as it often sounds, this is in fact good for our side.

Oh, evolution does not equals Atheism, see religious astronomer here. Oh, religious biologist equals evolution? Smack him with the Devil, remember this find from Salvador?

At the New York Symposium, Dawkins went on the attack, criticizing Brown University professor Ken Miller for claiming to believe in evolutionary theory and in God. The exchange was so heated that the gathered scientists"“more accustomed to low-key debate, found themselves aghast. As Hall observed, "The other thing that struck me was the tone of the debate"“Dawkins, and his undeniably civil manner, was so aggressive, so relentless, and so pitiless towards his intellectual adversaries that it almost detracted from the quality of his argument."

Do you know what a Hobson's choice is?

To clear this misunderstanding on your part, this is certainly not PZ's position, or - as far as I know - even Dawkins's. PZ's idea - and I sure hope I am interpreting correctly - is that to expouse science, which is by necessity empirical, skeptical and rationalistic, de facto means that one is less likely to believe in the supernatural, or adopt positions based on faith alone.

Au contraire!
Myers

As I was puzzling over how to answer such an odd question, I realized why I thought it was odd. The scientist and atheist positions are the same. It doesn't matter which hat I'm wearing, the answers won't change.

Emphasis his.

Myers

We are being disingenuous when we claim science is compatible with religion. It's compatible with a kind of thoughtful religion that consciously sets itself aside as dealing solely with a metaphysical domain, not the world; it encourages the apostasy of deism and agnosticism, and can easily lead people into the path of atheism.

All roads (science, apostate deists) leads to atheistic home. What was that about Hobson's choice again? No, Myers is not an evangelist for Atheism. Why would any rational person or scientist think that?

This is going down the Pianka debacle road for you guys. It's OK to make mistakes, but when it becomes obvious you did, just admit so and move on.

That dog don't hunt, Andrea. It's an expansive attempt to turn tables, but you won't be fooling anybody here. Might as well go ahead and accept the fact that we got a lot of yucks out of the circus and leave it at that. What "deeper meaning" could it possibly have, other than to demonstrate what happens when the common enemy loses its threat status? Ulterior motives take a front seat, and the allies turn on each other. Reminds me of the French Revolution, and is worthy theatre for that alone.

It'll fade away if you let it. Then we can count the survivors.

This is going down the Pianka debacle road for you guys. It's OK to make mistakes, but when it becomes obvious you did, just admit so and move on. Otherwise you do end up looking like DS claiming that, after all, the Marine hoax could have been true, and Dembski mumbling to himself that Freeman Dyson after all really really agrees with him of the potential of zero-energy information transfer.

"I may be wrong, but I think the "party of fanatics and death" Gary was referring to is not his fellow bloggers, but the Republicans (which some of his fellow bloggers, in his mind, support, although in fact none of the 4 gentlemen he lists are actually Republicans - go figure)."

You're right. Hurd didn't say that his fellow Pandas were "the party of fanatics and death", but that they supported it. That's still a ridiculous thing to say, however.

"The response in his thread apparently seems to have gone from "oh no we don't" to "oh yes we do", but anyway."

My response hasn't gone anywhere. You tried to make it look like I was saying "oh no we don't", but as I pointed out, this was a misrepresentation. Correction someone else's false statements about your position doesn't mean that you're changing it. But anyway.

"Compare that to the dissection of the PT shitfest in the o.p. here, plus all the comments, with multiple blogs contributors pitching in with their interpretation (and I am not even going into UD's reaction, with Dembski himslef reading all the hundreds of posts to extract and post juicy nuggets for his readers' amusement). Seriously."

We can also compare it to when DaveScot fell for the "ACLU don't want soldiers to pray" hoax, which got extensive coverage, with both Panda's Thumb, The Questionable Authority, and Dispatches from the Culture Wars pitching in.

"PT notes, not just for rhetorical mileage, when there are substantial disagreements that relate to ID among its proponents. I am quite sure that if Paul Nelson publicly accused Behe of being a drunk, it would not get mentioned with obvious delight on PT."

OK, let's look at your own rationalization for why DaveScot's ACLU blunder should be on PT:

"This is really funny. It seems that claiming expertise in "design detection" theory and methods is no guarantee against falling for the crudest of urban legends."

So, I'm not quite sure why Paul Nelson accusing Behe of being a drunk wouldn't be relevant for Panda's Thumb. After all, that says something about Nelson's capabilities as a "design detector". And if the rumor turned out to be true, there would also be a nice post about how hypocritical IDists are when some of them claim that Darwinists are the amoral ones.

Ultimately, modern evolutionary theory is composed of many inter-related sub-theories and working hypotheses, some of which (e.g. common descent of all metazoans) are much better-supported than others (e.g. common descent of prokaryotes and eukaryotes). All too many people on both sides of the debate act as though modern evolutionary theory is a monolithic entity that must be accepted or rejected in its entirety, but of course it is entirely possible - in fact, I would argue that it is a near-certainty - that some of it is correct, but large parts are wholly or partially false.

I couldn't agree more. I cringe everytime that I see someone write "the theory of evolution." I probably still do it all too often myself. I participated in a thread over at ARN title "What Is the Theory of Evolution" or something to that effect. It was interesting to see jsut how difficult it was to answer that simple question. You would think that as a widely supported theory (so-called) among scientists, that it would not be difficult to state "the theory."

I also started a thread in an attempt to create a taxonomy of evolutionary theories. It didn't get very far. I don't know if that's because people just are not aware of the many and varied sub-theories that actually make up "evolutionary theory" or if they just were afraid to admit it.

I do have a basic question though. It seems to me that RM + NS can explain any phenomenon in the living world. As you point out, it's simple, clear, elegant, and has great explanatory power. So why the need for additional theories?

Mesk:
The reasons people don't accept evolutionary theory (in whole or in part) are many and varied, and don't reduce to a simple sound-bite. However, for most ID supporters, the reason is simple: they begin with the assumption that the Christian Bible is literally true, and their subjective but popular interpretation of the literal truth of the Bible rules out naturalistic evolution.

Ilion:
The above quoted statement, however, does much more serious damage to my perception of the aforementioned 'modern evolutionary theorist' than some six-year-old gung-ho statement could.

Is it really so controversial? By "most ID supporters" I am encompassing anyone who would have answered "I support ID" or "I don't believe in evolution" in a street poll. The vast majority of these people have never thought deeply about either religion or evolutionary theory; they believe what they believe reflexively, not rationally.

Would it make you feel better if I pointed out that I believe most "evolution supporters" accept evolution (and reject ID) for similarly irrational reasons? As Myrmecos said, both sides are largely tribal.

Mesk:
The concept of evolution by random mutation and natural selection is indeed simple, clear, elegant and has great explanatory (but weak predictive) power.

Ilion:
Aside from the seeming quibble that this statement conflates the *concept* of "evolution" with the concept that is 'modern evolutionary theory' (the two concepts are not the same thing, after all), isn't it the truth that "real scientific theories" *must* have strong predictive power? I mean, are we not forever being told that? Are we not forever being told that we can all be assured that "ID isn't science" due to its (claimed) weak or non-existent predictive powers?

Seems like quite a conundrum to me.

(Before I start, I should note that I'm using "predictive power" to refer specifically to refer to the ability to predict future changes to a system over time. Evolutionary theory can, and does, make reasonable predictions about events that may have occurred in the past - what transitional fossils might look like, and so on - although these are limited by the "lossy" nature of evolution.)

A lot of what you hear about what science should or shouldn't are sound-bites based on ignorance about the reality of science - for instance, there is also that widespread fallacy amongst pro-evolution debaters that modern evolutionary theory could be falsified, in its entirety, by some single observation (a rabbit in the Cambrian is the most popular incarnation).

In fact there are many fields of science with good explanatory power but weak predictive power - pretty much any field that deals with complex chaotic systems falls into this category. This includes meteorology, developmental biology, many areas of cosmology, and any field dealing with the human brain/mind. The weak ability of these fields to cope with predictions about the long-term future state of the systems they study reflects the chaotic nature of their subject matter. It is literally impossible to predict the long-term future state of a complex chaotic system unless you know every parameter and every input with total precision and run a complete simulation. Of course this is impossible in any realistic sense.

This fundamental problem doesn't make these fields non-science, and it doesn't prevent them from being used to make different sorts of predictions. For instance, with sufficient information about the genetic structure of a population, evolutionary theory can make fairly solid predictions about the forces that have acted on that population during its recent evolutionary history. These predictions can then be validated by collecting more genetic information, and also by examining the underlying biology of the organism (and, say, its fossil record) and seeing if it meshes with your evolutionary predictions.

Mesk:
One of the problems with evolution is that it is a process that loses information.

Ilion:
Indeed!

And yet, the entire ediface of 'modern evolutionary theory' is built upon the absolute denial of that truth.

On the face of it this statement is tragically wrong, but perhaps you meant it to mean something else - perhaps you could clarify?

In fact, many areas of evolutionary theory explicitly accomodate the "lossy" nature of the evolutionary process - for instance, algorithms used in population genetics and phylogenetic reconstruction provide the best possible inference about the evolutionary past given the available information, but also explicitly state the uncertainty of this inference due to missing information.