Maybe you could give a clear example of how Darwin's published theories could be creationist in what they say about the world.

I'll send you (via email) the pdf of Cosan's paper.

Darwin's "creationism" in the Origin was not YEC, obviously, but the logic of his scientific reasoning employed theological premises about the proper mode of conceiving God's action.

Consider, for instance, this passage:

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. (p. 488, 1st ed.)

The importance Darwin attached to this view — namely, that God created via the secondary laws He established — is reflected by his citation of Whewell's Bridgewater Treatise, as one of two epigraphs opening the Origin:

But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this — we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws.

Creation via the instrument(s) of natural laws. Darwin's usage of "Creator" here and elsewhere in the Origin is not accidental.

It can't be very misleadingly stated, since it is found, more or less as I presented it, in any number of elementary physics books.

But you forgot the qualifier that comes attached. These laws apply to closed systems. And even there they catch some grief on both the universal and quantum levels. Some of the multiverse speculations undermine the assumptive extrapolations of conservation laws as well.

A closed system is one in which the properties of interest are not affected by external influences. Which, when you get right down to it, is an ideal state of isolation that doesn't actually exist. For all its usefulness in given applications, it's as FAPP as everything else in science. IOW, non-absolute.

It can't be very misleadingly stated, since it is found, more or less as I presented it, in any number of elementary physics books.

Well, so much the worse for any number of elementary physics books, because I'm afraid it is misleading, particularly in the context of the discussion you were having with Doug, and of topics of general interest to this blog.

You had written:

1) Well, momentum is conserved….

2) Well, energy is conserved.

3) Well, angular momentum is conserved.

[Emphases added]

My comment assumed—-not unreasonably, I think—-that neither you nor anyone else has observed the entirety of the universe to see if momentum, and energy, and angular momentum are in fact always conserved in the universe as a whole, especially given the problematic nature of a big bang for observation in general, and for observing whether such conservation laws hold good in particular.

This is misleadingly stated,

It can't be very misleadingly stated, since it is found, more or less as I presented it, in any number of elementary physics books.

Deuce: Er, I don't think "poetically" is the word here, at least not for all the times it was used.

The Concluding Remarks in Origin of Species was clearly waxing poetical. As to the specific term, in context, it reads quite vaguely. His admission does indicate that he was truckling to public opinion. So your point is taken. But I still wouldn't take it at face value.

In context of his other thoughts, he regrets that he mixed the science with vague Deism because of what others insisted upon reading into them. When I read Darwin, I have no doubt that he thinks it is possible in concept to study the mechanisms of abiogenesis, and I don't find his invocation of a Creator to cover the Gap was meant literally.

All I know is this:

1) If the universe is invariant under spatial translations, then momentum should be conserved. Well, momentum is conserved.

2) If the universe is invariant under time translations, then energy should be conserved. Well, energy is conserved.

3) If the universe is invariant under rotations, then angular momentum should be conserved. Well, angular momentum is conserved.

See Noether's Theorem.

This is misleadingly stated, and it doesn't deal with Doug's point.

It's misleadingly stated because although these conservation laws are indeed mathematical consequences of the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant under spatial, temporal, and rotational translations, neither the conservation of momentum, of energy, and of angular momentum nor the invariance of the laws and constants of physics is an observed fact at every region of spacetime, since, er, not every region of spacetime has been investigated to see if the relevant laws, constants, and quantities are in fact invariant and/or conserved in every such region. If there is some spacetime region where one of these quantities is not in fact conserved, then the laws of physics are not in fact invariant under spatial, and/or temporal, and/or rotational translations. And there might be such a region, for all we know.

For example, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the assumption, not an observation, that the laws and constant of physics do not change as time passes. So if one grants Doug the minimal concession that no physical observer has observed the entire history of the universe to see if the laws and constants of physics actually did change at some time, then it might be the case that energy is not (perfectly and uniformly) conserved in our universe.

Thus David's response does not really address Doug's point, but treats the entire universe as having certain properties on the basis of an induction. But as Hume famously pointed out, no law of nature is ever entailed by any inductive reasoning.

And in fact, there is some reason to think that certain quantities are not conserved. At 'times' shorter than the Planck time after the Big Bang started, energy may have disobeyed the conservation law. It may have 'flowed into' our universe from something other than our universe. More recently, Randall-Sundrum models have hypothesized that gravitational energy may also 'leak' from our universe.

Doug: Zach, maybe you can toss up that rigid definition of science you drag around with you.

The definition of the Scientific Method I often refer to is orthodox and consistent with other such definitions.

Doug: Hypotheses can be scientific in nature - and you claim that dreams can yield hypotheses"¦. are those scientific dreams?

Dreams are dreams. Dreaming of a snake swallowing its tail is not a scientific assertion or a hypothesis. However, such a dream can lead to a valid scientific hypothesis.

Doug: I'm curious - when a scientist works under the assumption of the uniformity of nature are they doing science?

Scientists work under all sorts of assumptions, many of them incorrect.

Doug: If a scientist is working under assumptions that can't be proven true by the scientific method are the results his work yields scientific?

The results are judged by their fit to the data and their ability to predict novel observations.

Doug: are you claiming that the uniformity of nature is tested and confirmed?

We can assign relative confidence levels to results, such as with statistical analysis. We might say a result is as sure as the Dawn. Do you wish to bet against our ability to predict the rising and setting of the Sun?

Darwin was speaking poetically and non-scientifically when he invoked a Creator to explain the origin of life.

Er, I don't think "poetically" is the word here, at least not for all the times it was used. The word "Creator" had a pretty clear and universal meaning at the time. As he explained himself in his letter that you quoted "But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process." In other words, he was speaking literally rather than poetically, but also rather obfuscatorily in order to assuage public opinion by leaving God somewhere in the picture, even though he personally thought it was ridiculous to do so.

Also, data always underdetermine the hypothesis. So the conclusions on all hypotheses are tentative - the best that can be said is that they currently aren't falsified.
But if we treated the uniformity of the whole cosmic backdrop as just another hypothesis in need of empirical support - a hypothesis that could never be conclusively shown to be true (just that it currently hasn't been falsified) - then what condition do we leave our 2nd order hypotheses that labor under that assumption of uniformity in nature?

You lost me. Uncle. All I know is this:

1) If the universe is invariant under spatial translations, then momentum should be conserved. Well, momentum is conserved.

2) If the universe is invariant under time translations, then energy should be conserved. Well, energy is conserved.

3) If the universe is invariant under rotations, then angular momentum should be conserved. Well, angular momentum is conserved.

See Noether's Theorem.

I believe there is a presupposition in science: namely that nature is orderly and comprehensible–that is, before we do science we presuppose that science is not a fool's errand.