The ID Report

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Evolution in the light of intelligent design: How would intelligent design advocates answer various questions about human evolution? Read here:

British physicist David Tyler, one of my co-bloggers at Access Research Network, blogs on a number of issues raised in the science literature that impact the intelligent design controversy. Here's an alphabetized list of the ones he's discussed to date. You will also find some of my own compilations from the media (animations, columnists discussing the issues, et cetera.).

The goal of this compendium of links is a one-stop shop if you are trying to track down information in the growing controversy, that is written from a design perspective.

Acritarchs - oldest known protists (Tyler)

The picture emerging of the Late Archaean is one that includes prokaryotes and eukaryotes, photosynthesis, an oxygenated atmosphere and lots of biological activity. This is a big contrast from the picture even 10 years ago. The significance for our thinking about origins is that the eons of time demanded by Darwinian processes are not available.

Adaptation - adaptationist fantasies (Tyler)

Adaptation - adaptationist paradigm (Tyler)

Adaptation(Tyler) - adaptive change and design in echolocation

Adaptive landscape(Tyler) Intermediate evolutionary forms and adaptive landscape

"Adult resistance to science" (Tyler) (a social science theory on doubt about Darwinism as rooted in childhood error)

Aldini, Giovanni, and virulent materialism, with John West (podcast)

Allegory of the Cave SciPhiShow with Jason Rennie (podcast)

Altruism (Tyler) Darwinian vs. intelligent design interpretation

Amber See Stasis

analogies in science interview with Jay Richards on analogies in science (podcast)

Animal evolution(Tyler) - central nervous system

Animal evolution (Tyler) multicellular animals and need for complex information

Animations of life inside the cell, indexed, for your convenience.

antibiotic resistance - problems for evolution theory (animation)

Anti-God crusade Recent series on anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera.

Apes and language (Tyler)

Appendix (human appendix) - despite it's name, no longer considered superfluous or rudimentary (Tyler)

Archaea - horizontal gene transfer - review of The Archaea's Tale (Tyler)

He presents evidence that Darwinian evolution does not go back to the beginning of life. When we compare genomes of ancient lineages of living creatures, we find evidence of numerous transfers of genetic information from one lineage to another. In early times, horizontal gene transfer, the sharing of genes between unrelated species, was prevalent. It becomes more prevalent the further back you go in time. - Freeman Dyson

astronomy and intelligent design interview with Guillermo Gonzalez, (podcast)

Atheism and science (Tyler) Does science promote atheism?

Ayala - Darwinian orthodoxy, beyond question (Tyler)

Azoic hypothesis (Tyler) How a deep-seated belief hindered science

Backwards eye wiring(Tyler) (The vertebrate eye does not have a compromised design.)

Bacterial flagellum - no simple explanation (Tyler)

Bacterial flagellum(Tyler) - sequence similarities

Bats (Tyler) - echolocation, adaptive change and design

Beetle (Tyler) White beetle as optimally designed

Biomimetics (Tyler)

Bipedalism See Human evolution, bipedalism

Birds - bird song(Tyler) Female song neglected due to sexual selection bias

Brain - anachronistic junk? (Tyler)

Brain(Tyler) Mechanistic assumptions and criminal law

Butterfly sex ratios in Samoa - and natural selection (Tyler)

Sex ratios are distorted by the presence of a maternally inherited bacterium which has the effect of selectively killing male embryos. The authors report ratios of >99% female to nearly 1:1. These were different on different islands and at different times. The genetics of this shift of sex ratios is summarised in one paragraph with some supporting online data. There is not enough information here for anyone to either confirm or challenge their conclusions.

Cambrian era (Tyler) Ancestors largely missing

Cambrian era(Tyler) Comb jellies well developed

Cambrian era (Tyler) Pattern of diversity in the marine fossil record

Cambrian explosion - jellyfish in Cambrian as representatives of modern jellyfish (Tyler)

Campagna, Joey C., Intelligent design - research Wiki Web site for research (podcast)

Canada - intelligent design controversy in Canada - Cultural differences between Canada and the United States, interview with Denyse O'Leary (podcast)

Catholic Church A summary of the Catholic Church's actual teachings on evolution

Cell development (Tyler) and complex specified information

Cell, metaphors,changing metaphors (Tyler)

Cell - molecular recognition - advantages of cellular key-lock not being an exact fit. (Tyler)

So, something that could have been interpreted as evidence for tinkering evolution is discovered to have advantages after all. Furthermore, it has potential for the design of human systems operating in noisy environments. By invoking "evolutionary selection", the authors suggest an evolutionary context for their work. However, there is no evidence that evolutionary selection was involved, and the link with evolutionary theory is gratuitous.

Central dogma (Tyler)

Casual observers might say they find chaos in the emerging picture of the genome, but systems biology is tracking down extraordinary sophistication at the molecular biology level, indicating that theories (like Darwinism) that are undirected and stochastic have little to offer 21st Century biology.

Central nervous system - animal evolution(Tyler)

Chambers, Scott, "Cosmological Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse Model" interview (podcast)

Chimpanzees(Tyler) Common ancestor with humans - dating disputes

Chimp-human DNAcomparisons (Tyler)

Chimpanzees (Tyler) Differ from humans by six percent of genes

Chimpanzees(Tyler) Tool use of late Stone Age chimps and evidence of design, intelligent causation

Chimpanzees See also Apes

Ciencia Alternativa - intelligent design interview with Mario Lopez (podcast)

Coelacanth Devonian coelacanth find fills gap. "The find is significant for consigning an extensive discussion of coelacanth and lungfish fins to the filing cabinet of history." (Tyler)

Collins, Francis My review of Francis Collins' book The Language of God

Columnists weigh in on the intelligent design controversy A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

Comb jellies(Tyler) in Cambrian era

Compsocidae - an example of stasis. (Tyler) See also Stasis

Consciousness Douglas Hofstadter attempts to deconstruct consciousness:

... the materialist approach to consciousness is commonly dignified by the name "science". Other approaches, which are likely to be linked to Theism, are labelled "religion" and are excluded, on demarcation grounds, from science. This is an unacceptable situation, for as metaphysics, materialism has a philosophical standing that is entirely equivalent to Theism. It is simply that people choose to build their thoughts on different foundations. The paradox is that materialistic science wants to be realist and to have truth as a goal, but its approach to human consciousness can only support a post-modern philosophy which emphasises the socially constructed nature of reality and substitutes relativism for truth. And, for materialists, individuals have to seek for meaning and self-worth in existential experiences (an escape from reason) because the universal acid of rationalism has completely corroded realism and truth in human psychology.

Common ancestor of all life(Tyler) Assumptions vs. evidence

Common ancestor of all life(Tyler) Hagfish and common ancestor

Common ancestor of humans and chimps (Tyler)

cosmological fine tuning "Cosmological Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse Model", interview by Casey Luskin with Scott Chambers (podcast) See also Fine tuning

CO2 sensors (Tyler) as wonders of natural engineering

Cypher's choice Jason Rennie explains the Matrix crux (podcast)

Darwinbots Denyse O'Leary vs. the Darwinbots (podcast)

Darwin Day in America - West, John, on Darwin Day in America (podcast) John West reads from his book Darwin Day in America (podcast)

Darwin exhibition (Tyler) American Museum of Natural History - historical errors

Darwinism and its Discontents(Tyler) Comments by David Tyler on Michael Ruse's book

Darwinism - Ayala's Darwinian orthodoxy, beyond question (Tyler)

Darwinism Darwinian reductionism and Darwinism(Tyler) Alex Rosenberg's views
Darwinism, Judaism, and Christianity with Jonathan Rosenblum (podcast)

Darwinism moral relativism and Darwinism John West (podcast)

Darwinism and dissent(Tyler) - defenders of Darwinism propose ways to deal with dissent from current consensus in science

Darwinism dissent Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin

Darwinism, limits of Darwinism Reviews of Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution "The real issue is: will a debate within science be allowed? If Behe is not allowed the right of reply, this review should be treated as an exercise in polemics, designed to protect the world of science from ever having to face up to evidences of ID. If there is the opportunity to reply, readers will enjoy a genuine scientific debate. This review must backfire, because science has shown that there are limits to Darwinism and it is perfectly legitimate to ask what Darwinism can and cannot do." (Tyler)

Darwinism (Tyler) and molecular clocks

Davies, Paul(Tyler) and design inference

Dawkins, Richard, information challenge Casey Luskin's response (podcast)

Dembski, William, on intelligent design and the church, in conversation with Russell Moore (podcast)

Descartes's demon SciPhiShow with Jason Rennie (podcast)

Design(Tyler) Can self-organization explain design?

design - unintelligent design - A discussion between Sheirdan Voysey (host), Robyn Williams, and Denyse O'Leary (science journalists) (podcast)

Dinosaurs(Tyler) Horned dinosaurs and evolutionary predictions

Dissent(Tyler) - defenders of Darwinism propose ways to deal with dissent

Doan, Andy, interviewed by Jason Rennie, "Miracles and the Q" (podcast)

Dover Trial (US) (Tyler)

Dover Trial (US) Montana Law review articles (podcast)

Ear evolution(Tyler) Yanoconodon

Ears (Tyler) Moth ears show design sophistication

Earth as privileged planet "Theories of how planetary atmospheres formed will need to be reappraised. The findings create yet more problems for OOL research. In other contexts, finding water outside the Earth has been used to raise expectations of finding life, but at least that does not arise here. However, it is worth contrasting this point with some of the more sensational media reports ... " (Tyler)

Earth-like planet (Tyler) Found in 2007

Echolocation(Tyler) - Adaptive change and design

Emergent evolution (Tyler) Can self-organization explain design?

Enzymatic PH activity profiles(Tyler) Fine tuning

Eozoon - a claimed fossil strenuously defended by the 19th century science establishment

Eozoon was not a fossil and the dissenters were correct to challenge the consensus. Clearly there are parallels with today: the role of scientific elites, the status of peer publication, the protocols required to be accepted as members of the scientific community, the way debated issues can be presented as fact to the public, the disdain shown to dissenters, the lobbying of editors to restrict access by critics of the Establishment, and the exploration of alternative ways of communicating minority views to peers and the public. This is the very human face of science. We are seeing these characteristics today in numerous areas where scientists have reached different conclusions.

(Tyler)

eukaryotes, origin Reason for flood of speculation in 2007: "According to Poole and Penny, there has been far too much speculation about the origin of eukaryotes. "The conflicting hypotheses currently on offer show a curious disregard for mechanism." (Tyler)

Eukaryotic cell (Tyler) enigmas

Eukaryotic cells (Tyler) Irreducibility issue

Evolution - animal evolution (Tyler) multicellular animals and need for complex information

Evolution(Tyler) And long periods of no change (stasis) See also Stasis

Evolutionary Informatics Lab Robert Marks's explanation (podcast)

Evolutionary Informatics Lab and Banned Items (podcast)

Evolutionary Informatics Lab - Web site suppressed at Baylor Report by Anika Smith (podcast)

Evolutionary Informatics Lab See also Marks, Robert

Evolution - Evolutionary transformations - Darwinism does not have the answers(Tyler)

Evolutionary psychology - Altruism (Tyler) Darwinian vs. intelligent design interpretation

Evolutionary psychology - grandmothers who care

This is 'black box' biology, with natural selection being asked to do an amazing number of things in a short period of time to achieve the (relatively small) fitness benefits. It should be noted that genetic changes are not directly passed on to offspring, as in the normal portrayal of the way Darwinism works. We are dealing here with complex changes in females that marginally affect the survival of grandchildren. Additionally, one wonders how many caring grandmothers there actually were in the hypothetical social groups of early man where life expectancies were low.

Exoplanets - atmospheres (Tyler)

Exoplanets See also Hot Jupiters

Expelled movie, with Ben Stein - interview with Bruce Chapman (video podcast)

Explore Evolution information, textbook (podcast)

Eye - squid's eye lens (Tyler) Fine tuning

Eye, vertebrate eye (Tyler) (It does not have a compromised design.)

Falsifiability - Intelligent design - philosophical criticisms (Tyler)

falsifiability - intelligent design and falsifiability interview with Jay Richards (podcast)

fine tuning of the universe Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin discusses Newsweek's Sharon Begley's take on fine-tuning (podcast)

fine tuning of the universe "Cosmological Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse Model", interview by Casey Luskin with Scott Chambers (podcast)

Flagellum - See Bacterial flagellum

Flight - Flightless birds (Tyler) Design in ostriches

Flight - insect flight (Tyler) Hawk moth gyroscope

Form, theory of form The modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism) has not given us a theory of form. (Tyler)

Foundation for Thought and Ethics Dover Trial (podcast) Casey Luskin and Seth Cooper ask, was justice done?

Framing information(Tyler) for public consumption

Galactic habitable zone - Earth-like planet (Tyler) Found in 2007

Galactic habitable zone- hot Jupiters (Tyler) Hot Jupiters lack water

Gecko - feet a standard for adhesion (Tyler)

... the gecko does not demonstrate just a single trait with enhanced performance. There are issues of adhesion and delamination, self-cleaning, and achieving a sustained adhesive performance. What we have in the gecko is exquisite design and, for that, biomimetics needs a methodology that can relate well to intelligent engineering design concepts.

Gene regulatory networks(Tyler) and design

Genetic code(Tyler) Optimal features

Genetic code(Tyler) Silent mutations and design inference

Genetic information(Tyler) and design inference

Gilder, George A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

Gilder, George, on information theory, at Bar-Ilan University (podcast)

Gnosticism Ben Witherington III interviewed by Jason Rennie of the SciPhiShow, on Gnosticism and Christianity (podcast)

Gnosticism Edwin Yamauchi interviewed by Jason Rennie of the SciPhiShow, on who Gnostics were and what they believed (podcast)

Goldilocks Principle(Tyler) Pau Davies and design inference

Gonzalez, Guillermo - and academic freedom (Tyler)
See also Galactic habitable zone

Gonzalez, Guillermo, interview on the Privileged Planet hypothesis (podcast)

Gonzalez, Guillermo, astronomy and intelligent design interview with Guillermo Gonzalez, (podcast)

Gonzalez, Guillermo - denied tenure - documents, interview with John West (podcast)

Gonzalez, Guillermo - denied tenure - tenure appeal (podcast)

Habitable zone See Galactic habitable zone

Haeckel, Ernst (Tyler) doctored embryo images

Haeckel's embryos - use in textbooks, interview with Casey Luskin (podcast)

Hagfish(Tyler) and common ancestor

homology - intelligent design and homology (video podcast)

Hot Jupiters (Tyler)

Human evolution, bipedalism (Tyler)

Human evolution (Tyler) Common ancestor with chimps - dating disputes

Human evolution 1470 man deemed an ape - deemed ape (Tyler)

Human evolution (Tyler) Little Foot and the time gap problem

Human evolution(Tyler) Lucy - former icon currently deemed gorilla

Human evolution - Neanderthals(Tyler) Neanderthals not so primitive as once thought

Human genome (Tyler) Differs from chimpanzees by six percent of genes

Human genome(Tyler) Diversity of human genome

Hunter, George Cornelius - interview on his recent book, Science's Blind Spot (podcast)

information theory - George Gilder at Bar-Ilan University (podcast)

Insect evolution(Tyler) Speculation vs. evidence

Insects - beetles (Tyler) White beetle as optimally designed

Insects - CO2 sensors (Tyler) as wonders of natural engineering

Insects - ears (Tyler) Moth ears show design sophistication

Insects - insect flight(Tyler) Biorobotics and insect flight See also Flight

Insects - insect muscles(Tyler) remarkable adaptations

Intelligent design - and academic freedom (Tyler) Guillermo Gonzalez

Intelligent design academic publications.

Intelligent design - controversy timeline An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

intelligent design - definitions, Crowther, Robert: "Defining what intelligent design is" (podcast)

intelligent design - definitions, Luskin, Casey: "Confronting misrepresentative definitions of intelligent design" (podcast)

ntelligent design - falsifiability interview with Jay Richards (podcast) See also falsifiablity

intelligent design - origin of term by Rob Crowther (podcast)

Intelligent design - philosophical criticisms (Tyler)

intelligent design - research Wiki Web site for research (podcast)

Intelligent design(Tyler) Self-organization and design

Intelligent design - refusal to engage arguments (Tyler)

Intermediate evolutionary forms(Tyler) and adaptation as explanation

In the Light of Evolution conference(Tyler)

Jellyfish - reinforcing challenge created by Cambrian explosion

New fossils from the Middle Cambrian of Utah "have very well preserved soft tissue, which the authors interpret as evidence that representatives of modern jellyfish existed by the middle Cambrian period."

(Tyler)

Jensen, Lyle, neo-Darwiism skeptic (podcast)

Junk DNA (Tyler)

Junk DNA - Framing the debate (Tyler)

Keller, Rebecca, on "Real Science for Kids" (podcast)

Kelvin "As a physicist, Kelvin sought to develop quantitative, rather than qualitative, science and he found himself in conflict with geologists who wanted an Earth with "no vestige of a beginning." (Tyler)

Lactose intolerance (Tyler) and design perspective

Language (Tyler) Apes and language

Life - Vitalism theory (Tyler)

Light of Evolution conference(Tyler)

Linnaeus(Tyler) Tree of life, evolution, and intelligent design

Living fossils(Tyler) (Life forms that change little over long periods of time) - stasis

Living fossils - Jurassic shrimp (Tyler) Challenge to Darwinism

Lucy(Tyler) Former icon currently deemed merely gorilla

lungfish Why lungfish have the best of both worlds.

Lungfish do not demonstrate a transitional physiological system, but employ two developed systems side-by-side. They have an air-breathing system for controlling acidity (respiratory compensation) and they use their gills and kidneys to reduce excess base (metabolic compensation). In other words, the ability to operate in both watery and land environments requires two complex systems to be in place: one for living in water and the other for living in air. The case of lungfish shows that biological information precedes and permits biological function.

(Tyler)

magic - SciPhiSHow with Jason Rennie, on science, rreligion, magic, and technology (podcast)

Mammals - mammal evolution(Tyler) early Cretaceous mammal specialized - not the neo-Darwinian view

Marks, Robert - Evolutionary Informatics Lab Web site suppressed at Baylor Report by Anika Smith (podcast)

Marsupial genome - what we have learned(Tyler) (the opposum)

Matrix SciPhiShow with Jason Rennie (podcast)

Methodological naturalism - Charles Lyell (Tyler)

Microbes(Tyler) as complex in real world

Microbes(Tyler) How microbes don't fit reductionist Darwinian thinking

Microtubules (Tyler) Molecular zipper and complex specified information

mind - mind as illusion - Is the mind just an illusion. Anika Smith interviews Denyse O'Leary (podcast)

miracles, Doan, Andy, "Miracles and the Q" (podcast)

Molecular clocks(Tyler) Darwinism assumed, never tested

Molecular clocks (Tyler) Telling the wrong time

Molecular motors (Tyler) Structural similarity and intelligent design

Molecules(Tyler) small molecules, medicine, and design

Molecular recognition in the cell (Tyler)

moral relativism moral relativism and Darwinism John West (podcast)

Multicellular animal evolution (Tyler) multicellular animals and need for complex information

multiverse "Cosmological Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse Model", interview by Casey Luskin with Scott Chambers (podcast)

Mutation theory of phenotype evolution (Tyler)

Mutations as mostly harmful (Tyler) Challenge for Darwinism

Neanderthals(Tyler) Not so primitive as once thought

Neanderthals - language and FoxP2 (Tyler)

Non-coding DNA (Tyler)

Orchids "on the basis that the "rate of orchid evolution" exhibited by the subtribe Goodyerinae is almost zero, the comment of the lead author is probably correct: "The dinosaurs could have walked among orchids." (Tyler)

Origin of life research - examples of flawed thinking (Tyler)

Origin of life (Tyler) Need for design perspective

Origin of life Why origin of life is such a difficult problem. (O'Leary)

Ostriches (Tyler) design in ostriches

Peppered Moth controversy
"Is it scientifically defensible to find an example of natural selection within a population of an animal, and then use this as an evidence for evolutionary transformation from the first single cell to the extraordinary diversity of life that we find in the biosphere?" ( Tyler)

Phenotype variations(Tyler)

Photosynthesis(Tyler) - its efficiency

Photosynthesis(Tyler) Irreducible complexity and photosynthesis evolution

Photosynthesis - extreme efficiency (Tyler) "Photosynthetic complexes are exquisitely tuned to capture solar light efficiently, and then transmit the excitation energy to reaction centres, where long term energy storage is initiated.” The problem has been one of understanding how 95%+ efficiencies are possible in a natural system."

Platypus's complex electrolocation sense evolved early.

... there are extreme constraints on time for any evolutionary story of the origin of platypuses and their electrolocation device. We appear to have a situation where intelligent design is demanded by the evidence of short timescales and the complexity of the "implausible" electrosensory system.

(Tyler)

Polls relevant to the intelligent design controversy A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

privileged planet hypothesis interview with Guillermo Gonzalez, on the Privileged Planet hypothesis (podcast)

Protein engineering - limits to Darwinian mechanism (Tyler)

Protists - oldest known protists (Tyler)

Pycnogonids - pycnogonids (sea spiders) (Tyler)

Real Science for Kids - Keller, Rebecca, on "Real Science for Kids" (podcast)

Reductionism(Tyler) How microbes don't fit

Reductionism(Tyler) Why it doesn't work in medical research

Reductionism - Darwinian reductionism(Tyler) Alex Rosenberg

Retraction - Homer Jacobson's retraction of 1950s origin of life quotes to prevent use by creationists.

This response recalls the Miller-Urey experiments (which are currently regarded as peripheral by most OOL researchers). The element of conjecture is apparent here also, as Jacobson can only argue that the right conditions "could have existed under early Earth conditions". The empirical support for this is highly controversial. More generally, it is worth noting that evolutionists are very reluctant to calculate probabilities - because some regard it as very high (but we don't yet know the mechanism) whereas others regard it as very very low (but think it was a lucky chance anyway). Based on what we know, the probabilities are extraordinarily low, as Koonin has demonstrated. For more on this, go here.

Jacobson is perfectly entitled to make a retraction, but the issues are not going to go away. Jacobson may gain some personal satisfaction, but the challenge of IC systems remains and the improbability of chemical evolution appears insuperable. Far better for Jacobson and those who think like him to face up to these challenges and address the data as we know it (rather than indulge in fantasies about "might well have occurred" and what conditions "could have existed").

(Tyler)

Ribosome(Tyler) and design inference (Ribosome as an AMT cell)

RNP Complexes(Tyler) - remarkable complexity

Rosenblum, Jonathan, interview on Deniable Darwin (podcast)

Ruse, Michael - Darwinism and its Discontents(Tyler) Comments by David Tyler

science journals - double standard re intelligent design interview with Paul Nelson re Michael Behe's work (podcast)

Science - and pursuit of truth (Tyler)

Science teaching (Tyler) Culture of conformity vs. culture of enquiry

SciPhiShow, featuring Australia's Jason Rennie, offers podcasts featuring major players pro and con intelligent design (O'Leary)

Self-organization (Tyler) Can self-organization explain design?

Sensory perception - advanced perception in Permian amniotes (Tyler)

The discovery of a highly-evolved auditory apparatus in Middle Permian parareptiles even further emphasizes that the entire groundplan for the impressive evolutionary history of amniotes was already largely in place by the end of the Paleozoic; what followed was in fact only a subsequent tinkering of earlier inventions." Darwinism needs time, but the fossil record no longer provides it.

Silent mutations(Tyler) Genetic code and design inference

"Small molecules(Tyler) medicine from nature and design

Squid's eye lens (Tyler) Fine tuning

Starlet sea anemone Tyler Unexpected genome complexity

Stasis - amber preserved insects(Tyler) Evidence shows mostly stasis, not evolution - a challenge to Darwinism.

Stasis - amber-preserved insects (Tyler) Midges show little change over time - why stasis should be considred more important than it is.

Stasis Compsocidae as an insect example of stasis from Cretaceous era (Tyler)

Stasis(Tyler) Darwinian attempts to account for stasis (little change in life forms over time)

Stasis - and Jurassic shrimp (Tyler) Challenge to Darwinism

Stasis - and leaf insects (Tyler) Stasis in their fossil record

Stasis - pycnogonids (sea spiders)

Here is yet another life form, stretching from the lower Palaeozoic to the present, that displays stasis in its morphology with relatively minor differences over time. Why is it that the dominant feature (stasis) gets so little attention, when "evolutionary history" gets so much?

(Tyler)

Stasis - trilobites (Tyler)

Stove, David O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove's critique of Darwinism.

Taste (Tyler) evolution and design

Teleology - "promiscuous teleology" and design inferences (Tyler)

Tool use (Tyler) in chimpanzees, and intelligent causation

Transitional forms (Tyler) Intermediate evolutionary forms begin to be studied

Tree of life (Tyler) Bush or forest of life better explanation? Alternatives to common ancestry

Tree of life (Tyler) - force fitting explanations to defend an orthodoxy

Tree of life (Tyler) as unnecessary concept that cannot be justified by empirical data

Trilobites - variation and stasis as a pattern

The research documented both rapid morphological variation and subsequent stasis. ... One hypothesis is that radiations occur because organisms are designed to vary, but the process results in genetic impoverishment that leads to stasis.

(Tyler)

Type III secretory machines(Tyler) challenge to gradualism

Unfalsifiability (Tyler)

Variation - trilobites (Tyler)

Vertebrate eye (Tyler) (It does not have a compromised design.)

Von Baer's law - interview with Paul Nelson (podcast)

Walking(Tyler) intelligent design and evolution

Wells, Jonathan, an interview with Doug Giles at AudioClash on his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (podcast)

West, John, on Darwin Day in America (podcast)

West, John, Darwinism moral relativism and Darwinism John West (podcast)

Wing morphology and intelligent design (Tyler)

Yanoconodon(Tyler) Ear evolution

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Noli turbare circulos meos (Do not disturb my circles) --
Archimedes, reportedly his last words when, so focused on his science, he had not noticed the city had been breached by Roman soldiers, one of whom killed him.

A question mark turned exclamation mark--that's the state of origins science today. Science education tells rather than asks on the one topic where questions matter most. Stiff answers in search of safe questions and stiffer exclamations in response to unsafe--such is the substance of science on the topic of origins. Working backwards from answer to question, today's origins science has achieved the glorious status of a T-shirt truism previously reserved for love and Jesus: Evolution is the answer, what's the question?

Truisms abound in a land where truth is beholden to an ism. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," launched from the pen of an otherwise obscure luminary who claimed to be "a creationist and an evolutionist," has become the science stopping Truism of truisms on the subject. No other lights are necessary when scientific inquiry becomes so myopic that the pen-light of evolution appears bright as the sun. The current myopia survives in the face of modern evidence only by tacking a huge "ism" onto a little truth--the grand presumption of matter and all-that-matters: all things are caused solely by the mindless laws of physics. And when this, the lifeless machine of naturalism, forces the life science of Darwinism to be the answer instead of a question, science has swallowed a lie.

Naturalism, the unscientific crutch for unguided, purposeless Darwinism, turns scientific inquiry on its head. Suddenly a philosophy that presumes only unintelligent causation becomes gatekeeper to the intelligible world of scientific knowledge. Guideless, godless, guile usurps legitimate authority of evidence-based reason as the backdrop against which every hypothesis is judged as being "science". And any claims that are apparently "religious"--or at least those that are congenial to a theological worldview--are marginalized, and can never be defeaters of "science". Science defined by non-science defining competing science as non-science--naturalism is quite the wonderworker.

But what if naturalism is a lie? What if atheists are wrong? What if all material evidence were permitted to be considered freely, without naturalistic blinders? On the topic of origins, might Darwin's mountain of truth-by-decree then look more like a molehill of lies-by-degree? What fear this must strike deep in the heart of every atheist and scientist of the National Academy of Sciences (excuse the redundancy). With respect to naturalism forcing a narrow range of "scientifically acceptable alternatives," award winning U.C. Berkeley philosopher John Searle correctly observed, "Acceptance of the current views is motivated not so much by an independent conviction of their truth as by a terror of what are apparently the only alternatives." When it comes to the question, Where did we come from? philosophical naturalists would rather glory in a lie than face the terror of the truth.

Letting the bully-boy of naturalism protect the pretty-boy of Darwinism on the playground of ideas is an effective strategy for perpetuating a lie. Strutting about as untouchable among the impressionable prissy-girls of science, 19th century Darwinism has yet to go alone behind the gym for a few rounds with 21st century evidence. Knowing that without the constant protection of a philosophical thug their theory could not survive as science in the sunlight of modern evidence, pasty-skinned Darwinists ballyrag about in the shadow of naturalism, pretending to play science while ducking and dodging in diametrical opposition to the light of truth.

Contemporary popes-playing-science protect old theories from new data the same way their predecessors did, by banning all challenging theories not conforming to their philosophy-constrained truth. When contrary interpretations of the evidence are banned from consideration, is it surprising that the protected interpretation is accepted by all scientists? Is it surprising that a "mountain" of evidence supports Darwinism when all the evidence is permitted to be pushed into only one pre-determined, protected pile? Even landfills can become mountains if enough trash is pushed in and piled up in one place.

The fate of competing evidence is nowhere more evident than in the "publish and/or perish" dichotomy of academic truth suppression: unwarranted praise of Darwin--publish or perish, and unwarranted stifling of every other evidence-based theory--publish and perish. Publication for the former seems inevitable based on the unending stream of scientific papers that have little to do with Darwinism yet nevertheless bow, genuflect, and gratuitously pay homage to the Great Man. The latter is evidenced by the virtually complete ban on publishing any non-materialistic, evidence-based scientific theory; and what publications do slip through are accompanied by tenure-denying, petition-generating, hatred and vitriol. Like a modern-day Roman emperor enjoying his forced adoration in the coliseum of academia, Darwin-on-the-dais demands a salute from all who come to participate, knowing that survival of the skittish depends entirely upon his opposable thumb.

Read for yourself--in articles of popular and unpopular science alike you will find the "secret handshake" of "my idea supports Darwinism" in the oddest of places. Popular science articles purport to show the use of "evolutionary principles" for design, while actually showing how intelligence is necessary to achieve any meaningful result. In peer-reviewed journals the salute to the emperor often appears as an afterthought, perhaps added in at the request of a fearful editor sensing a trace of murmering or a look of defiance before the emperor's thumb. Its seems very difficult today, however, to write in scientific journals and make the salute to mindless Darwinism (the only kind there is) hardy and sincere. Usually the duck and dodge is handled with a hearty if not hardy "this study supports 'evolution'" rather than "Darwinism", because, as everyone knows, all evidence proves the former, while the latter is merely the currently accepted theory.

Consider the plight of credentialed scientists who attempt to publish scientific findings slightly critical of "evolution". Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution, and as credentialed as most scientists get in the field of life sciences, first encountered what he refers to as a "Catch-23" in 1998 while a post-doctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. Wells realized that pictures in his biology textbook were based on drawings that had been faked by 19th century German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel (knowingly so by all, but these pictures continue in use today!). Wells submitted an article about such a significant error in popular biology textbooks to the peer-reviewed American Biology Teacher--the official journal of an organization whose declared mission is to empower educators "to provide the best possible biology and life science education for all students." His article did not criticize Darwinian evolution; in fact, it explicitly pointed out that "it would be illogical to conclude that Haeckel's distortions invalidate Darwin's theory," because Darwin did not base his inferences on embryological evidence alone. His article did, however, state, "It might be better to look elsewhere for evidence of evolution."

Well's article was given to two anonymous reviewers; one liked it, and the other did not. The only change recommended by the first was that he include more references. The second recommended, among other things, that Wells "emphasize what is useful about the study of embryology in evolution" and that he "detail some positive lessons that could be demonstrated through comparative embryology." The journal editor agreed, telling Wells, "Your paper is acceptable for publication, provided you revise the paper according to the comments provided by the reviewers." Salute. Secret handshake. Wink, wink.

Wells added some quotes from other biologists who thought that the study of embryology would add to Darwin's theory; with this mandatory affirmation of faith in evolution, his article was published in May 1999. Wells has since learned well the rule: "A theory such as intelligent design, that fundamentally challenges Darwinian evolution, is not scientific so it can't be published in peer-reviewed science journals; and we know it's not scientific because it hasn't been published in peer-reviewed science journals. Catch-23!"

That was then, this is now. While evidence continues to flee from Darwinism and point to intelligent design like iron filings to a truth magnet, those of the opposite pole suppress truth by more cruel means. Consider the fate of Iowa State University's Guillermo Gonzalez, who has no problem generating peer-reviewed publications--nearly 70 of them--as well as being a co-author of a major college-level astronomy textbook. But because Gonzalez sees his truth in light of a different ism, Iowa State this month denied tenure to the ID-friendly astronomer. You see, in addition to performing undeniably stellar (so to speak) teaching and research, the good professor also happened to co-author a book presenting empirical evidence for the hypothesis that the universe is the product of intelligent design. A petition signed against him by 120 of his own faculty presages history-repeating irony: astronomer scientists with the initials G.G. seem destined for paradigm-changing greatness in the face of religiously inspired intolerance.

Sadly, intolerant invective toward disfavored viewpoints has become a virtue in origins science. And although Darwinism's days are clearly numbered, the temporary toll on truth is great. As journalist and science writer Denyse O'Leary noted: "If you are a Christian or theist or anyone who thinks that the universe shows evidence of meaning, purpose, or design, listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: You need to think carefully about wasting time, energy, and money in the Western academic system IF, by chance, whatever you are doing undermines materialism." In other words, be prepared to publish and perish.

Materialism--the reigning ism of Western culture--like its cousin naturalism, bears down hard on the evidence, seeking to smother it into suffocating submission. In such circumstances truisms must suffice for truth, but reliance on truisms can be risky business where darkness holds more than academic pitfalls and small faults open great chasms. As St. Thomas Aquinas remarked in his introduction to De Ente et Essentia, "a little error in the beginning leads to a great one in the end." By all evidential accounts materialism is a lie in the beginning, but what a wonderful lie it is. Matter alone means self on the throne. And self on the throne means truth all one's own. And truth all one's own means true truth unknown. A great error indeed.

Great errors are rarely corrected by working sideways to true truth. Little lies like naturalism set the trajectory so that great distortions like Darwinism only get greater as academic inertia enforces the lie so that those forced to believe diverge steadily away from the evidence. Only by humbly starting at the beginning to eliminate the little error can there be any hope of discovering the true truth about our origins. And like a lighthouse among theory-laden ships at sea, only true truth remains unchangeable and unchanging. Those who love truth know this. And those who don't will find out.

Darwin, we who doubt the lie refute you.

Roddy Bullock, JD, BSME, is the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio (www.idnetohio.com) and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by Access Research Network. Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

Copyright (C) 2007 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

References:

"Nothing in biology . . ." quote from Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the light of Evolution, a 1973 essay by evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. The essay was first published in the American Biology Teacher, volume 35, pp. 125-129.

Thoughts in third paragraph adapted from Francis J. Beckwith, Rawls's Dangerous Idea?: Liberalism, Evolution and the Legal Requirement of Religious Neutrality in Public Schools, Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. XX, 423, 429.

John Searle: John Searle, The Rediscovery of the Mind, 3-4 (M.I.T. Press 1992), quoted in Beckwith, Rawls's Dangerous Idea, p. 428-9, footnote 18.

Catch-23, by Jonathan Wells found here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1212

Bio-sketch for Guillermo Gonzalez: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2378

Aquinas quote: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iqdJ_2rbXvoJ:radicalacademy.com/adler_little_errors.htm+aquinas+mistake+start+beginning&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Denyse O'Leary's quote from her take on the denial of tenure to ID-friendly astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/denial-of-tenure-to-id-friendly-astronomer-mere-bigotry-or-a-money-issue-2/

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

British ID blog Truth in Science features a critique of Darwin hagiography and misconceptions promoted in textbooks, published by Brit prof Dr. Paul Rees in the Journal of Biological Education. The critique aims at inaccurate accounts of Charles Darwin "found in many A-Level textbooks", identifying seven common misconceptions in twelve popular textbooks published over the last 35 years. The .pdf of the article is here. A suitable addition to examples of ridiculous hagiography in trade books and exhibitions.

Also, I have put up a longish item at Uncommon Descent on key points in the , Gonzalez case.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I've been running to catch up on a lot of interesting stuff in the growing clash between ID and Darwinism in popular culture: Here are a few items:

Why do media people treat statements from scientists as gospel?

Scientists have converted the sequences in Huntington's disease to music. Scary.

When science disowns religion, it discovers politics, according to thinker.

Did Albert Einstein accept intelligent design?

The statistically unusual position of the North Star, as explained by NASA's Science Question of the Week.

Researchers discover free will in fruit flies. (I think they have simply discovered that the flies are not mere machines, as they had thought.)

Just for fun, my 17 favourite oxymorons

Kids from religious homes behave better.

More huffing and puffing on behalf of the flatly ridiculous anti-God crusade

In the 21st century world, ideology is dead but spirituality lives.

Cardinal Schoenborn, the Pope's anti-Darwinist point man says some pointed things on faith and science

Quantum Theory and Faith: A physicist's thoughts

New Book! The Physics of Christianity by Frank Tipler

Lighter moment: Doubtful student receives letter from God.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I have posted much more information about the denial of tenure to ID-friendly astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez here.

For example,

If you are a Christian or theist or anyone who thinks that the universe shows evidence of meaning, purpose, or design, listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: You need to think carefully about wasting time, energy, and money in the Western academic system IF, by chance, whatever you are doing undermines materialism.

and

Come to think of it, here's a business op for Gonzalez's U: Just think what your official astronomers could charge for naming a planet after some airhead! [or blockhead]

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Guillermo Gonzalez, Privileged Planet astronomer and longtime target of atheist materialists, has been denied tenure. This considerably raises the stakes in the materialist war against academic freedom. Here is a fact sheet I have just received.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I have recently enjoyed a most interesting correspondence with Hiram Caton, retired poli sci prof and former colleague of the late David Stove who is attempting to set right the many misrepresentations in the current Darwin Exhibition, which has travelled from the American Museum of Natural History to various points (some near you probably). The main problems can be traced to ridiculous hagiography, of course. I have often pointed out (and am certainly not the first to do so), that Darwinism functions as a sort of religion for its fervid supporters, often in desperate conflict with transcendent faiths.

It now emerges that Prof. Caton, who is not affiliated with any religion, is an associate of the National Center for Science Education, the American Darwin education lobby, a relentless promoter and enforcer of Darwin in the tax-supported school systems. Specifically, he tells me that he is

an evolutionist who opposes the introduction of creationist concepts into secondary school biology. In fact, I'm an associate of the lead organization in the struggle against the creationists, the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE is aware of my article.

He is also listed as a supporter of the Darwin Day celebrations.

I should think Caton is trying all these people’s patience rather sorely, and all the more so because he is planning a full scale essay on the discrepancy between the theory and evidence for Darwinism, for which details will likely be available here.

Now, speaking of discrepancies, I don't see any discrepancy in principle between wanting to prevent creationist concepts from being taught in secondary schools and wanting to knock the stuffings out of the Darwin myth.

Indeed, contrary to widespread legacy media mythmaking, even the Discovery Institute, the ID think tank, does not not want intelligent design (ID) concepts taught in schools.

(And I suppose only religious school systems could consider teaching actual "creationist" concepts, as such, since these concepts are clearly linked to theism, the Bible, etc.)

Similarly, I rarely encounter people who do not want evolution taught in schools. They want its baggage train to be unloaded somewhere else. Unfortunately, it often isn't.

Some interesting comments from our correspondence that Dr. Caton has given me permission to post:

Here is the skinny on Caton's key observations:

^The Origin is based on principles, which I specify, that had been in place for about 50 years. ^The evolution concept had *saturated* public opinion in the UK by 1860. The notion that public prejudice against evolution obstructed its publication is nonsense. The idea of a 'missing link' between apes and humans was also widespread. ^The natural selection principle was first published *before* Darwin departed on his voyage and was independently discovered again in 1836 by Darwin's old pal, Edward Blythe. ^The eugenics idea wasn't discovered by Galton; it was clearly stated by the French translator of the Origin in 1863, who attributed it to Darwin; he didn't disavow the attribution. Three of Darwin's sons were members of the Eugenics Society and one, Leonard, was a major force in the society. A key figure in the creation of Neo-Darwinism, R A Fisher, was a dedicated eugenicist. Fisher's patron was Leonard Darwin. ^Darwin's writings had virtually no effect on experimental biology of his day, eg, Pasteur, Robert Koch. ^Two of Darwin's most vocal advocates, Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, denied that natural selection was the generative principle of evolution; for Haeckel it was Lamarckism.

While we are here, in 1969, I studied Victorian literature at a small university in Ontario. While Darwin's Origin was certainly identified as a milestone, it was only one of many milestones. I was clearly given to understand that the mindset it typefied was already a commonplace. That was not emphasized as a talking point. It emerged clearly from our studies. One result is that Darwin hagiography obscures the true history of the modern era.

What has been the reaction to his observations?

A number of leading evolutionists and historians have commented on my essay. None question my facts (well, one questioned one important claim). But some expressed unease about my criticism of the Great Man. My response is that I criticize only the interpretation of his reputation, and its creation in the first place. I state in the article what I think his real achievement was, and I hail it as a great scientific achievement. In correspondence with creationists, I plead that they exaggerate the influence of Darwin/evolution on the secularization process. By far the greatest influences are liberal and socialist blank slate theory. That influence is so great, indeed, that many evolutionists abandon Darwin when it comes to the crunch: the inheritance of behaviors, such as sex, race, and age differences: they endorse the blank slate belief. To put it another way, the Darwinian Revolution didn't happen in the social sciences. The controversy over sociobiology and over the Bell Curve are hot spots on that map.

Hmmm, yes indeed. Although Darwinism and liberal "blank slate" theory (= if outcomes are not equal, society is unjust) are not often in direct, perceived conflict, in any actual conflict, blank slate will win.

One thinks of former Harvard president Larry Summers, completely orthodox in his rejection of intelligent design, but utterly destroyed by "blank slate" political correctness about women in science.

I noted, in response to Caton that I do not think that high school science classes should be discussing the ID-Darwinism uproar:

It is difficult enough to teach basic concepts. Unfortunately, however, some want to import to Canada an American-style controversy by pushing evolution as early as possible, as an antidote to creationism/ID. As I have said, that would greatly help both the creationists and the ID guys - but at the expense of the public and the student. (You see, these kinds of issues can’t get as hot in Canada all by themselves, because our system is not nearly as polarizing as the American one. There is no functional equivalent here of the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, or the Christian Right. Publicly funded voluntary religious schools are legal here, with little controversy. People rarely sue school boards and school boards do not pull "Dovers". So Canada is not a natural setting for such a controversy. But if it does become a setting, well, business will boom for me. But I don't want it to happen anyway.

That said, I think teachers should not be forbidden to respond to student questions, let alone given documents to read aloud, or propaganda to cite. Teachers are either professionals or they aren't. If they cannot be assumed to generally have good judgment about teaching, it's all over anyway.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I was out doing errands today, and what do you know? The Toronto city parking pay kiosks in my neighbourhood were plastered with signs advertising, "Intelligent Design: War on Science", and a whole bunch of other stuff we should supposedly all rush down to see at the Brunswick Theatre.

Yeah really. Intelligent design's war on science? How about: Creeps' war on public property? That's more like it!

If anyone catches these people, they should be made to remove all that stuff at their own trouble and expense. If they can't afford regular advertising, that’s most likely because their cause isn’t popular. Unpopularity does not give them a right to deface public property.

Or am I whistling down the wind here? Is the point that Darwin's brownshirts can do whatever they please?

Also, recently at the Mindful Hack, O'Leary's blog on neuroscience issues:

Does quantum physics really say goodbye to reality?

The weak point of mysticism

Does advanced technology mean loss of spirituality? Not that you would notice.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Just today, I received a most interesting note from a retired Australian poli sci professor Hiram Caton, late of Griffiths University, noting that the Darwin exhibition, developed at the American Museum of Natural History, is hitting the road, and may stop at a museum near you.

Caton explains,

You are well aware of my former colleague Dave Stove's critique of Darwinism. We are alike in that we have no religious affiliation; also in that we do not believe that Darwinism can provide a basis for ethics or for 'conservative' politics, in the manner of Larry Arnhart.

At his site, Caton offers a most useful anti-docent, "Getting Our History Right: Six Errors about Darwin and His Influence," documenting the following six errors:

1. The publication of the Origin was not a sudden (“revolutionary”) interruption of Victorian society’s confident belief in the traditional theological world-view. Instead, it was another step, albeit a big one, toward a popularly understandable scientific naturalism, including the idea of our primate origins, that was well in place by 1850.

Caton notes, among other things,

The implication of [the Exhibition's] ill-wrought claim is denial that evolutionary theory was extensively developed before Darwin embarked on his Beagle voyage (1831). Not so. Notable contributors were Louis-Constant Prévost, Louis-Melchior Patrin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Julien-Joseph Virey, Jean-Baptiste-Julien d’Omalius d’Halloy, Bory de Saint-Vincent, Ducrotoy de Blainville, Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (Corsi, 1988b). Most of these scientists argued for the key “Darwinian” theses of common descent from an initial few organisms, gradual modification and extinction over great ages driven in part by the struggle for existence, geological uniformitarianism, and the primate origin of the human species. Some, notably the physicist Patrin, argued that life originated abiotically. Darwin’s library aboard the Beagle included Bory de Saint-Vincent’s influential seventeen volume Dictionnaire classique d’historie naturelle (1822-1831).

2. The Origin did not “revolutionize” the biological sciences by removing the creationist premise or introducing new principles. On the contrary, Origin had little effect on the hard biological sciences because they were already mechanistic and experimental. Darwin’s naturalist investigations did not contribute significantly to the experimental biology of his day.

Rather,

Darwin discovered a stunning profusion of adaptations, and made many suggestions about phylogenetic relations (Leach and Mayo, 2005), but he did not prove a single phylogeny or prove a single case of speciation by natural selection. Indeed, by 1900 the only fossil-based phylogeny generally accepted was the evolution of the horse (Gayon, 1998). These facts are ignored. The Exhibition also ignores the Pangenesis theory and its influence on Darwin’s shift to substantial Lamarckian explanation in the 5th and 6th editions of Origin. Indeed, it implicitly denies Darwin’s Lamarckism by baldly stating that “Charles Darwin offered the world a single, simple scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth : evolution by natural selection” (www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/) [bold face in original].

3. The Origin did not “revolutionize” Victorian public opinion. Public perception considered Darwin’s message to be about the same as Herbert Spencer’s, known today as “Social Darwinism”, which, though fashionable, never achieved dominance.

4. Many leading naturalists and biologists made significant criticisms of Darwin’s work. This includes Gregor Mendel, who believed that his discoveries refuted Darwin’s premises about the heritability of traits, and Thomas Huxley, who rejected natural selection.

(By contrast, Caton notes, the Exhibition promotes "an extreme version of the triumphalist legend".)

5. Darwin made little or no contribution to the renovation of theology. His public statements on Providence were inconsistent and the liberal reform of theology, including rejection of the divinity of Christ, was well advanced by 1850.

Caton offers,

Although the corrosive influence of Darwinism on conventional religious belief is widely claimed to be its most novel and potent cultural influence, the facts speak overwhelmingly against it.

[ ... ]

However, "The Exhibition triumphantly proclaims that Darwin’s “revolutionary theory changed the course of science and society”. Which society? What changes? Rather than attending to Darwin’s contribution to secularization, as I have done, the Exhibition offers a video of half dozen biologists who simply assert the compatibility of religion with Darwinian evolution. Not all religion, however: Intelligent Design is firmly, if politely, dismissed. My response to this gambit was surprise verging on astonishment. If contemporary opinion is relevant, how can today’s atheist crescendo be ignored? Is it to avoid shocking the religious among the visitors? "

6. The Darwinian Revolution was, at the public opinion level, the fashion of free trade economics backed by the perception that Darwin and Spencer had extended that paradigm to all of living nature. This fashion enjoyed prominence in much of Europe and the United States, but began to fade around 1900. It was in no sense analogous to the Copernican revolution, with which it is often compared.

Caton begins his reply,

A soothing aphorism circulates today declaring that “the only thing Darwinism has in common with Social Darwinism is the name”. The Exhibition expresses this view, maintaining that Social Darwinism is a misuse of a “purely scientific theory for a completely unscientific purpose” and that Darwin was “passionately opposed to social injustice and oppression”. This is a drastic distortion of historical fact.

Caton's article apparently appeared in Evolutionary Psychology, – 2007. 5(1): 52-69. It must be a kind of unusual article for them to publish. Glad they did.

Read the whole thing. Print it out and take it with you. Try not to disturb people by snorting and laughing in the middle of the Exhibition when a local hagiographer starts retelling the Darwin legend. Remember, when you are at the Darwin exhibition, you are in a house of worship!

By the way, yes, Caton is the prof who documented a good deal of the ridiculous Darwin hagiography. But there's more here.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).