Talk:Suppression of alternatives to evolution

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

In the "Richard Dawkins" article, Mr. Schafly makes a big deal out of the fact that Mr. Dawkins current position at Oxford was an appointment and not the result of a "peer review". If Mr. Dawkins is then disqualified from calling himself a professor as Mr. Schafly contends, then the same logic holds for Creation Science and Intelligent Design. These alternatives to evolution are not being suppressed, they simply haven't passed the "peer review" test that all scientific theories have to go through to be considered seriously. And until the proponents of these alternatives really step up and make a serious effort to even try to pass the test of peer review, they will never be accepted as science.

These alternatives are not only not accepted as science by the scientific community but when the courts have had to decide, they consistently agree that they are not science. Therefore, if a science teacher is teaching these alternatives in a public school, the school almost has to fire that teacher. To do otherwise would create more problems for them than the alternative. Sometimes "freedom is not free". The teacher is free to teach what he wants but has to accept the consequences.

That same science teacher can choose to teach a class independently or publish books or articles about creationism or intelligent design. There are certainly enough of them around. In fact, the Christian/Religion book section at most major bookstores is typically 3 or 4 times the size of the Science section. Is that suppression? Mfa1957 10:23, 14 November 2007 (EST)

What this article will also document is the suppression of attempts to have creation and ID peer-reviewed in secular journals.

But you are simply wrong that they haven't passed peer review. The Journal of Creation is one peer-reviewed journal that publishes creation and ID papers, and there have been some peer-reviewed papers even in secular journals.

The article already mentions that opposition is based on ideology. If it's based on ideology, peer-review is a lost cause.

You are also incorrect to speak as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this. There are thousands of scientists (i.e., part of the "scientific community") who accept creation and/or ID.

The article does not claim that there is suppression in the publishing field (nor on the Internet). But that does not mean that suppression doesn't exist in other arenas.

Philip J. Rayment 20:33, 14 November 2007 (EST)

If there are thousands of scientists who accept creation science and/or ID, then once again, how can there be suppression? Are they being thrown in jails? I suppose that your claim is that they are being fired or prevented to publish or ridiculed by other scientist. Boo-hoo!! How many evolutionary scientist are on the staff of the Creation Research Society or have jobs at Bob Jones University or are invited to write for the Journal of Creation? None. There is no conspiracy and claims of there being one are just a way to support a weak idea. Mfa1957 09:24, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Many of those thousands of scientists who accept creation and/or ID keep very quiet about it, because they are in fear of losing their jobs.

I made no claims of conspiracies, and in this post explained why I reject that I'm claiming conspiracies.

Expecting evolutionists to be on the staff of explicitly-creationist organisations is not a valid comparison to creationists being on staff at supposedly-impartial, and in many cases government-run, institutions.

Of course, your assertion that it is "weak idea" is nothing more than an unsubstantiated throw-away line.

That you don't seem to care about widespread suppression of an idea and the careers that are being destroyed in the process says heaps about your senses of compassion and justice.

Philip J. Rayment 09:54, 15 November 2007 (EST)

I do care about widespread suppression of an idea, I just don't think it is happening. Like I said, creation scientist aren't being thrown in jail and I can find plenty of books and articles about creation/ID at my local Barnes and Noble. Why shouldn't "evolutionists" be on the staff of explicitly-creationist organizations? Don't creationists want good scientists on there staffs no matter what there view? A large number of scientist profess a belief in a personal God but they still manage to be employed so this idea that careers are being destroyed is silly, except maybe for the poor "evolutionist" that can't get a job at the creation research institute. Mfa1957 17:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps when this article is filled out more, you will have a better appreciation of how much it happens. Suppression doesn't have to mean jail, however, and I've already explained that it is in certain arenas, such as the education system. Protesting that it is not in other areas does not negate that.

The problem with evolutionists on staff of creationist organisations is that, despite evolutionary protestations to the contrary, scientists are human beings and not always dispassionate seekers of the truth, and evolution (like creation) is actually part of a worldview, not empirical science.

It is not silly to claim that careers are being destroyed. The article already mentions one firing and another where a person was harassed and hounded in his job.

Philip J. Rayment 21:15, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Here's the thing, Conservapedias article on "Old Earth Creation" basically says that the criticism of OEC is all biblical!! So YEC are basically saying that the bible is the only valid source of information about the creation of the earth. Conservapedia is admitting that at least the YEC point of view is biblical! Now really, why should people who base there "science" on the bible be allowed to hold important science posts of any type? You are right, they are being "discriminated" against because of their point of view but that type of discrimination is completely valid. If I am going to hire or fire people for any job I have to discern up front that they are able and "willing" to handle the job. YEC basically aren't "willing" or able to handle the responsibilities of most science posts and especially teaching posts since they up front admit that they don't even agree with a good deal of the science they are suppose to be teaching or researching. Discrimination of this type is normal. You don't see any Catholic priest getting pastoral jobs at Methodists churches do you? Mfa1957 10:06, 16 November 2007 (EST)

"Conservapedias article on "Old Earth Creation" basically says that the criticism of OEC is all biblical!!": I presume that you are referring to Old Earth Creationism. It does not say that there is no criticism of Old Earth Creation other than biblical criticism. The fact that the only criticism mentioned in the article is biblical doesn't mean that other criticism doesn't exist.

No, YECs are not saying that the Bible is the only valid source, although they do say that it is the only infallible source, and yes, YECs are happy to admit that their view is based on the Bible.

"Now really, why should people who base there "science" on the bible be allowed to hold important science posts of any type?": Rather, why shouldn't they? Especially given the biblical basis for science!

"You are right, they are being "discriminated" against because of their point of view": Thank you for the 180-degree about-face on that! But let's see whether your justification for that stacks up.

"YEC basically aren't "willing" or able to handle the responsibilities of most science posts and especially teaching posts since they up front admit that they don't even agree with a good deal of the science they are suppose to be teaching or researching.": Rubbish. YECs are quite happy with science, but microbe-to-man evolution is a claim about history, not science. They accept (empirical, testable) science, but they don't accept the atheistic origins myth that is evolution.

"You don't see any Catholic priest getting pastoral jobs at Methodists churches do you?": No, you don't, because they have different ideologies. So are you thereby admitting that the evolutionary view is an ideology? Because that's what makes the analogy valid.

Philip J. Rayment 21:55, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Philip, I think it should be noted that it was the information provided by James Hutton on his theories of geology and geologic time that cause most of the transition from creationism views to non-creationism views. While Darwin caused an uproar by hypothesizing the development of life, it was Hutton that caused science to doubt the claims of the bible based on the timescale in the bible. Before Hutton no one questioned the age of the earth according to the claims of the bible because there was no reason to. Hutton showed his evidence to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1788. Darwin was not born until 1809 and did not present his TOE until 1859, seventy one years after Hutton. By this time many of the scientists in the Europe were no longer what you would consider creationists due to Hutton's influential works.

I agree that the scientific community is not of one mind with the concept of creation, mostly because the scientific community does not agree on anything however the amount of scientists in the world that have a basis in biological sciences tend to not support creation according to the bible and most in the scientific community do not agree that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis due to it failings at providing a testable mechanism that differs from the testable mechanisms provided by the theory of evolution. Many IDists often avoid the issue that their claim of an intelligent designer would mean that said designer would have to have some way to manipulate the genomic material of the organisms to create change. Whereas biological scientists have show thousands of testable random mechanisms that cause change of a genome, ID has provided none that link the change with a designer.

Now the Discovery Institute does have an online journal as well as a research center called the Research Institute in WA, both of which I understand accept research that further promotes ID. I tried to find the link to their online journal but I can not seem to find it anymore on their website.

Something that should also be pointed out is what exactly is peer review? From my understanding and experience peer review means that the research is subjected to review by experts in the field the research falls under. This is often mistaken by laypeople to mean research that has been reviewed by other scientists. As a biochemist it would do no good for me to have my research reviewed by an environmental biologist when the research deals with ATP pathways for chemo taxation. Even though an environmental biologist may know what chemo taxation is it in no way means they are an expert, nor have the authority to review research outside of their field of study. I think ID would be better served if they did not try to fall under the biological sciences, because the only people available to peer review them are evolutionary developmental biologists since they are the scientific experts of developmental biology at this time.

On last thing before I head off to work is the question of their research papers not being accepted by peer review journals. I would think they could use their own resources, Discovery Institute for example, to publish their scientific research. I must say however that while this seems simple to me I have yet to see any research articles that are of hard sciencetific experimentation come from any ID researchers. Most if not all of their papers are more about theological debate and of no real scientific application and experimentation. If this would change I am pretty sure that we would see a change of view in the scientific community.--Able806 09:47, 15 November 2007 (EST)

I agree to a fair extent with your first paragraph about Hutton, but with a couple of exceptions:

• Even after Hutton there was not reason to question the biblical timescale, as Hutton put forward a new (anti-biblical) way of viewing the evidence, not contrary evidence.
• Although Hutton managed to destroy belief in the biblical timescale, and thereby set the scene for Darwin, most scientists still held to special creation until Darwin popularised his theory. So while they may not have been young-Earth creationists, they were still creationists.

I'm not disputing that "most" scientists accept evolution, including in the biological sciences, but my point is that the dissenting minority, though small in percentage terms, is still too large to simply be dismissed, as so often happens.

However, I do dispute your comparison between the testability of ID and evolution. ID proponents claim that their idea is testable, and I've seen little argument (despite plenty of claims) that it's not. Furthermore, the case for evolution being testable is grossly overstated. See Falsifiability of evolution.

You may be correct to claim that IDers have not shown genetic changes caused by a designer, but they have shown that a designer is the only reasonable explanation for the genetic design that exists. Incidentally, as a creationist, I'm don't go along with ID in the sense of not identifying the designer, and point out that creationists have been using intelligent-design type arguments for long before there was an Intelligent Design movement.

Your claims about peer review are wrong, in an absolute sense at least, because there are other biologists who are not evolutionists who are capable of peer reviewing. Perhaps not many, and that might limit the possibilities a bit, but it's not out of the question. Nevertheless, I note your implicit acknowledgement that an evolutionist is going to reject an ID paper on the basis of his belief in evolution rather than on the quality of the ID paper.

I don't know a lot about the Discovery Institute, but the Journal of Creation and the Creation Research Society Quarterly are two peer-reviewed journals that cater for creationists (and publish ID-type papers also), so in that sense your suggestion is already happening. The Journal of Creation (which I read, so I'm most familiar with) covers the whole gamut of creationism, including theology, geology, and biology, and it certainly includes original scientific research. Yet where is the "change of view in the scientific community"? On the contrary, what I find so often is that evolutionists reject these peer-review publications as invalid, simply because they are creationist! And keep in mind that funding for creationist and ID research is virtually non-existent, so you shouldn't expect to see too much of it.

Philip J. Rayment 10:21, 15 November 2007 (EST)

I agree about the comment of Hutton destroying the belief of scientists with young earth creation. I also agree that Darwin also caused a larger community of decent from biblical teachings by his theory, I just felt the need to point that Hutton should be mentioned alongside Darwin for this.

Yes, there is a small group of scientists, and yes they should not be dismissed. I agree, if we were dismissed by providing a different look on scientific topics science would not advance. I fully support sound scientific research no matter the topic, just as long as it is sound. Every year an IG award is given for those off the wall sound scientific research projects, even though their topics have little to do with advancing human life they at least provide us with some understanding.

I understand that ID proponents claim that their idea is testable, but I have not heard of how it is testable. There have been many claims that it is not, that is true, but no one has explained how it is testable. Whereas evolution over all may not be feasibly testable because of the amount of time it takes the mechanisms of evolution have been tested and shown valid. Mutation occurs, natural selection occurs ect. Much of this is not disputed by IDists thus the separation of Macro and Micro evolution. I will read up on the Falsifiability of evolution article, thank you for the link I was not aware that it was here. I am not free to edit on the site that often so I am still learning what articles have been made.

Oh I would not dispute that there are biologists that could offer a peer review outside of evolutionary developmental biologists just that evo-devo biologists often have more knowledge about developmental biology than general biologists. As a biochemist I would not be a good choice for peer reviewing a paper about viral antibodies even though I have much knowledge on the subject but a virologist and immunologist would constitute a better choice for peer review. There are evolutionary biologists who doubt evolution by the way.

I looked up the Journal of Creation and I am interested in reading some of their articles. I was however disappointed in the examples found on the website of the content. The content looked more like what I would find in a theoretical journal, discussing theory more than outlining experimentation. Since, I am assuming, you read the journal often have you run across any articles that define methods of experimentation to allow for reproducing? If so I may subscribe, researchers who close their eyes to other avenues of information are often left behind. In other words if there is research that may show something I would not mind learning about it. As for the change of view for the scientific community, it might be that unless the journal has a considerable scientific staff to cover all of those topics listed it may not be considered a valid scientific peer reviewed journal. Basically for every biological article there needs to be a committee composed of biology PhDs that would have to review it. This is one of the reasons why scientific journals are often so specific in content, because to fund review staffs for that diverse of topics would make the journal to costly.

Awh, I do have to point out something about the funding of research. When grant writing you do not have to state motivations, just define the research objectives. So the funding is there, at least as long as the person writing the grant proposal is outlining solid research objectives. The claim that money is not given on the basis of the research being ID or creationist related is a bit hard to swallow since the only way for the grant reviewer to identify the research as ID or Creationist related is only if it is stated in the research objectives. Just because the research is anti evolution does not mean it will not get funding. A friend of mine at JHU received a grant for research in to bound extracellular proteins, his goal is to show that the one protein he is looking at found on certain cells was not expressed by the cell it was bound to. He got funding for the work even though I personally think is a bit reaching.--Able806 15:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)

The reason I didn't mention Hutton in the article is because I thought it best to keep it to just alternatives to evolution, rather than alternatives to evolution, abiogenesis, long ages, the Big Bang, etc.

I think I've seen it pointed out how ID is testable, but at the moment I can't recall the details sufficiently to find that. I could find for you examples of creationism making testable predictions, however.

I seem to recall hearing (but can't vouch for it) that a few (very few?) of the reviewers for the Journal of Creation are evolutionists. There are some who will give a fair review of a viewpoint that they don't agree with.

You are probably correct that the Journal of Creation doesn't have much experimental science in it, which I'd put down to the afore-mentioned lack of funding. But it would be incorrect to say that it has none, although in a journal covering the entire gamut of science (and beyond), you're not likely of course find very much on any specific narrow topic, and perhaps almost nothing in your specific field. I can't recall off the top of my head any papers on experiments on reproduction. Whilst I read it, a lot of it is over my head and doesn't get stored well in my memory. What web-site did you look it up on? The publisher's web-site, www.CreationOnTheWeb.com, now has, I believe, every past issue on-line, not just "examples".

The publishers have perhaps a dozen scientists on staff (covering various fields), but can also call on others not on staff for reviewing papers. And don't most journals use reviewers that are not on staff?

Even without stating motivations, it is often apparent what purpose the research has, but there is a bigger problem. A person might get away with getting funding for research that happens to support creation—once! But once it is known that he is a creationist or that his research supports creation, it will be a lot harder the next time. Keep an eye on the article for when I add about Robert Gentry.

You say that just because research is anti-evolution does not mean it will not get funding. How do you know? Your example appears to have nothing to do with creation. I'm not saying that research that is contrary to what's normally accepted will not get funding (although there is some evidence of that), but specifically that research supporting creation or ID will not get funding, as these particular views speak of a Creator, and that then becomes a worldview issue, not (just) a scientific one. Neither am I saying, by the way, that creation/ID research will never get funding, just that it is very unlikely to so there will be very little of it.

Philip J. Rayment 21:43, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Misquoting Lewotin

First of all you didn't include the entire passage. Secondly, the context of the passage was from a review of Carl Sagan's book "The Demon Haunted World". The review was a fairly broad discussion of the problems involved in getting people to understand science. Mr. Lewontin is a fairly outspoken critic of the science establishment of which he is a part but that doesn't mean he disagrees with its methods or conclusions. Unfortunately, creationist like to misquote prominent scientist to make it look like they are in there camp or "spilling the beans" on the evil, atheistic world view of scientist.

Here is an example and also what he really thinks:

On page 143 of the Jehovah's Witnesses book Life: How did it get here? we find the quote:

Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms 'appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.' He views them as 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.'

but compare that to

Lewontin himself, complaining about this exact same misquotation as presented in an issue of the Institute for Creation Research's Acts & Facts: "But the point of my article, 'Adaptation' in Scientific American, from which these snippets were lifted, was precisely that the 'perfection of organisms' is often illusory and that any attempt to describe organisms as perfectly adapted is destined for serious contradictions. Moreover, the appearance of careful and artful design was taken in the nineteenth century before Darwin as 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.' The past tense of my article ('It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment ... that was the chief evidence of Supreme Designer') has been conveniently dropped by creationist [Gary] Parker in his attempt to pass off this ancient doctrine as modern science."

Lewontin, "Misquoted Scientists Respond," Creation/Evolution VI, Fall 1981, p. 35.

Hector Avalos, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society," Free Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 2, Spring 1992, pp. 28-31.

In short, Dr. Lewontin was clearly referring to the opinions of people long dead. He stated those opinions as part of explaining why he thinks those opinions are wrong. The quotes, as given, are a fraud. Here is what he actually thinks:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Dr. Lewontin has co-authored papers with Dr. Stephen Jay Gould. Gould has made similar statements about being misquoted.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfa1957 (talk)

"First of all you didn't include the entire passage.": And you didn't include anything about why the omitted parts change anything.

"Secondly, ... that doesn't mean [Lewontin] disagrees with its methods or conclusions.": So? Is there anything to indicate that he does? Does that change the relevance of the quote in any way?

"Unfortunately, creationist like to misquote prominent scientist ...": Do you have any substantiation that this is something that they "like" doing? If so, please provide it, or apologise for the slur.

I find that most charges of misquoting are unfounded, and I've checked out more than a few such claims of misquoting. See also here.

"...to make it look like they are in there camp...": That would be a bit self-defeating! Why make it look like an evolutionist is a creationist? The impact of a quote pointing out something favourable to creationists is due to it being made by an evolutionist! No, this claim is also unfounded.

"or "spilling the beans" on the evil, atheistic world view of scientist": If creationists think of it as "evil", it is in the theological sense that all (including Christians) are sinners. They generally don't consider scientists as more "evil" than anybody else.

You really must be grasping at straws to claim, per your heading of this section, that Lewontin is being misquoted in the article by producing (supposed) evidence that he was misquoted by others in different quotes!

Philip J. Rayment 22:18, 16 November 2007 (EST)