"We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism."
We do refer to "Newtownian physics" to refer to pre-relativity and pre-quantum mechanics.
I think this is a non-issue. The people who think evolutionary theory stopped with Darwin aren't going to pick up on that because you use a different name.
I believe the author is referring more so to the people that tend to think that one person came up with, and wrote it since its attached to a persons name. It also makes for a good (read good in their heads) excuse why not to believe it. I know I have experienced that poor logic in conversation before.
The problem is that once they stop calling it Darwinism, what do you call it, to keep it distinct from ID? They can't just call it evolution, since IDers don't all deny common descent, old earth, etc. and can thus claim the evolution label for their theories. It has to be called something like "evolution only by natural selection" or "natural evolution" or somesuch. But then this sounds too restrictive and gives popular credence to the ID rhetoric of "why are evolutionists so cloes minded?"
An added problem is that ID doesn't even have to appeal to a god or aliens. They can just restrict their theory to a more Lamarckian idea, that animals genetically engineer themselves, either intentionally or by happenstance. Once they do this, then the theory fits entirely within a naturalistic paradigm.
So, I'd say the essay is right. Darwinism has a problem of rhetoric on its hands.
You don't really need to entirely eliminate the idea of ID. You just need to ensure that the accpted mechanism is evolution. If you can convince ID advocates that the mechanism for design was that of evolution, then, who gives a crap? You're just arguing for or against God at that point.
It's not just arguing about god though. ID makes statements of fact which it is unable to back up with experimental evidence. Evolution makes statement of fact which it can back up with experimental evidence. So the two should not be conflated (at least in the scientific realm).
Outside of science (philosophy?) they are nowhere near the most "out-there" of theories.
Evolution makes statement of fact which it can back up with experimental evidence
No. Evolution (specifically biological macro-evolution, which is what ID and science disagree upon) does NOT make statements of fact.
Both ID and Evolution make conjectural (non-factual) statements and then look for evidence that supports their specific view. The only problem is that none of us have empirically observed how life really came about, so we have no basis on which to say that the end results (or evidence) for a process is really correct.
Let's review science first -- evidence in science is only authoritative when you can (without fail) repeat an empirical process X and come up with the end result Y (the evidence). Don't you see the problem of trying to define an umempirical process by the evidence? This is basic rationale, you have no way of knowing WHAT produced the evidence because it is unempirical.
So I can see why Bio. Macro-Evo. is nice. You get to bullshit about what you think X process should be, bullshit about how you believe X process should produce Y evidence (more importantly -- with no empirical observation to prove that X indeed produces Y), and then go on a search for Y evidence to confirm all your bullshitting. When you find Z evidence instead of Y, simply say that X process actually produces Z evidence to make it look like you have a whole bunch of Z evidence to back up process X. Meanwhile, everyone forgets that you actually have to show X process empirically producing Z evidence to even logically conclude that the existence of Z evidence is a valid byproduct of the existence of process X. Brilliantly rational science we have there.
Both ID and Biological macro-evolution are the equivalent of a pack of toddlers that have no concept of forensics and criminal behavior attempting to explain what happened at an extremely complex crime scene. They know a bunch of people died (the end result), and that's it. Logically and rationally, that's all they can know.
"The only problem is that none of us have empirically observed how life really came about, so we have no basis on which to say that the end results (or evidence) for a process is really correct."
Evolution makes no attempts to describe how the first living cell came about. Evolution begins from the first cell, and goes forward from there. The study of how that first cell formed is called Abiogenesis.
"Let's review science first -- evidence in science is only authoritative when you can (without fail) repeat an empirical process X and come up with the end result Y (the evidence)."
Predictions made by science can speculate on the outcomes of a particular experiment or on the ability of a hypothesis to explain past outcomes. Without the second half of this statement you can discard all mathematical models, including the science of the big bang, star formation, weather/climate prediction, and nearly all of social science.
"Brilliantly rational science we have there."
Science, when done well, does nothing of the sort. What you have described is poor science, and there is poor science much the same as there is poor coding. However, Evolution is a framework arrived at from many hypotheses, many experiments, and many logical arguments put forward by many individuals over the past 150 years. You would do well to first comprehend some of the arguments before dismissing them out of hand.
ID is more than that. Specifically, ID claims design can be detected empirically. Biologists then apply this claim to biology to combat Darwinism. Creationists go further and use it as evidence that God created the world.
What you are talking about is not strictly ID. It is the combination of ID and creationism.
The 'natural' in natural selection refers to the distinction with artificial selection, rather than 'supernatural selection', and reminds us that what nature does to a species is no different from what breeders are successfully doing. So I think that's the best term.
At least for the second point, that's because IDH is Creationism. It purports that somethings are irreducibly complex and must have been designed by a creator. Which is basically the same thing (scientifically) as Creationism.
Agreed. Personally I see ID as an insult to religion, 'God' created the universe yet apparently he has to interfere 14 billion years later to create mankind because we're just so special, making him just so incompetent and not a true supreme being.
I mean why worship the supernatural if it's just not unbelievable. I mean at least the Greek and the Norse gods knew how to have fun!
ID == given any set of conditions, the cause of those conditions may be natural or an external agent (or a combination) ID presumes an external agent.
Arguments for ID include complexity and the watch, etc. Application of ID may mostly be by religious people.
But ID itself is just common sense. You make an observation -- have a perception. You acknowledge that you either 1) believe you understand everything about how that reality occurred, 2) believe you understand a little but one day will understand everything, 3) believe that agencies unknown to you created that perception and the true cause lies in another set of facts unknown to you. (eventually understandable or not)
Maybe I'm missing something, but that's how ID theory looks to me.
To make a factitious example, lizard people from the planet Xypton diverted an asteroid millions of years ago and killed the dinosaurs. The fall of the dinosaurs has an ID basis then. But I doubt we'll see a lot of lizard people churches anytime soon.
Hardly, rather, it is common ignorance. ID is creationism, plain and simple. Its primary premise that the universe is too complex to have been an accident and thus must have been created absurdly ignores that its chief objection must also be applied to this supposed creator.
If the creator doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe, making the whole hypothesis absurd. And it is just a hypothesis, not a theory, and cannot be in any way held up as an alternative to evolution by anyone with half a brain.
You're making an attack on religion. I was explaining ID.
I understand that religious creation-type people use ID as a shield from which to launch their anti-science attacks. I got that. What I'm trying to explain to you is that ID, as a way of knowing something, is a separate thing. In my opinion, people who mix up ID and creationism, from either side, look like morons. They're two different things.
It's like attacking people from the American South as being KKK rednecks. Yes, there is that part. But to mix it all up is to display a lack of understanding and a willingness not to think. Not thinking is bad. Better to understand ID and then attack creationists than just lump it all together. Ignorance is one thing, but stupidity -- the willful continuation of not learning -- is another. That's bad on any side of a discussion. When the science guys start acting stupid, you know the discussion is in trouble.
> You're making an attack on religion. I was explaining ID.
And you're still pretending they're different things. You might like to think that ID is just a thought process, separate from religion that one can use to assess anything but that ignores the reality that ID isn't used in that way by the vast majority of its believers.
It's used as a shield for creationism for those attempting to corrupt our legal processes. ID is a word, and it means what most people use it for, not what you want it to technically mean or what you thought it originally meant.
The purpose of words is to communicate, those words are owned by creationists, so if you're really attempting to just communicate and get others to think then it's up to you to choose a better word that doesn't already have massively negative connotations.
Trying to talk about ID in absence of religion is like trying to talk about hacking to grandma while ignoring the fact that to the larger majority of people hacking means committing a crime.
Okay. We've passed the point of reason now. I concede.
<sarcasm>Yes. There are special words that are owned by special people. If you use their words, you must like them/take their side/want to be one. That's a much more reasoned argument than I was trying to make.</sarcasm>
We all know an idea is worth nothing until it's turned into a product. Maybe Darwin didn't invent evolution but he turned it into a product (a book) and sell it to people. That's why the unknown farmer who maybe got the idea before him shouldn't be remember and we should remember Darwin forever.
We do refer to "Newtownian physics" to refer to pre-relativity and pre-quantum mechanics.
I think this is a non-issue. The people who think evolutionary theory stopped with Darwin aren't going to pick up on that because you use a different name.