I've had a few blog posts stored up and wanted to post this one in light of the attack on ID over the course of this year.
This link describes but one example:
Free Thought Advocate Aggressively Shuts down course on ID
Ironic isn't it?
I note a certain attitude of advocates for evolution in the public sphere to take a rather dogmatic approach to dealing with critics of evolution. It's as though any alternative to a naturalistic explanation is seen as a threat or dissent to science.
I think proponents of evolution over reach in their eagerness to champion the field. That the meta narrative of evolutionary theory is accepted by scientists shouldn't exclude critical examination of individual evidences and questioning of those individual pieces. These individual evidences in the literature are often challenged in time as new insight comes to light.
Therefore it strikes me as odd that there should be such a reaction when someone who identifies with intelligent design or creation, where the criticism is thrown aside in favour of ad hominem attacks. I have witnessed this in many forums including debates where those arguing for naturalistic evolution lean toward personal derision over mounting an evidential argument for evolution as if there job is already done.
Some evidences for evolution are very much open to interpretation and aren't without controversy. Teaching the controversy is an argument that many in the ID and creation camps advocate, but are met with quite strong resistance. There is no controversy the evolutionary advocates say. That seems to me to be a little dishonest. Many of the iconic findings for evolution have later come to be questioned in the literature, yet very rarely is this acknowledged in textbooks or in public discourse. We're talking everything from fossils said to be human-ape ancestors, junk dna and even the central mechanism of mutation and natural selection. My university textbook from 2002 was rather out of date in terms of discussion of particular evolutionary finds. Several of which have been found to be false, some even prior to the production of the textbook.
Instead of getting worked up about some anti-science push, lets enrich the conversation around our planets history and set aside largely philosophical antagonism towards those who think intelligent design is the best explanation for what we observe.
I think proponents of evolution over reach in their eagerness to champion the field. That the meta narrative of evolutionary theory is accepted by scientists shouldn't exclude critical examination of individual evidences and questioning of those individual pieces. These individual evidences in the literature are often challenged in time as new insight comes to light.
Therefore it strikes me as odd that there should be such a reaction when someone who identifies with intelligent design or creation, where the criticism is thrown aside in favour of ad hominem attacks. I have witnessed this in many forums including debates where those arguing for naturalistic evolution lean toward personal derision over mounting an evidential argument for evolution as if there job is already done.
Some evidences for evolution are very much open to interpretation and aren't without controversy. Teaching the controversy is an argument that many in the ID and creation camps advocate, but are met with quite strong resistance. There is no controversy the evolutionary advocates say. That seems to me to be a little dishonest. Many of the iconic findings for evolution have later come to be questioned in the literature, yet very rarely is this acknowledged in textbooks or in public discourse. We're talking everything from fossils said to be human-ape ancestors, junk dna and even the central mechanism of mutation and natural selection. My university textbook from 2002 was rather out of date in terms of discussion of particular evolutionary finds. Several of which have been found to be false, some even prior to the production of the textbook.
Instead of getting worked up about some anti-science push, lets enrich the conversation around our planets history and set aside largely philosophical antagonism towards those who think intelligent design is the best explanation for what we observe.
