Dishonesty and ID

They say that they aren't creationists. But you wouldn't know it by their ethics.

I am curious, but do all anti-ID'ers use character attacks to defend their otherwise weak position in the controversy? Also, are all evolutionists ignorant of the fact that there is a very distinct difference between "creationist" vs "ID'er"?

Fact is, they lied. Blatently lied about something very obvious. This is the kind of thing we have learned to expect from the professional creationists. It is, apparently something ID has borrowed from creationism, in the same way they borrowed their religious notions.

​

If it offends you to have people notice this, it would be much more productive for you to encourage ID people to be more honest.

​

Ironically, you linked me to a page in which an IDer attempts to refute science using the same old creationist arguments. You've made my case for me.

​

Let's look at an example from the link you cited:Jonathan Wells:
[blockquote]My Question: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds--even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?[/blockquote]NCSE’s Answer: The notion of a missing link is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells’s claim that supposed ancestors are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you! Well's evasion:

(a) If the notion of a missing link is out of date, why do biology textbooks continue to use it? When the NCSE launches its long-overdue campaign against misconceptions in biology textbooks (such as calling the origin of life part of evolution, or using homology as evidence for common ancestry), it can add missing link to its list.

I get to review biology textbooks; I'm on a committee that checks them out. I haven't yet seen one that even uses the term "missing link", except as a caution about unscientific thinking. If you could find one for me, I'd be pleased to write a nasty note to the publisher. I emailed Wells once, but he must have been too busy to give me an answer. Could you give me one?

(b) If Darwin’s theory is true, there must have been organisms in the past that were transitional links between ancestors and descendants--yet most of them are missing from the fossil record. So the notion of missing link is no more out-of-date than evolutionary theory itself.

Wells admits that transitional links would be evidence for Darwin's theory. He then admits that there are some found in the fossil record. Then he concludes that this must validate the "missing link" notion. I can only conclude that he imagines that unless we have a fossil of every organism that ever existed, something is wrong with evolution. It appears he has admitted what he wanted to refute.

(c) Archaeopteryx is not preceded by fossils showing how reptiles gradually acquired bird-like features. Furthermore, without fossils of the appropriate age, the NCSE has no grounds for saying Wells’s claim that ‘supposed ancestors’ are younger than Archaeopteryx is false.
(d) Bird-like dinosaurs are not just younger than their supposed relative, but millions of generations younger, so it makes no sense to call them uncles of Archaeopteryx.

It is true that we do have quite a number of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds, showing different stages in the process. Even though birds don't fossilize well, there apparently were a lot of them, and few are preserved.

​

And it's just as looney to say that a species can't live on for millions of years after a different species evolved from it, as it is to say your uncle can't be younger than you. This is Wells with his back to the wall, making evasions and excuses. Flimsy ones.

​

The others are just as bad and further evidence of the lack of moral fiber on the part of the IDers. I would be pleased to discuss them further here, if someone wants to hear about them.

​

I suppose you are aware that Wells has admitted that before he ever got his degree, that he had a religious mission to "destroy evolution". Or maybe you aren't. Wells doesn't mention that these days. That's an important bit of evidence for the ethical standards of IDers also.