Jobs in Archaeology and CRM, archaeology field schools, No intelligent design as science petition

The problem with using Darwinism in the title of this petition:

Shovelbums.org Home

Petition Home

A Scientific Support For Darwinism

And For Public Schools Not To

Teach Intelligent Design As Science

and why I had to use it

The title of this petitio is problematic, since "Darwinism" is awfully ambiguous, and as a matter of a fact the concept talked about by the Discovery Insitute of "Darwinian Evolution" is no longer a theory itself.  In biology, there are a number of distinct technical positions named "Darwinism"; a lot of them have to do with the assertion that natural selection is primarily or exclusively responsible for a given phenomenon.   In popular writing, especially in Britain, "Darwinism" is often more or less synonymous with evolution, but in the United States, and especially among creationists, "Darwinism" is often used pejoratively, more or less synonymous with evolutionary atheism.   Given that the audience for this petition's statement is mainly in the United States, so you can see how "Darwinism" in the title is a problem.

Of course I chose " A Scientific Support For Darwinism " to mirror the Discovery Institute's " Scientific Dissent from Darwinism ," but it's important to realize that the Discovery Institute is misusing "Darwinism".   They are defining it as the thesis that random variation and natural selection fully explain "life's complexity" (whatever that's supposed to be -- the complexity of each living thing? of the whole phylogenetic tree? of the minimal cell?).   But nobody accepts "Darwinism" in that sense, since there are all sorts of other mechanisms at work in evolution:   genetic drift, neutral mutation, endosymbiosis, etc.   So someone could sign the statement with a clear conscience, supposing that he or she didn't know what use would be made of it.    Discovery's statement is a straw man.

In my introduction to Discovery Institute's petition, I comment, "That petition is presented to the public as a scientific endorsement of the religion-based concept of Intelligent Design over Darwinism."   My presentation of this statement is kept brief for the sake of clarity so I will elaborate here.   The actual content of the statement is unobjectionable (except for the tendentious definition of "Darwinism"), but the use to which it is being put is not warranted.   It relies on what Judge Overton in the McLean case called "a contrived dualism" -- the idea that if evolution is wrong then creationism (in one form or another) must be right:   by publicizing a rejection of a caricature of "Darwinism" the Discovery Institute hopes to promote "intelligent design".   (Hearteningly, there have been some press reports of signatories to Discovery's statement dissenting from the use made of it.)

I need to stress that this petition does not mean that scientific issues are decided by majority vote.   For example NCSE rarely promotes such petitions that rely for their effect on sheer number.   You see having locals sign a petition about a local issue is okay, numbers matter there; & having scientific societies issue formal statements is okay; having Nobel laureates write letters is okay; making fun of creationists' spurious appeals to authority (a la Project Steve) is okay; but trying to amass a huge pile of signatures from various people makes it seem as though these issues should be decided by majority vote.   What this petition does show is that this statement is the consensus of informed scientific opinion. Our media, which is oddly portrayed as liberal, often overlooks the huge consensus of scientists against the presentation of "intelligent design" as fact in the science classroom:   That's what these signatories represent.