Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

TalkOrigins merely tries to accurately present information about the field of biological evolution. The information there shouldn't be any different than the information found in any library in the world. It's intended to reflect the current state of scientific evolutionary knowledge at a level that laypeople can understand.This means that if TO is a propaganda site then all of biological science is a propaganda machine, which I think is Randman's true position. TO probably got singled out for criticism because of its easy availability on the Internet. In Randman's view it isn't just TO that is misrepresenting Haeckel specifically and the evidence for evolution generally, but all of biological science.Since Randman believes any representation of evolution is propaganda, it really isn't possible to convince him that TO isn't a propaganda site.--Percy

You're replying to PaulK, not me. We're all aware that within your own mind you see yourself as objective and reasonable, and that you see anyone who disagrees with you as biased or unreasonable or lying. But the premise that you're objective and reasonable has yet to be demonstrated by you. We've seen demonstrations from you of many other qualities, but objectivity and reasonability are not discernable among them. This is confusing. The site makes clear there are two definitions. Naturally both definitions will be used as appropriate throughout the site, so it's hard to understand your objection. Why don't you provide an example of this "bait and switch" technique?Focused at the informed layperson level, TalkOrigins represents evolution no differently than you'll find anywhere else, be it at other websites, in public libraries or in scientific journals. Your criticism boils down to simple semantics. You could as pointlessly make the same argument against the evidence for gravity and the theory of gravity.--Percy

Please read the replies to your earlier posts and links. They show where you are mistaken.--Percy

Hi Randman,I think everyone is looking for an example of this "bait and switch" you keep talking about. Your post that I'm replying to doesn't have it. It contains a definition of evolution the process or theory, but it never touches on evolution the observed natural phenomena.I'm guessing that Cavediver objected to your definition from your Message 50 because it said, in part, "Evos define evolution as basically any change..." Evolution is not defined as "any change". You go on to include "heritable change", but that doesn't define evolution, either. Heritable change is part of the overall process of evolution, but it also includes natural selection and descent with modification. And evolution in modern terms is usually defined in terms of changes in the allele frequencies of populations over time, which the excerpt you included *does* mention.I think to make your point you need to provide an excerpt from a page at TalkOrigins that makes the misleading statements that you keep claiming it does. So far nothing quoted you've provided has accomplished this.--Percy

Excerpts and links, please. It's beginning to appear that you're just using every reply as an opportunity to repeat you're unsupported assertions. If you expect to convince anyone you're going to have to provide evidence for your claims.--Percy

Sorry, Randman, I can't see the problem, and obviously no one else can, either. I think we're all trying to work real hard with you here, but you're giving us nothing. The last paragraph of your excerpt makes some specific criticisms of the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary's definition, but common descent wasn't one of them. One significant criticism is that the definition is more a historical conclusion about life's development than a description of the evolutionary process. More importantly, failing to mention change in allele frequency over time is a fatal lack, which is why the paragraph critisizing it concludes "the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes."--Percy

Uh, where have you been? This has been stated over and over and over again by at least four people that I can think of. Yes, evolution, like most words in all languages, has more than one definition. Which definition is in use is usually clear from context.We're all sort of waiting for that "Aha!" announcement from you where you finally find some ambiguous place at TalkOrigins where some statement about evolution is open to misinterpretation as to which definition is in play. At a site as large as TalkOrigins it would seem impossible to achieve perfection and never be occasionally ambiguous, but you haven't yet provided a single example of the confusion you claim is not only prevalent but purposeful. The fact of evolution is what has been observed. For example, fossils in their geological layers are a record of change over time. Laboratory experiments on bacteria observe evolution taking place in mere hours. Genetic analyses reveal the relatedness of organisms. Geographic species distributions are evidence of adaptation. All these observations of change over time are facts, and that is what people mean by the fact of evolution.I don't think you'll find this helpful, but I'll add anyway that I disagree with labeling it a fact that evolution has occurred, but I'm running against the wind on this issue. To me it seems an obvious implication of the evidence, but it is not itself a fact. Others feel like I'm making a silly distinction, as if my position is equivalent to seeing a pair of red sneakers and claiming that the observation is only evidence that the sneakers are red, but that it is not a fact that they are red.--Percy

It would be helpful to see this "elsewhere" that says common descent *is* a theory. You need to find these places where TalkOrigins contradicts itself in order to make your case. But what you're labeling as propaganda and distortion are only forthright characterizations of evolution. I agree with you. To me, common descent (your excerpt said "common descent", not "universal common descent") is a conclusion from evidence, not a fact. It is a rather obvious and perhaps even trivial conclusion, but that doesn't make it a fact.--Percy

What can I say? I agree with you. It has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time that the mountain of evidence reaching the sky doesn't turn theory into fact. It might add another decimal place to our level of assurance, but it doesn't make it a fact.Usually offered in defense of the "evolution as fact" perspective is a different definition of fact. The one usually offered is one originally provided by Gould, where he says in one of his popular books that a fact is something that is so well established that to withhold at least provisional assent would be perverse. But I see that word "provisional" and it sets off alarm bells.But whether the term fact or theory is applied to evolution's occurrence makes little difference to our assurance of its validity. The evidence supporting evolutionary theory is immense. As I've said before, your view that evolution doesn't explain much of life's history is not shared by many IDists, Behe most prominent among them. Your view of evolution has much more in common with YECs, who go way beyond ID by denying much of science, which is why you were often mistaken for one.--Percy

I'm not sure that quoting Gould himself can support the contention that he's using the scientific definition of fact. That seems kind of circular. I think you need an outside reference.The evidence of evolution, facts if you like, is what we dig from the ground, find in the wild and observe in our laboratories. Everything else is interpretation. That's just my view, and as I've said, I'm aware I have a minority viewpoint concerning whether it is a fact that evolution has occurred.--Percy

Correct, even our facts are tentative, but just as with the "fact of evolution" issue, I don't usually push for this point of view, either. In most contexts it's a distraction from the main issue. There certainly *is* a hierarchy of certainty, generally speaking, in that the more directly obtained our knowledge the greater our assurance of its correctness, and I think everyone intuitively understands this, so the names we use to refer to things like facts, observations, results, conclusions, etc., are usually not so important.But as long as we're on the topic, I consider the "fact of evolution" issue a big distraction. To creationists it sounds like evolutionists are saying that because it's a fact it can't be disputed, and I often see evolutionists characterizing it in just this way. To me the creationist complaint is justified. Randman has in this case for once, at least in my opinion, properly identified a legitimate issue. That evolution has occurred is not a fact in the way that most people understand the word - it is only a conclusion arrived at after examining the evidence.--Percy

What has this to do with the topic? I think you need to leave aside your emotional reactions and focus on addressing the topic. You say that evolutionists are making up false motives, but this is just part of your initial premise that TalkOrigins is a propaganda site. Please help move the discussion forward by moving beyond your initial premise and replying to the substance of recent posts.The last few posts between me and Schraf concerned tentativity and sprang from your objection to claims that evolution is a fact. Why don't you follow up on that, or something else on-topic.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-10-2006 10:01 AM

I think you're still missing the point. If you go to a flat-earth site or a "we never went to the moon" site you'll see that there's no shortage of ingenius objections. Anyone who wants to reject geocentrism or the Apollo moon shots can find plenty of ammunition to satisfy themselves. But that's all they're able to do, satisfy themselves. Unable to muster any evidence for geocentrism or against heliocentrism they are limited to convincing only those who, for who knows what reasons, are already inclined this way.Schraf is in essence saying that creationists are doing the same thing. Already strongly inclined to reject evolution because of the challenge it represents for Christian faith, creationists have no end of arguments they can muster against it. Their problem is that, just like the flat-earthers and the we-never-went-to-the-mooners, they're unable to muster any true evidence for creationism, nor any true evidence against evolution, and so they're unable to convince anyone except the already so-inclined. Of course, the U.S. has a very large evangelical community, so the population of the so-inclined is very large, which is why creationism isn't as marginalized as geocentrism and moon-shot sceptics. But the lack of true evidence-based arguments is fatal from a scientific perspective, and so they're reduced to doing things like claiming it's all just propaganda.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-10-2006 12:36 PM

Yes, Randman, I know that there is plenty of ammunition for those opposed to evolution to convince themselves they are right. That was the whole point of my post. I understand that it feels to you like your points are valid, and I know you really believe that the only honest evolutionist is one who has been hounded by a creationist, but at the end of the day the community that is making scientific contributions is the evolutionists, not the creationists. Creationism cannot point to any scientific advances.Even your perception that it is creationists who have been right and evolutionists wrong is an illusion. Science proceeds by a process of becoming more right (or less wrong, if you prefer) over time. Creationists criticize all aspects of evolution, so naturally they take credit for finding anything found wrong or in need of refinement. But when you place your bets on every number on the roulette wheel, you can't praise your luck when one of your numbers comes up. The fact of the matter is that with such a strategy you are guaranteed to be right every once in a while, but you're also guaranteed to be wrong all the rest of the time, and such is the case with creationism.--Percy

Really? Name one. Almost all creationist work is criticism of evolution, and very little of it is genuine science.Here are some advances by evolutionary scientists just from the past year (see Evolution in Action from Science magazine):

• Bird flu predictions.
• Hereditary disease analysis.
• Gene therapy.
• Life classification system.
• Stickleback fish speciation.
• Behavioral influenceson speciation.

You see, we're talking about doing science, and creationists aren't doing science, they're doing religion. The only person engaged in propaganda here is you as you try to convince people creationists are actually interested in promoting science rather than protecting evangelical faith. If there were any underlying reality to the creationist view of evolution it would be equally apparent to people of all religions and no religion. Evolution is the central organizing principle of all of biology. Without it there would have been many fewer advances. But this is mere bravado. There *are* no creationist or ID advances in science.--Percy