Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

In Message 21, randman wrote: This thread is intended as a place where randman and other critics of talkorigins.org can provide details of the flaws and propagandistic tendencies of the to site, and where others can answer these critiques.(suggest "Is it Science")

That definition does emphasize that it is change in populations, not individuals. What is the problem with the definition? The first is commenting on "evolution" the term, while the second is commenting on evolution, the theory. The context makes it quite clear which is which.This isn't propaganda. This is natural language, where words have varying meanings depending on context.Maybe you were confused. But it wasn't intended to be confusing. In my experience, biologists are quite clear in distinguishing between "the fact of evolution" (change that has been observed) and "the theory of evolution" which has a role much like other scientific theories.

That's the way language is. Words acquire multiple meanings, depending on context.Physicists use "gravity" for a tendency for things to fall, they use it as a force, and they use it to refer to the theory of gravity. Does it follow that physicists are propagandists, deliberately misleading people about the meaning of gravity?You have been using the English language for long enough that you ought to have some inkling as to how it is used. Come to think of it, physicists have been known to talk of "the fact of gravity". And when physicists say this, they are usually not being specific as to whether they are talking about Newton's theory of gravity, or General Relativity, or some not fully developed theory of quantum gravity. I take the physicists to be talking about the general phenomena that are observed, and that each of these theories attempts to account for.Could it be that, likewise, evolutionists are talking about the observed phenomena that the theory of evolution attempts to account for? And if that is propaganda when used by evolutionists, then are physicists propagandists when discussing gravity?You are ascribing motives (propaganda) when evolutionary scientists are just using natural language in much the same way that other people use it.

That's Larry Moran's definition. I have great admiration for Larry. Nevertheless, I take that as his own statement about how he would like to see the word "evolution" used. I don't assume that biologists all agree.If you were to ask 10 biologists to define "evolution", you would probably get at least 10 different definitions. That's the way language is. There are reasons why we say that meaning is subjective.

I think I was quite clear, that meaning depends on context.So here you are, asserting some context-independent way of determining the meaning of "evolution", and wrongly attributing that to me.

You will have to show us exactly where they say this.I suspect that you have misunderstood something.

Clearly you do not understand the role of ToE in biology. You apparently still do not understand the meaning of "vestigial", even though it has been explained to you in the past. Talk about confusion. "Vestigial" does not imply "could be removed." Conclusions as to what could be removed are made by medical science, not by evolutionary biology.

Let's suppose that you can come up with a version of creationism that does make the same predictions as evolution. Here are some questions about that version:

What would be the advantages of this creationist theory over evolution?

Wouldn't YECs have the same objections to this creationist model that they have to evolution?

Wouldn't other (non-YEC) creationists have the same objections to your creationist model that they would have to evolution?

​

Don't respond here. We are way off topic for this thread. Open a new thread where we can discuss your creationist ideas and whether they are superior to evolution. (You could respond here with a link to the new topic, after opening it, but please no content discussion here.)

The TO site is not written by lawyers, carefully filtering everything to ensure that nothing questionable appears there. It is not written by propogandists, trying to sell their position. It is written by scientists. It is honest, in the sense that it present evolution just as the scientists talk about it themselves and between themselves.For comparison, physicists talk about gravity as fact too. They don't try to cross their "t"s and dot their "i"s in every sentence, so may use "fact" both for what is observed, and for what is part of the theory. Heck, people even say that the earth going around the sun (heliocentrism) is fact, and they don't bother to mention that it is part of a theory. This is just the way scientists talk.I doubt that you have any problem with web sites that describe heliocentrism, or sites that describe gravity. I doubt that you call them propoganda. That you consider the TO site to be propoganda has to do with the way you see evolution. It isn't due to any defect in the science.

Thanks, Faith. That was my point.I can comment on the other side. I'm not a biologist, so I see their discussions from the outside (although I do accept that evolution is correct). And, given the controversies about evolution, I happen to think that they would be better advised to use more caution about what they call a fact. Or, to put it differently, I can see why randman objects to the way that they discuss some of this. However, I think randman is wrong in depicting it as being done with the intention to deceive.There are a number of creationist web sites that are criticizing TO and evolution, so there isn't a problem of one side having a monopoly on what is said.

quote:

---

It would take a little time to show the many levels of disinformation they employ, but here is one.

​

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

---

I don't see any disinformation there. Modulous has, on a number of occasions, tried to point out the distinction between evolution, and natural history. Apparently you still don't get it.Evolution has been observed, and is regularly observed. You as much as admit it yourself in the above paragraph. What has not been observed are the full events of natural history. Just as with any other history, natural history is dependent on a lot of circumstantial evidence, and periodically needs revising as better evidence becomes available.

A little perspective is needed here.TO is not a person, it is a web site. TO is not stating anything. It's the authors of the various pages who are saying things.In that particular web page, Larry Moran is giving his view of what should be the definition of evolution. I doubt that he cleared it with Dawkins.There isn't a unanimous agreement as to how "evolution" should be defined.If the pages you list appear to contradict one another, that's a disagreement between Moran and Theobald. To consider that propaganda makes no more sense than to consider the contradictory theologies of catholics and evangelicals as Christian propaganda.

Nice report. Thanks. That's a better critique than we have seen in the previous 291 messages in this thread.Welcome to evcforum.