I don’t have any publications on evolutionary theory, and don’t claim to be an evolutionary theorist. I’m only an observer of what evolutionary theorists say. I was not pitting my own knowledge of evolutionary theory against Moran’s or anyone’s. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency of saying that Denton does not do original research in evolutionary theory and then citing Moran with approval, when he hasn’t published any research either.
I believe that Larry started blogging on evolution years ago, when he was still a faculty member, but I am open to correction on the timeline.
I started commenting and posting on blogs over 20 years ago, well before I retired. As an evolutionary biologist, I considered clearing up misconceptions about evolution to be a legitimate use of my time. I am pretty sure that Larry was commenting on his blog before retirement. Academics these days are under a lot of pressure to do “outreach” and explain their own work and their fields, and this is certainly outreach. After retirement, it is a contribution you make without compensation.
I would suggest that several of Larry’s papers addressed facets of evolutionary theory that were open questions at the time. (These being the conservation of sequence, expression, and function of heat shock proteins.)
And, to reiterate, I raised no issue regarding whether Denton had published. My objection was to your responding with the title of a book geared to the general public, when I had specifically asked for research.
Thank you for confirming that you regard ID as inherently creationist. That is how I understand your position. And just for further confirmation, so that Burke will not accuse me of misreading you, would you still insist that Behe, despite his acceptance of common descent, is a creationist? And that Denton, despite his acceptance of common descent and his explicit endorsement of purely natural mechanisms of evolution, is a creationist?
True, but I think that’s what Eddie meant. Since eukaryotes are apparently within Archaea, and Archaea are colloquially referred to as “bacteria”, then “bacterium to man evolution” isn’t wrong; it merely pulls out one lineage among many. (I would define a lineage as any path from one node on the tree to another node, probably containing several branches.)
I for one agree with that definition of “creationism”: a denial of universal common descent, i.e. a belief in separate “kinds”. Of course, almost always and most importantly, humans must be one of those kinds.
I am not convinced the Denton endorses “purely natural mechanisms of evolution.” He seems to have a very poor understanding of evolution, in any event, and is not worth paying mind to.
Petty pedantry, as is par for the course for you. I was speaking loosely to give the general picture. Modify it to “from the common ancestor of bacteria and man all the way up to man” if you like. It doesn’t change my point about the common popular understanding of “creationism” as “antievolutionary.” I suspect that you agree with me that “creationism” is characterized by opposition to evolution, so your cavil is purely an exercise in technical one-upmanship, not discussion in good faith.
No, I wasn’t. I have scores of books on evolution here, all showing branching diagrams. But all of them lead back to some hypothetical ancestor of all branches, one consisting of only one cell. Whether one calls that ancester a “bacterium” (speaking casually) or something else, is irrelevant to the point I was making. The point I was making is that creationists deny the existence of this branching process (except possibly beyond the very latest branchings, e.g., of the cat “kind”).
Not only am I not an “ID creationist” (which doesn’t exist, as a theoretical position, though there are ID proponents who also happen to be creationists), I’m not a creationist of any kind – as I’ve said before, and demonstrated by repeated attacks on creationists – one of which Brad Kramer at BioLogos singled out for particular praise.
In any case, my particular position is not the subject here. Look at the title. I’m presenting an empirical study of how the word “creationism” has actually been used. Are you able to stay on topic?
How can you say that, when you haven’t read what he is written? Relying on hearsay again? Is that what Psychiatry Ph.D.s are taught is good science and scholarship – relying on hearsay? You should either discuss particular passages of Denton’s text, or refrain from commenting on him, because comments that are not based on study are useless.
Who says I haven’t? I haven’t read his book in its entirety. But I’ve read several of his writings. Based on that, Larry Moran’s criticisms are entirely on point. Like most ID Creationists, Denton bases his criticisms on a long-outdated strawman version of evolutionary theory and as such can be dismissed out of hand. Just as if there was someone who was claiming to have refuted the current understanding of gravity but was unaware of Einstein or any developments after Newton, I would know not to waste my time reading his book.
Any more false accusations you’d like to make against me?
A doctor of psychiatry does not hold a PhD. Just another piece of education I give you, free of charge. You’re welcome.
Thanks for clarifying. Note that your answer rests on a definition of “creationism” that is not in line with the past century of usage in these discussions. I would suggest that you either start using the word “creationism” in the normal way (the way John Harshman and I use it), or always preface your use of the term with your own idiosyncratic definition, so that everyone will know what you have in mind.
Books, plural. He has published six so far. And I suspect the one you have only partly read is his first book, and the work of his I’m referring to is found in the later ones.
On the contrary, Denton is well aware of the latest developments in evo-devo, etc. He cites current theorists constantly in his 2016 work.
I thought you might have both a Psychiatric doctor’s degree and also a Ph.D. in some biomedical area, since you are affiliated with a major university. I apologize for treating you as more academically qualified than you are.
But regardless of your degree, it’s unscholarly, unacademic, and unscientific to comment on material you haven’t read.
Then that applies to the entirety of the ID Creationist movement, since they are manifestly ignorant of the developments in evolutionary theory that have taken place over the past 30-40 years.
Rubbish. Wells, Meyer and Nelson are constantly reading the newest technical articles in evolutionary theory. You can see plenty of citations in their books – the books you don’t read. Even Larry Moran has said that while Paul Nelson is an IDiot, he isn’t an idiot; he’s aware that Nelson actually knows something, even if (in his view) Nelson draws the wrong conclusions. I think it’s quite safe to say, based on the superficial and programmatic remarks you’ve made here, that Wells, Meyer and Nelson are much better read on current evolutionary theory than you are.
