Just when we thought that DaveScot may have finally decided to make a teeny bit of sense after all, he ends up crashing our hopes to the ground by posting something so mind-numbingly ridiculous; making us realize that his drama is a train wreck that we simply cannot stop watching. Over at Uncommon Descent, he decides to have a little fun with Google Trends:
He triumphantly posts:
Blue: Intelligent Design
Red: Darwinian Evolution
Orange: Scientific Creationism
Green: Theological EvolutionAny questions?
Yeah, DaveScot. Because, you know, your average Googler would use the term ‘Darwinian Evolution’ when looking up information on evolutionary biology.
Good to know.Looking at the graph, we see ID getting lots of attention in 2005 at the time that the Dover trial was talking place and when the IDists were whining about being trounced in court. However, notice that there apparently has been hardly any interest in ID before Dover, and still hardly any after the dust from Dover settled. For all the books the IDists have been writing, for all the propaganda they have been spewing, for all their bleating over Expelled – people are simply not paying attention. Yes, the scientific community already knew long ago that ID was a crock, but apparently nobody else has been paying attention either. Funny how DaveScot chooses not to mention this (which would have been plainly obvious by even a cursory glance at the graph), don’t you think?
Now, let us use Google Trends to get a graph for people searching for ‘evolution’, which would obviously be the choice for someone looking for information about – gasp – evolution. To be fair, I will also use ‘creationism’ instead of ’scientific creationism’. We get this:
Ouch. That must hurt for DaveScot who just a moment ago was arrogantly asking for questions. When asked why he used the term ‘Darwinian evolution’ instead of just ‘evolution’, he responded:
ID doesn’t dispute all “evolution”. It disputes Darwinian evolution.
Just…wow. Despite the fact that the IDists have never been able to come up with an actual answer to what ID actually is and despite the fact that they have never been able to agree on what part of ‘evolution’ they actually accept (Behe accepts common descent and human evolution, Dembski does not, etc.), DaveScot is now fudging and shifting the goalposts again in an effort to have his cake and eat it too. What makes this whole situation even more hilarious is that based on the very graph that he posted, most people not only do not buy into the ID nonsense, they do not even seem to care! The IDists have failed at convincing the scientific community to give their unscientific dogma the time of the day and they have apparently not made much headway in the court of public opinion as well, even with all this fudging and hedging.
I am really curious as to what ‘evolution’ the IDists accept. The Lamarackian version?
He continues:
When I say Darwinian evolution I mean the term writ large accounting for the entire history of life on earth. Do I really need to tediously qualify it at every mention? I don’t think so. Most of the subscribers and audience here recognize by now that micro-evolution by chance & necessity is not being disputed. We don’t dispute facts. We dispute theory.
Uh…what? ID does not accept evolution that accounts for the history of life on earth but accepts micro-evolution, which somehow does not qualify as ‘Darwinian evolution’? Why wouldn’t micro-evolution qualify as being ‘Darwinian’, but somehow explaining the history of life counts as ‘Darwinian’ evolution? What is the imaginary barrier separating the two? At this point, we can safely say that DaveScot does not have a clue and is making it up and fudging even more in an effort to blunder along.
Maybe, DaveScot, it is time for you and the rest of your ID propagandists to stop failing. Just…stop.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Shalini Sehkar
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
A professor of mine gave the best definition of evolution I’ve ever heard. It applies to micro-evolution and macro-evolution:
“The differential reproduction and mortality of phenotypes and associated genotypes.”
So when I hear someone say they accept Micro-Evolution but not Macro-Evolution (as student supporters of ID often do) the answer is easy. Give them that definition. Sort of shows how one thing leads to another.
Problem is, I can’t expect them to know what “Genotype” or “Phenotype” mean. Even “Differential” is a stretch.
I have often asked “micro-evolution only” creationists to point to something, anything which creates a barrier between so-called “micro-evolution and macro-evolution.” When even philosophers of science have difficulty defining species in a way that covers all of the bases, how can they be so certain that “macro-evolution” is impossible?
Well, for them it’s rather simple, isn’t it? They call it baraminology. It’s bible-based whether people like Dembski and DaveScot will admit it.
From UD:
“Update: Due to whiny protesters who say Darwinian evolution isn’t fair, I shortened it to evolution. And just to be fair I shortened intelligent design to design. ”
Words fail to describe this degree of stupidity.
Basically disputing macroevolution while accepting microevolution under the guise of supporting ID is saying that 1+1 = 2, but 1+1+1+1….. cannot equal 1 million.