lucaspa

I didn't say they were "equal", just that members of H. sapiens are all people with the rights/obligations attached to that. Which ones are not and how do you decide? Think carefully. Remember, it was thinking that blacks were not people that led to racism. Look at the list I provided of individuals that would be excluded by Locke. That's what we are trying to decide. Therefore you can't state it like you did -- as "fact". The Dawkins quote does not apply. What Dawkins is doing is getting to the common ancestor, not to the species Pan troglodytes. The biological species concept applies: a species is a population that freely interbreeds to produce fertile offspring. Chimps and humans do not interbreed; we are separate species. And yes, there are discontinuities in nature. Darwin talked about them. They arise because the intervening species from the common ancestor to us and from the common ancestor to chimps have all gone extinct. Why not? By Locke's definition, the anencephalic baby is not human! The baby is human only because she/he belongs to the group! See above. Not all members of the group meet Locke's definition of "person" as an individual. But as you stated, the ancephalic baby is still considered a person. For that matter, YOU are still considered a person if you go into a coma, yet you wouldn't meet Locke's criteria. This is not limiting the definition of "person", yourdad, but expanding it and making sure it covers everyone who we agree should be covered. As I said, AI is going to present a problem. Notice that Singer is trying to get a group -- chimps -- accepted as people, not trying to get a single chimp accepted as one. And, in fact, if there were only one chimp in the Arnhem Zoo, most of the behavior Singer points to in order to argue for "personhood" would not be observable, would it? So, when we have a single computer that passes a Turing test, would we consider that one computer as a "person", or would we wait until there were hundreds or thousands of such computers? Let me ask you this: did the 14th Amendment apply to just individuals or a group? In order for equal rights to apply, do we have to test every individual to see if they fit Locke's definition of "person", or did we extend rights to all blacks at the same time?

Ah yes, the animal rights guru. Look at the premises of arguments, yourdad. For instance, Singer says "In 325 the Council of Nicea settled the issue by saying that the trinity is one substance and three persons. But what was a person?" The words in Greek are 1 ousia and 3 personas. In the context, persona is NOT "person", but rather is more accurately rendered "personality". There is still only one "ousia", or individual, in Trinity. Singer also misses something else we associate with humans and "persons" -- the ability to have a technological society. This goes beyond making and using tools -- it means making tools to make tools. Chimps can't do this. This is why they can use branch as a "ladder" but not make one. The problem Singer overlooks is that EVERY animal species MUST exploit other species to stay alive. Singer doesn't want us to kill chickens, cows, and pigs for food, but even Singer must kill SOME animals in order to survive. Farming involves killing animals second hand by depriving them of their habitat and having them starve to death. If he lived just 100 years ago, he would have to kill animals either for their hides for clothing or the tools to process plants to make clothing. I presume Singer has no qualms about harvesting blood from horses to make insulin for human diabetics. Or maybe he does, and would be content to watch the humans die rather than hurt the horses. "Whether or not dogs and pigs are persons, they can certainly feel pain and suffer in a variety of ways, and our concern for their suffering should not depend on how rational and self-aware they might be." Singer has just made his ethical position untenable. Singer can't limit his concern to dogs and pigs; he must extend them to all mammals and perhaps all vertebrates. As I said, farming involves plowing up fields and displacing the animals who lived there. It involves destroying the ecosystem on which the animals depend and substituting the human-desired ecosystem -- the farm. So it condemns animals to starvation or other nasty deaths. Yet Singer doesn't advocate giving up farming and just going to what we can glean from naturally-growing plants. That would, of course, condemn 99% of the human species to death by starvation.

You forgot to mention the most important one: if you really use Locke's definition, then you exclude quite a few members of H. sapiens: mentally retarded, babies less than 6 months old (who live only in the present and can't think of themselves in different times and places), those suffering from traumatic brain injury, those in a coma, etc. I think what you need to do is look at the group, not individuals. Because humans as a species demonstrate Locke's criteria, Locke considers all humans to be "people", whether specific individuals meet the criteria or not -- they are included as "people" because the group qualifies. And you do the same thing -- look at the group. As we said, not every white, black, etc. can meet Locke's criteria, but the overwhelming majority can, so you take the group -- race -- as being people. For abortion, you are saying that none of the group -- fetuses before 3 months -- meet the criteria. A problem comes when we get to AI. Here there isn't going to be a "group", at least initially. It will be one computer. When we get to a group -- a production run of AIs, then we would have a group. But is the first AI going to be considered a person? Or are we going to have to wait for thousands of AIs? When thinking of ETs, we are thinking of either those that visit us by spaceship or that have a technological civilization. However, what about the Borg? The collective has self-awareness, but the "being" as in individual Borg?

Is that any different than Hitler, Stalin, or serial killers? It's still the same question, Sisyphus: when do we decide that another species qualifies as being sentient, technological, and having the same rights and obligations we humans have toward each other? Sentience and technological does not = peaceful among individual humans. Self-defense against fellow humans is accepted as ethical. Therefore why would not self-defense against orcs or balrogs be accepted as ethical if we extend "personhood" to cover them?

Sisyphus, do you have a problem with this statement of mine: "Nearly all the different versions of theology have no problem with evolution and many embrace it." Do you think that theism rejects evolution or would you like theism to reject evolution?

Yourdad, this is the science forums. It's not enough to try to make fun of me. What you must do is show where my analysis is wrong. Remember my thesis: simply naming yourself as "Christian" is not sufficient to qualify. Just as naming yourself "cosmologist", "surgeon", or "quaterback" does not make you one. People can deceptively name themselves something. In WWII in Norway, Quisling and his colleagues called themselves "patriots" and said they were acting for Norway. They weren't either.

Sisyphus, I am not adding anything. I am merely stating what Fundamentalism adds, in the words of Fundamentalists. What you are saying is that acceptance of the core statements in the creeds-- God created, Jesus as God, resurrection of the dead, and life everlasting -- makes one a Christian no matter what else they believe. This does not follow and historically is not true. For instance, Mormons believe all that but are not part of Christianity. The same applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. The reason, of course, is that both have added to Christianity. Both add revelation not accepted as valid by Christianity. JWs, of course, are also Fundamentalists. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds say nothing about a literal inerrant Bible or how God created. They merely state that God created. Fundamentalism has several statements -- the Five Fundamentals -- found in the series of pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals (published between 1900 and 1910). http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm The key belief in Fundamentalism is the inerrancy of scripture (the Bible). Francis Bacon saw the inevitable result of doing that: a heretical religion (and thus no longer Christianity): "For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science] on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm Eventually, this insistence on inerrancy ended up in denial of the Creator becoming Jesus -- one of the essentials you mentioned for Christianity came to the surface at the 1982 Arkansas trial over teaching YEC: "In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence." It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions. The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82. So, we have a new religion -- Fundamentalism. It calls itself "Christian" but 1. It has beliefs not included withing Christianity. 2. It denies essential beliefs held by Christianity. Satisfying both of these criteria means that Fundamentalism is not Christianity, despite the attempt to use the name and some of the beliefs.

What I am saying is that we have a new religion that calls itself "Christian" but isn't. I am using the reality, not the "self-identify". I am saying that many of those that "self-identify" are not actually Christians. I am using the definition of Christian found in the Apostles and Nicean Creeds. Fundamentalists have a different set of criteria. Most importantly, Fundamentalism requires a literal, inerrant Bible. That is NOT in either of the foundational creeds in Christianity and it amounts to worship of a false idol -- a literal inerrant Bible being the false idol. Thus, Fundamentalism is a huge problem for Christianity, because it amounts to a Fifth Column subversion of Christianity. But this is the science forums. In a way, science faces its own Fifth Column in those attempting to have science = atheism. The mistaken synedoche of having Fundamentalism stand for all of Christianity and all of theism is part of that Fifth Column effort. A way to fight those who attempt to make Fundamentalism all of Christianity or all of "theology", as the poster I responded to did, is to point out that Fundamentalism is NOT either of those. It's one way to avoid screwing up science by the attempt to pit science against religion. Or rather, by making science be atheism and falsely involving science in the theism vs atheism battle. In my very strong opinion, the books Science Held Hostage, Science and Religion, Genesis and Geology and The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence should be required reading for all of those engaged in the interface between science and religon.

Your reasons are reasonable and well-stated. However, they are based upon some false premises about how evolution works and what we already know. 1. Animal species almost never arise from hybridization. Hybrid speciation does happen in plants, because the male gametes (pollen) are simply cast to the winds (or carriers) and can land in the female receptacles of any other species. However, for animals the male sperm is usually deposited in a specific female by genitals specific for the task. And to make sure that the sperm is in that female only. Such is certainly the case among primates. Speciation in animals has been extensively studied and arises from allopatric or sympatric speciation -- isolation of a small group from the rest of the species, either by geography or lifestyle, and then transformation of the group into a new species by natural selection. I know of only one paper trying to document hybridization as a method of speciation in animals, and that was in snails: 3. "Unscrambling Time in the Fossil Record" Science vol 274, pg 1842, Dec 13, 1996. The primary article is by GA Goodfriend and SJ Gould "Paleontolgy and Chronolgy of Two evolutionary Transitions by Hybridization in the Bahamian Land Snail Cerion", pgs 1894-1897. We know from the fossil record and the genomes that hominids did NOT result from hybridization. 2. So what the cross-breeding study tells you is how far the species of chimp and human have diverged from their common ancestor. Speciation in sexually reproducing species is reproductive isolation. That comes in steps and the last step is genetic incompatibility. The species have stopped mating with each other long before that -- they have become separate species long before there is genetic incompatibility. Donkeys and horses are close to the common ancestor in that they will voluntarily mate and produce mules or hinneys. Mate selection is a very important part of reproductive isolation. However, humans and chimps are separated by at least a dozen speciation events from the common ancestor and do NOT mate voluntarily. Chimps don't court humans and humans don't try to court chimps. This is implicit in the OP's premise that the hybridization will be done thru artificial insemination. So ... the ability to form a blastocyst will answer the only question that is evolutionarily relevant: are chimps and humans as close as donkeys and horses or are they farther apart? Having the hybrid come to adulthood doesn't provide you with any more information about evolution. Just like adult mules don't tell you anything more about evolution than fetal mules. The genetic comparison should tell you if the hybrid is non-fertile. 3. If you want to do hybrid studies within primates, then you don't need the human-chimp hybrid! You can do "feasibility" studies by hybridizing the 2 chimp species, chimps vs orangutuans, orang vs gorillas, chimp vs gorilla, etc. 4. Maturity doesn't tell you anything about evolution. It will tell you something about the traits from each species a hybrid will have. 5. The essential ethical question to put to you is: is the hybrid to be considered legally human and covered by the Constitution and civil rights laws or is it an animal? You need to decide this before you create the hybrid. In fact, the decision isn't totally yours to make. We as a society need to decide. After all, if we consider the hybrid human but you don't, then you are going to be in huge trouble for not treating him/her as you would a fellow human.

1. You start with a false premise: that science and evolution is in opposition to theology. Christianity welcomed evolution because it got God out of a very tight spot that special creation put Him into. In fact, Christians accepted evolution quicker than scientists! By 1884 -- just 25 years after the famous Huxley-Wilberforce debate -- the new Archbisop of Canterbury announced the acceptance of evolution and it did not cause a stir. It took the Modern Syntheis in the 1940s before evolution became universally accepted in science. 2. Christians look upon evolution as simply the way God created. Christianity also accepts that God has two books: the Bible and Creation. Science studies the second book, Creation. So all the evidence in this thread on the common ancestry of humans and apes, of which the sequence of transitional fossils in the hominid lineage which I posted earlier is part, is simply God shouting "I did it by evolution!" 3. So what we have is not science vs theology. What we have is science vs worship of a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is not science vs theology in general, but science vs a very specific religion -- Fundamentalism. The Fundamentalists are very loud and try to portray themselves as Christianity and even all of theism, but they are not. If we are going to be reasonable, rational critical thinkers, then we must analyze creationism and the religion of which it is a part and realize what it really is, not just what they claim. I realize that for people like you it is tempting to try to make Fundamentalism be all of theism -- because that is the only way you can show it to be "feasible and most likely he [God] dose not" exist, but you must resist the temptation. If you are going to claim to deal with reality, then you must deal with the reality that Fundamentalism is not Christian and is certainly not all of "theology". Nearly all the different versions of theology have no problem with evolution and many embrace it. 3. Evolution is NOT "another abiogenesis theory". Absolutely not. Here you get the science very badly wrong. All scientific theories have boundaries and assume the existence of some entities. Gravity assumes the existence of mass. First Law of Thermodynamics assumes the existence of the universe. Evolution assumes the existence of the first cell or life. So, evolution does NOT explain abiogenesis. Those are other theories and lie within chemistry and biochemistry, not evolution. Also, evolution is NOT "spontaneous generation". Neither is abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation is a very specific theory that says complex, multicelled organisms arise spontaneously from dead or decaying organic matter -- mice from grain and maggots from rotting meat. Abiogenesis is life from matter that has never lived.

Have liberals ever done this? OTOH, we have seen the introduction of several laws by conservatives trying to overturn the facts of science. Look at all the attempts to get Flood Geology taught as valid, or young earth taught as valid. I know of a law conservatives passed in Illinois stating "the value of pi = 3.0" because this is what is stated in the Bible. I also know of a law in Iowa passed by conservatives that says "sucrose shall not be diluted by the substance glucose". That's an assertion without evidence. I'd like to see some evidence, please. Please demonstrate particular traits of liberalism and exactly how they are incompatible with science. Thank you. And yet the OP did just that, didn't it? However, your statement says nothing about "scientists in general". You only said that they "covered the spectrum". What you need is to plot the number of scientists on the y -axis vs a continuum of conservative to liberal on the x-axis and see what the curve looks like. You could have a skewed curve where the bulk of scientists are on the liberal side of the x-axis but that there is a long narrow tail leading to the ultra-conservative side of the x-axis.

Because I didn't say what you say I said. I never said what is in capital letters. It's stranage that you made that mistake, because you had the quote from me right above it: "Originally Posted by lucaspa Yes, the study did indirectly indicate that conservatism may be inherently flawed. For one, it results in traits -- such as intolerance -- that are contradictory to one of the major ethical bases of conservatism; in this case Christianity." let me use caps also: "MAY BE INHERENTLY FLAWED". "INDIRECTLY INDICATE". Nowhere did I say "proved". The study did what I said it did, but nothing further. I did point out that the resultant traits the paper talked about were contradictory to Christianity and that Christianity is claimed -- by conservatives -- to be the major ethical basis of conservativism. Therefore, by pure logic, if conservativism leads to traits contrary to Christianity, conservatism is flawed because it is internally inconsistent. Because what is being discussed is NOT "conservatives are flawed" but what a particular paper said. Did the particular paper demonstrate what people claimed the paper demonstrated? THAT is the issue. A separate issue is whether the paper is accurate in its assessment of the outcome of conservativism. In order to assess THAT, we need to read the paper in detail. I have not done so. Have you?

You still miss the point: the "struggle for existence" is a metaphorical struggle, not a direct, beat your opponent to death competition. Instead, it is a struggle with the environment and scarce resources. Plants in a desert are struggling with the lack of water. That struggle does not involve one plant stealing water from another. Instead, it involves an individual having adaptations to either 1) obtain more water or 2) use it more efficiently. In many environments, cooperation benefits the individual. For dolphins, for instance, cooperating to drive away sharks improves everyone's survival. Yes, humans fight, but they also cooperate. Cooperation within the group is more advantageous than fighting between members. Cooperation between groups is also beneficial. Most "fights" between members of the species are ones of display, not actual violence. Because violence itself carries too much risk and the individual that regularly resorts to violence is going to become injured -- which lowers survival. I've read the 4 pages. Please be specific about the posts you think make the link between capitalism and natural selection valid. No, it is the synonym. Back to Darwin. Title of Chapter IV of the 6th edition of Origin of Species: "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" 1. The First Ammendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" No "endorse" there at all. 2. Theism is most certainly a religion. Having "God" on the currency is government "establishing" a religion -- theism. And remember I'm a theist. In 1798 atheism was not a rational faith -- because the Argument from Design was unanswerable. Therefore atheism was not considered by the Founding Fathers. People could say "God" on the currency because, in effect, there were no atheists. The distinction, or "establishment", was between different versions of theism. However, when Darwin removed the Argument from Design by the discovery of natural selection, atheism became a rational faith. So now, instead of different versions of theism, we also have the faith of atheism. And for government to promote theism -- by the currency -- is against the First Ammendment. You blasted the validity of the study based SOLELY on the "intolerance ... of liberalism". That's an invalid way to critique a scientific study. In order to cry "intolerance" or "bias" in a scientific study, you must demonstrate that the methods used were wrong. To do that, you must read the Methods section. There are ways to remove personal bias from a study. So, since you have not read the Methods section, you have no valid way to say there is "intolerance" in the study. You can't dismiss the data that way. "Liberalism" may be as intolerant as you say, but that does not mean the study was invalid, or even that the researchers were liberals! You just really don't want to look at the data, do you? If you take the papers in Science and Nature for the past 5 years, the total pages will be less than an average novel. So you will need a couple of evenings or so. Read Dak's post. NO, they are not arguing. Yes, you let the experts do the heavy lifting of the actual studies; you only have to read about them. And that takes a lot less work. Enough less work that you can, with very little effort, read a good deal of the relevant literature. 1. You admit you have prejudices, not data. 2. I am not dismissing you, but analyzing your behavior. My "facts" are what you write in your post. Specifically, it is the continued refusal to go look at the data while simultaneously maintaining that the facts to warrant a conclusion of GW are not there. You claim the facts are not there, but refuse to go look at the facts. You said "I see religion in these things when the believers depend on faith for one, and are unmoved by contrary facts or two." You are unmoved by contrary facts. So unmoved you won't even LOOK at the contrary facts. So, by your own definition, your rejection of GW is religion. You may not like the conclusion, but the logic is straightforward. If you want to change my conclusion, then you need to present me with "contrary facts or two" You haven't done that. Yes, models are empirical. They are generated from empirical data and are continually refined by empirical data. You walked in the door with your mind made up about GW. When Bascule and I try to tell you about empirical data, you refuse to look at it. We are basing our conclusions on data. You are basing yours what you admit is your "prejudice". Remember the claims. Always remember the claims. The original claim (by me) that one reason scientists like government is that government provides the basic research money. Someone else claimed that corporations fund basic research. My counter to that was that the basic stuff is done in academic labs and, only when a profit can be seen, do companies come in. The relevance here is that the private sector only invests in SOME research. And that most scientists do research that the private sector will not fund. It's OK that the private sector makes a profit. But the very fact that the private sector MUST make a profit limits the type of research they fund, particularly when the private sector is a public corporation. Corporations have to pay dividends, otherwise the stockholders invest their money in a company that will pay higher dividends. And really basic research does not pay profits, or, if they do, it is 10 or 20 or 30 years down the road. Stockholders won't wait that long. The private sector funds research directly geared to a product that they can sell for profit. They aren't going to go looking for possible adult stem cells or the role of p53 in cancer. Once some researcher funded by the government (or non-profit) discovers adult stem cells or that p53 plays a key role in cancer, THEN corporations may pay for research to use adult stem cells to regenerate tissue or ways to modify p53 as a means of treating cancer. Geared to product. And profit. But by running a business you are making your property public. You are inviting in the public, are you not? ALL the public. Not just a few friends and/or neighbors who agree to accept the risk, but EVERYONE because you want to sell to everyone so that you can make that profit. So, just as I have a reasonable right to expect that, when I walk into a public bar, that the owner is NOT releasing low levels of mustard gas and poisoning me, I also have the right to expect that I can buy a drink without being poisoned by cigarrette smoke. The premise here is that the "state of affairs" is not conclusive evidence. But the premise is wrong. ALL I have been doing is saying that there is conclusive evidence. In my case, there are no "contrary facts or two". Therefore my position, by your own definition, cannot be "religion". By the time you detect the smoke -- thru your sense of smell -- you have already gotten some of it in your lungs! Think about it. Put this in terms of mustard gas. By the time you smell the mustard gas, it is already in your system. Yes, if enough people refuse to go to an establishment, it is out of business. We could do the same with a business that releases small amounts of mustard gas. But that is illegal, isn't it? WHY? Because it is a poison. Well, cigarette smoke is also a poison. So far we have been able to ignore that because 1) a lot of people like smoking and 2) it was not known that second hand smoke is a poison and 3) the smoke has been able to be diluted. Well, you could claim that the mustard gas is diluted, too! BUT, once a substance has been recognized as a poison, your right to release it so that it can affect other people ends. There has been outrage! Why do you think we have catalytic converters to cut down on that pollution?! Why do you think we have laws on emission controls? And which party is fighting it? The Republicans and conservatives. Isn't that in your interest? After all, if the company is run badly and goes bankrupt, your wages and benefits end. And wages and benefits were about how the company was run, wasn't it? Isn't that telling the company how much they have to pay their workers? As I remember what I learned in history, when employees did start agitating for higher wages and benefits or safety, the companies did say "Get another job if you don't like it but don't force your views on me". In some cases over mine safety, the companies even got the government to send in troops to prevent the workers from "forcing their views". And here your breakdown shows that you wouldn't have the wages or benefits you do if the "principle" you are espousing had been held to. Because no one would have "forced" companies to include health benefits or safe working conditions. What you are arguing is not the principle -- you agree that employers have the right to attempt to force the company to change -- but this particular application of the principle. You don't think this particular issue should be forced on the company. You may be right. I don't know enough about this particular issue to judge. But I do know that employees do have the right to use pressure to get the company to change policies and how the company is run: lunch hours, work hours, wages, benefits, etc. You are the beneficiary of generations of workers doing what you say should not be done! I think the word for that is "hypocrisy".

And what does the transistor do? It replaces tubes. So yes, the research always had a product in mind: the replacement of tubes. Same with the single-chip CPU. Up until then computers were huge things with lots of circuits. Put all those circuits on a small chip and you have a new product! The only example of basic research in industry I can think of were the discovery by 2 Bell Lab employees of the cosmic microwave background radiation. And even that was incidental to looking at possible interference with radio and trying to improve reception. Nobody said it was "effective". Just that SBIR is geared to initial studies in basic science that, otherwise, the company would not do. Not that I know of. They are small start-up companies that use the SBIR grants to supplement venture capital. Especially Phase I SBIR's are geared to small, exploratory programs to try to do "proof of principle" experiments. That makes sense. Application for phase II is done after feasibility has been demonstrated with phase I. So all the phase I's that fail are never submitted for phase II! These are NOT "contracts". SBIR is for research, not meeting a contract to supply X number of widgets. And you have demonstrated that SBIRs are doing the same thing. Much of the phase I research goes nowhere and therefore a phase II is never submitted. With a smaller pool of applicants for phase II, it is no wonder that 40% of that pool are awarded funds.

Why would you like this better than doing in vitro fertilization and then killing the embryo at the blastocyst stage? Or why would you like the full term hybrid over comparing the DNA sequences of the genes responsible for hybrid fertility? Either or both might answer the question of whether a human/chimp hybrid is possible without having to actually make a full term organism.

Who are you referring to? Behe? And what is God not asserting to the contrary?

OK, fair enough. The way it was being used was what you are calling "genetic chimerism". If you mean xenogenic organs, then the developing consensus seems to be: if the CNS is human, then the organism is human. I say this because notice people that have artificial implants, such as total hips and knees. Also notice people that have prosthetics for amputated limbs. Technically, these are "cyborgs" because they are part human, part machine. BUT, as long as the brain and spinal cord is original, no one is raising a question. But please note the recent furor over the "face transplant" in France. A large part of that furor was that the host would have the donor's "face" and thus, somewhat the donor's "identitity". Apparently we associate our "personhood" partly in our unique face. Now, what happens when the genome is partly from H. sapiens and partly from other species? Instead of individual organs, you are talking about the entire organism. What is it? Is it H. sapiens or something else? Fused human genomes or extra genes on a chromosome don't present an ethical problem. After all, all the genes are from H. sapiens. And we can see that we have a single "organism" or "person". Now that I think of it, what about multiple personalities? The current treatment has been to "integrate" them all back into a single personality. But in the process some of the personalities are "killed". I remember reading about at least one case where the personality involved looked at it that way. Actually, the title of the board is "biomedical ethics". However, this discussion isn't in the area traditionally encompassed by biomedical ethics. Biomedical ethics are concerned about such things as: protection of rights for human research subjects, medical malpractice and incompetence, patient rights, etc. Biomedical ethics involves the ethics of treatment of persons by the medical and biological professions. It traditionally doesn't define "person". Even so, discussion of biomedical ethics, by its very nature, should involve ethicists. It is not pure science. This is the same issue as extraterrestrials or artificial intelligence. Just under a different name. The issue is the same: a sentient and technologically capable species that is not H. sapiens. Or a machine (the car in chitty-chitty-bang-bang or Herbie or Data) that is self aware and possesses an intelligence similar to humans. Do we extend "rights" to them and have the obligations toward them that we do to members of H. sapiens?

Hasn't anyone told you that Wikipedia is NOT a scholarly source? "This leads me to say a few words on what I have called sexual selection. This form of selection depends, not on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural selection. ... Thus it is, as I believe, that when the males and females of any animal have the same general habits of life, but differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by sexual selection:" Origin of Species, 6th edition. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 See? Sexual selection is separate from natural selection, not a sub-category. It is included in the chapter entitled "natural selection" but Darwin views it as separate. Define "important". Do you mean "prevalent" or do you mean "responsible for the traits of organisms"? "in most studies of simply morphological polymorphisms, there is evidence, or at least reason to suspect, that the allele frequencies are affected not only by genetic drift, but also by natural selection ... In contrast, many investigators have argued that many biochemical polymorphisms are affected only slightly or not at all by selection -- although this is a very controversial subject (see Chapter 13)" Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg 307. To chapter 13: "Although the neutralist-selectionist debate over molecular evolution is far from resolution, evidence is mounting that selection is a major cause of divergence in DNA sequences among species and variations withing species (Kreitmen and Akashi, 1995). ... For example, even synonymous substitutions that do not alter amino acid sequencs are influenced by weak natural selection. Evidence bearing on the neutralist-selectionist controversy is described in Chapter 22." pg 395 To chapter 22: "The neutral theory is supported by the higher variation and rates of divergence found in sites or sequences with relatively weak functional constraints (or none). However, instances of selection on nucleotide sequences have been suggested by several lines of evidence, including (a) rapid change in experimental populations, (b) higher than expected variation in rates of sequence divergence among lineages, © greater rates of nonsynonymous evolution, (d) convergent evolution of functionally similar proteins, (e) differences in the ratio of synonymous to nonsynonymous substitutions among species compared with varation within species, (f) elevated variation in certain parts of genes, taken to indicate linkage to a balanced polymorphism, (g) reduced variation in regions of the genome with low recombination rates, which might indicate linkage to recently fixed advantageous mutations, and (h) "deep" gene geneologies, including polymorphisms that are older than the species in which they occur." pgs 644-645 (this is a summary of the chapter, much more detail is in the chapter) That's quite a bit of evidence against the neutral theory and its "importance" (= prevalence). Is it possible that you obtained a partisan book and are placing too much emphasis on it? (Kind of like Mamkros and placing emphasis on Milton?) This is why I am referring to textbooks that seek to present the entire picture. It looks like you are basing your statements on one particular group, not "modern scientists" in general. Because Futuyma makes primary references to recent peer-reviewed articles your attempt to gain authority by "modern scientists" is going to work. The other data is just as "modern" and the scientists just as "modern" as the neutralists. This gets us back to the definition of "important". Most of the time in evolution we are concerned with how morphological traits are determined: resistance to disease, origin of flight, fish to amphibian transition, etc. These are the "important" traits -- adaptations. Polymorphisms at the biochemical or base sequence level that do not cause morphological change are less important. For instance, changing the third base in a codon but keeping the same amino acid in the protein is a new allele. And, because the protein is the same, there is no change in the organism. So such an allele is neutral for natural selection -- the "neutralism" in "molecular evolution". So genetic drift may eventually fix the allele or eliminate it. However, at the organismal level there is no change. So how "important" is genetic drift in determining traits? At the molecular level does it happen quite often (prevalent)? How much does it modify an organism for "descent with modification"? BTW, notice that Futuyma cites studies where 3rd base is under selection even tho it does not change the amino acid. I have seen a very recent paper (fall 2006) where such a 3rd base change affected how the protein was folded. It turns out that, since the codon is much less common, it took longer to add the base because of waiting for the correct transfer RNA showing up. This resulted in a different conformation of the protein with new properties -- properties that were beneficial to the cell and selected for (in this case it was a cancer cell and resistance to chemotherapeutic agents). I'll try to find that reference again. So you're basically arguing with me about people you don't know about ? And YES, they are contesting the primacy of natural selection (not the primacy of natural selection when it comes to adaptation, however). But you would have to read what they have to say before saying they have a "stawman" version of neo-Darwinism, it's not the case.

Foodchain, I tried to explain to you about that. In religion, the integrity and character of the person at the head of the religion is necessary for the validity of the religion. Christianity falls apart if Jesus were a pedophile. Judaism falls apart if Moses lied about the Ten Commandments and just jotted them down himself. So creationists are projecting (in the psychological sense) a weakness of religion onto science. If they can attack Darwin's character, then they think that calls evolution into question. The other part -- using specific mistakes Darwin made -- is also projecting. They are treating Darwin as they treat their literal Bible: either Darwin is all right or all wrong. IOW, they are treating Darwin as they would treat the authors of the Bible: (in their minds) if it can be shown that the authors deliberately lied about anything, then everything comes crashing down. They are also making a strawman of evolution by insisting evolution be what Darwin stated. Since some of what Darwin stated is wrong, then if evolution is only that, they can "falsify" evolution. Now, I obviously don't agree with any of these thinking processes of creationists. I am only pointing them out so you can understand them. I find that it helps your ability to discuss a topic rationally if you understand the thought processes of others -- even when those thought processes are in error. If you understand what is going on, it makes it easier to find the errors. Science is not atheism. Evolution is not atheism. It is only possible to equate science with atheism if you make 2 mistakes: 1) use god-of-the-gaps theology and 2) insist that God can only create one particular way and exclude what science discovers as a way to create. Your reason for rejecting ID and creationism is flawed. We reject them because there is evidence against them. I have pointed this out several times: there is scientific evidence for practically ANY idea, if that is all you look for. So yes, there is "evidence for" ID and creationism if you look at that evidence in isolation. There is also evidence for flat earth, phlogiston, and aether if you look at the evidence in isolation. The reason we don't consider these valid theories anymore is not because there is no "evidence for" them, but because we have evidence against them. It is evidence against that trumps. Also, you need to realize that "creation" and "creationism" are 2 different things. Creation is a theological statement "God created". Creationism (and ID is part of creationism) is a particular, specific mechanism by which God created. I mention this because there is a huge number of people, including at least 50% of all evolutionary biologists, who believe that what science discovers, including evolution, is the specific mechanism by which God created. IOW, they believe in creation, but also accept evolution. There you have hit upon a theological problem with ID: they are using god-of-the-gaps theology. They are saying that God can be found in the gaps of scientific knowledge. Christianity rejects god-of-the-gaps and looks upon the processes discovered by science as simply the way God works. Oh boy. Such a complicated subject boiled down to 2 simple assertions! Sorry, Foodchain, but it is much more complicated than that. Science is agnostic: it can't tell you whether God exists or created or not. In fact, science simply can't comment on the existence of God. We as scientists would like to be able to comment, since our knowledge of reality is not complete until we can determine whether deity exists or not. But, using the methods of science, we are simply unable to comment. You define science as "a framework based on a method". In the 19th century scientists and philosophers of science did try to define science that way. It failed, because science is not a method, but uses several different methods. What's more, many of the methods used by science are also used by other disciplines. For instance, science's method is often said to be the hypothetico-deductive method. But both the Documentary Hypothesis in Bible studies and Trinity in theology are the product of the hypothetico-deductive method! Yes, trying to warp the meaning of "theory" to be "wild guess" is one tactic of creationists. Unfortunately, it has led the NAS and other scientists to also mangle the word "theory" and use theory to refer ONLY to currently valid theories. But yes, when people use theory as "wild guess", you know they are arguing theism vs atheism instead of evolution. Another way you can tell they are arguing theism vs atheism is when they include abiogenesis as part of evolution. Because gravity doesn't threaten a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. The creationist attack against science is based on bad theology and bad logic. The bad theology is that creationists don't worship God anymore, but worship a literal Bible. Thus they are guilty of false idol worship. The bad logic is: God must create by a literal Genesis 1-3 or God does not exist and does not create. Thus, science threatens statements of ultimate meaning for creationists. Please note that Christians are NOT threatened by evolution. And, in fact, it is Christians that have led the fight against teaching creationism in public schools! Christians read Genesis 1-3 for the theology that is there, and the theology is not threatened by evolution. As one prominent Christian theologian stated: "Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68. In fact, if you look from the period 1860-1890, you see Christians looking on evolution as a savior from the problems posed by special creation! That there is some vast atheistic conspiracy to support evolution is one of the ways creationists try to get rid of data they don't like. The answer to this is that young earth creationism was the accepted scientific theory up to 1831. It was scientists, all of whom were Christians and many of whom were ministers, that showed it to be wrong. The idea of special creation remained the accepted scientific theory until 1860. However, scientists who were Christians were showing flaws in the theory between 1831-1860. Then Darwin (who was a devout theist in 1859) and other Christian scientists (Hooker, Gray, etc) showed that special creation was wrong. So, how can there be a "conspiracy" if the adherents of creationism are the ones that showed it to be wrong? (remember, Darwin started out the voyage of the Beagle as a creationist) "shattering Darwinism" means disproving atheism. Remember, when creationists say "Darwinism", they mean atheism. To do that means, in the minds of creationists, disproving evolution. You need a bit more history to understand what is going on. Prior to 1859 the Argument from Design was valid as "proof" of the existence of God. It is obvious that living organisms have designs: legs for running, fins for swimming, lungs for breathing, hands for manipulating, etc. Before 1859, the only viable theory for getting designs was to have them manufactured by an intelligent entity. That's how human designs are made, afterall. So what intelligent entity could there be that could make plants and animals? Only God. Darwin discovered an unintelligent process that gives design: natural selection. Suddenly the Argument of Design as "proof" of the existence of God was invalid. Notice that God was not invalid, but the "proof" was invalid. Plants and animals are designed by natural selection, not manufactured directly by God. What creationists want to do by disproving evolution is to get the Argument from Design back. That's why ID says that irreducible complexity and complex specified information cannot be made by natural selection. The implication is that they must be made directly by an intelligent entity (God). "shattering Darwinism", if you mean the scientific theory of evolution, is a wish. A fantasy on the part of creationists. If you mean (like creationists should mean) atheism, then creationists are fighting the wrong battle on the wrong battlefield. Arguing against individual scientific theories is not the way to argue against atheism. First, biology isn't the only discipline attacked by creationism. Geology, physics, and cosmology also get their share of attacks. So someone else has the pain, too. Second, there was data that, if found, would have refuted Darwinism. Darwin himself named a couple that would have falsified natural selection. Here is one: "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501. There were considerable possibilities to falsify common ancestry. All of them but one have been tested and have NOT falsified common ancestry or "evolution as such". That one is finding mammalian fossils in Cambrian or pre-Cambrian rock. If such were found, they would constitute a "shattering" of Darwinism. My strong opinion is that, for the healthy future of science (and religion), we do have to talk about it and endure the emotional responses. Otherwise creationists simply reinforce each other with their falsehoods.

You temporarilly closed a the chimp-hybrid thread and stated you had to discuss "with the other moderators". Only mods can close threads, right? Did you misstate about the consultation ?

Sorry, but yes, sexual selection as used by Darwin was different from natural selection. It is the preference of the females, not for traits that help survival. Darwin's example was the male peacock. That huge tail does not help the peacock earn a living; it is there solely (as Darwin saw it) because the females demand it for them to mate. Within the past 20 years, there have been several papers showing that sexual selection is linked to adaptive traits. But that's over 100 years after the 6th edition of Origin. I never said Darwin discovered it. I simply said that Darwin used it as a mechanism of evolution. And Darwin does so in Origin of Species, particularly Chapter 6 of the first edition. So, if Darwinism is solely natural selection as a mechanism for evolution (as you implied), then Darwin can't be a "Darwinist". My logic is that any definition of Darwinism that excludes Darwin can't be correct. If this is the case, then everyone on your list is also a Darwinist. Because if Darwinism doesn't exclude those who think there are other mechanisms, then the people on your list are included. All of them think that natural selection operates. Remember those 5 theories of Darwin's. Remember that 2 of them are "evolution as such" and another is "common ancestry". It is why Mayr and others use Darwinism as synonymous with "evolution as a whole". Even the list of people that you cite does not argue against those 2 theories. They are arguing, if they actually do such, against the primacy of natural selection, and I don't even think they do this. Instead, they have a strawman version of neo-Darwinism that they are arguing against. So, they may not be "neo-Darwinists" (although I think they do accept the Modern Synthesis) but they are Darwinists. Because .... nothing else produces adaptations. So considering drift isn't going to get them anywhere, because drift cannot produce adaptations. Futuyma doesn't use "neo-Darwinism". He refers to the Modern Synthesis. It's not "beyond". The Modern Synthesis still works, because no one is discarding the heart of the Modern Synthesis: the application of Mendelian genetics to natural selection. What we have are 1) the argument that not all traits of an organism are due to natural selection, 2) other mechanisms for variation than simple mutations in single alleles -- such as evo-devo and endosymbiosis, and 3) arguments against the strawman version that the Modern Synthesis requires minute changes in single alleles. Then object to the erroneous implication! Don't try to change the meaning of "Darwinism"! As the glossary from Ridley's book states, Darwinism does not mean that evolution is natural selection. Don't let the creationists set the terms of the debate! Fight for the correct use of the term "Darwinism". Darwinism is neither atheism nor solely natural selection. It is evolution as such and commmon ancestry. No, drift is still unimportant. Because for drift to have a fighting chance of fixing an allele, the population has to be under 50 at most. Even at 10 the odds of fixation are not good. Also, if the population is over 10,000, the time it would take for an allele to be fixed is too long. We've done this in other threads. That you are still arguing that genetic drift is "how important" shows that even you won't accept data that you don't like and will keep repeating falsified claims. Most importantly, drift doesn't give you the designs in living organisms. It gives you irrelevant characteristics. Gee, I'm sure the NAS is thrilled to have your seal of approval! They can get a good night's sleep now because they don't have to worry that Phil would reject their definition. Phil, of course the definition is fine. The question was whether YOUR definition was "fine". Unfortunately for your argument, that definition is Darwinism!

Read the posts again. Has anyone expressed the idea that humans HAVE a unique standing in the world? And chimps. And possibly whales and dolphins. From sign language, we know chimps have the ability to "speak" and from their actions we know they have some aspects of cognitive thought equal to our own: 9. E Linden, Can animals think? Time 154: 57-60, Sept 6, 1999. The prison breaks described in that article are as innovative as anything humans have done. In the case of whales and dolphins, there is no language in common, so we have no idea whether they can "speak". Certainly the vocalizations are very complex. Not a thing. It doesn't address the issue of God at all. It does address the issue of whether we evolved. IF chimps and humans can produce a viable hybrid -- like donkeys and horses -- then it is more evidence that we are evolutionarily related. In terms of creationist thinking, it would be "proof" that we were not specially created. But that says nothing about God, only another refutation of creationism. Sorry, but it's not. Because 1) God doesn't have to be "infallible" to be God. If you read Genesis 2 - 4 literally, God isn't infallible to begin with! After all, He makes 2 huge mistakes, first with Adam and Eve and then with Cain and Abel. Mistakes that no human parent or grandparent would make. 2) IF you had actually been reading the thread -- which you obviously haven't -- you would see that God is NEVER mentioned by Phil or I. Why not? Because our objections don't involve Him. Read what is there and don't project your own fantasies into what we write, please. 3) It's not about pride. Everyone raising objections to the experiment already accepts evolution. So there is no pride that we are specially created involved. There is concern about the rights of the individual and the health of the females involved. However, no one has addressed my alternative experiments! I wonder why not? Both sidestep the ethical issues involved yet still investigate the question of whether chimps and humans can produce a hybrid. It would seem that the pro-hybrid crowd isn't really interested in the question, but in flouting ethics.

I second Phil here: what repercussions? This isn't about people, but about the ideas. So there are no repercussions to the people. The idea of making a hybrid between chimp and human could easily be criticized, and that is what I think you mean by "repercussion". Your post only reinforces the suspicion that you do not want the idea exposed to critical examination. And there is room for critical examination. For starters, there is Lordmagnus' assertion that there are "antibodies" in the semen that would prevent fertilization. False. The problem would be antigens on the sperm that would cause the female to produce antibodies against the sperm. http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/3/405 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7530441&dopt=Abstract There can be antibodies in sperm, but these are against the sperm itself and cause interspecies infertility: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22antibodies+in+semen%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

You never told us what the "theory of evolution" is. If you apply the term "Darwinism" to mean evolution by natural selection, but exclude people who think there are other mechanisms of evolution than natural selectio, then even Darwin is excluded! If you read Origin of Species and Darwin's other work, you see that Darwin also included sexual selection and inheritance of acquired characterists as mechanisms of evolution. So even Darwin thought that natural selection is only one of the mechanisms of evolution and that natural selection was just part of the theory. Surely any definition of "Darwinism" that excludes Darwin can't be correct.

I don't think so. The hot water is because some people try to deny everything creationists say, instead of thinking about the consequences to science. In this case, since creationists say "Darwinism", then they try to separate Darwinism from evolution. Instead, as I read the literature (see below), those accepting evolution use Darwinism and evolution (biological) as meaning the same thing. I still maintain that creationists use Darwinism and Darwinist as synonyms for atheist. Some creationists will try to look only at what Darwin said. However, creationism as a whole has engaged the Modern Synthesis, which discusses mutation as a source of variation, with the claim that "all mutations are harmful". We saw that with Milton's book. Darwin didn't discuss mutations because he didn't know about them. Creationists also engage the "information" in DNA and some studies on natural selection. Again, Darwin didn't know about DNA so they can't be engaging him! The studies creationists look at are the Galapagos finches study by the Grants and the peppered moth. Neither were known to Darwin. In fact, of Wells' Icons of Evolution, none of them have anything to do with Darwin, as I recall. Sometimes, yes, creationists focus on Darwin alone and ignore recent data. Both of us have seen that tactic. But they also engage more recent data. Again, you need to check to see if the "Darwinism" is being used as a synonym for atheism. Even if you are atheist, you must disagree. Science is agnostic, not atheist. 1. The problem Darwinism poses for some (not all) non-Christian theists (i.e. Fundamentalists) is that it negates the Argument from Design. When Darwin discovered an unintelligent process that gives designs -- natural selection -- it meant that the Argument from Design was no longer a "proof" of the existence of deity. Creationists reason that if they get rid of natural selection then the Argument from Design becomes valid again. That is the whole point of Behe's Darwin's Black Box and Dembski's Complex Specified Information. Natural selection supposedly can't produce either irreducible complexity or CSI, so therefore they have to be "designed". 2. Creationists tend to equate evolution as meaning "God did not do it". I.e. atheism. What creationists have done is two things: a) made a literal Bible their god. b) made a tragic logical mistake and said "if God did not create using creationism, then God did not create and does not exist." You can easily see the non-sequitor here. Now, I've been looking at my textbooks in evolutionary biology. I have Mayr's What Evolution IS, Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, and Ridley's Evolution. The last 2 are common college-level textbooks. Both use Darwinism = evolution and Darwinist/Darwinian = evolutionist. They switch back and forth between the terms. For instance, "Darwinism" is listed 7 times in the index in Evolution. When I go to those pages I often don't actually see the word "Darwinism". Instead, I see discussion of evolution. One exception is page 15 where Ridley states "The reconciliation between Mendelism and Darwinism soon inspired new genetical research in both the field and laboratory". In the preceding pages, he had simply been talking about "evolution". Mayr uses Darwinism and evolution as synonyms. Pages 275 and 277 are part of a section entitled "Short Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Evolution". First page 275 "3. What is the Darwinian theory This is the wrong question. In On the Origin of Species and his later publications, Darwin advanced numerous theories among which five are most important (see Chapter 4). Two of them, evolution as such and the theory of common descent, were accepted by biologists within a few years of the publication of Origin in 1859 (see Box 5.1). This was the first Darwinian revolution. The other three theories, gradualism, speciation, and natural selection, were widely accepted only much later, during the time of the evolutionary synthesis in the 1940s. This was the second Darwinian revolution." On page 277 "6. Is Darwinism an unalterable dogma? All theories of science, including Darwinism, are vulnerable to rejection if they are falsified. ... There are numerous cases in evolutionary literature of provisional evolutionary theories that were eventually rejected. The belief that a gene can be the direct object of selection is one such refuted theory. The formerly widely accepted theories of transmutationism and transformationism were also rejected." "9. Have the molecular discoveries required a change of the Darwinian paradigm? Molecular biology has made great contributions to our understanding of the evolutionary process. However, the basic Darwinian concepts of variation and selection were not affected in any way. Not even replacement of proteins by nucleic acids as the carriers of genetic information required a change in evolutionary theory. Indeed, an understanding of the nature of genetic variation has contributed greatly to strengthening Darwinism. For instance, it confirmed the finding of the geneticists that an inheritance of acquired characters is impossible. Also, the use of molecular evidence when added to the morphological evidence has led to the solution of many phylogentic puzzles." Ah, I just looked in the Glossary of Ridley's Evolution. "Darwinism: Darwin's theory that species originated by evolution from other species and that evolution is mainly driven by natural selection." The people in Phil's list agree with the first part about the origin of species. So, even at the worst, they are "half" Darwinists. Now, Darwin is typically hated by creationists. My opinion is that this is a projection of a weakness of religion onto science. In religion, if you destroy the character of person doing the revelation, then you destroy the revelation. We can see this operating in modern religion in the scandals of the clergy. The Catholic Church is suffering a crisis of confidence in their theology due to the pedophilia of some priests. Fundamentalism has taken a hit with the discovery that two prominent Colorado ministers had gay affairs. So creationists project this onto evolution: destroy Darwin's character and they think they can destroy evolution. They don't understand that, in science, the idea or theory is separate from the personal character of the person who proposed it. Darwin could be another Adolf Hitler (actually, Darwin's character is exemplary) and it wouldn't matter. But some creationists think that, if they can link Darwin to supporting racism, sexism, plagiarism, etc, then that will call Darwinism into question.