Four points:

1. “If that is the case [that Darwin lied] then what shall we say of the theological, philosophical and political perspectives that inform the views of historians and do they render the implied objectivity of their critiques equally fictional?”

We shall say two things, Seversky: 1) in many (if not most) cases the theological, philosophical and political perspectives flowed from the science after the research not into it before the research. Darwin’s problem was that he attempted to craft an all-explanatory theory that would support his positivistic assumptions. In short, the “science” was a veneer to cover his metaphyical commitments (order is everything), most others, unlike Darwin, are willing to admit that their science has certain implications along these lines, some, like Wallace, take considerable time to explain precisely what aspects of their science suggest a grander metaphyic to them; and 2) the mere fact that Darwin was disingenuous in revealing the metaphyical underpinnings of his “science” should not impugn the objectivity of all inquiry as you imply, that’s simply a nonsequitur and a category mistake.

2. “Yes, it [Darwin's theory] was proposed as a scientific theory. It was intended to explain how life on Earth had diversified and spread after it had appeared. It said nothing about theology or morality because that was not its purpose.”

If you honestly think that Darwin’s Descent of Man (the second book covering his “one long argument”)has nothing to say on theology or morality, you really need to read it again!

3. Your third comment implies that Gruber, a psychologist, is not himself a scientist; a curious claim indeed. As for “the discrepancy between Darwin’s notebooks and his formal presentations, that is standard practice in science.” Well, let’s hope not! Gruber wasn’t talking about a reordering or repackaging of data; yes that is INDEED done all the time, but he was saying the methods found in the notebooks didn’t support the methodology he publicly presented to his peers. THAT’S a serious problem. That’s not spin, that’s fact suggested by many others besides me (and not all ID proponents): Gertrude Himmelfarb (1959), Howard Gruber (1974), Stanley Jaki (1988), R. F. Baum (1988), David Stove (1994), Benjaim Wiker (2009).

4. “No one denies that research into the detection of intelligent design, regardless of the nature of the designer, could be a good scientific program.”

Really!? They deny it all the time! Just last week I heard-out of Ken Miller’s own mouth-that research into the detection or detectability of ID had no merit and was programtically illegitimate.

What is quite clear to me is that no amount of evidence, no argument, nothing outlining the obvious discrepancies between Darwin as self-promoted and Darwin as evidenced in the primary resources and in his own actions will be sufficient to convince you that your emperor wears no clothes. And at that point, what more can be said?

So doomsday do you want to try two words instead of just one word?

No.

Are you really arguing that only theologically-acceptable science should be taught in schools?

As in claims like, “an intelligent designer/creator would never have done it this way?”

Some materialists also believe they have conclusive proof for evolution because bacteria can quickly adapt to detoxify new man-made materials, such as nylon, even though it is, once again, just a minor variation within kind, i.e. though the bacteria adapt they still do not demonstrate a gain in fitness over the parent strain once the nylon is consumed (Genetic Entropy). I’m not nearly as impressed with their “stunning” proof as they think I should be. In fact recent research has shown the correct explanation for the nylon-eating enzyme, produced on the plasmids, seems to be a special mechanism which recombines parts of the genes in the plasmids in a way that is non-random. This is shown by the absence of stop codons, which would be generated if the variation were truly random. The non-randomness and “clockwork” repeatability of the adaptation clearly indicates a designed mechanism that fits perfectly within the limited “variation within kind” model of Theism, and stays well within the principle of Genetic Entropy since the parent strain is still more fit for survival once the nylon is consumed from the environment. (Answers In Genesis)

Why Scientists Should NOT Dismiss Intelligent Design – William Dembski
Excerpt: “the nylonase enzyme seems “pre-designed” in the sense that the original DNA sequence was preadapted for frame-shift mutations to occur without destroying the protein-coding potential of the original gene. Indeed, this protein sequence seems designed to be specifically adaptable to novel functions.” http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-design/

In fact almost all “changes” in the genome, which are deemed to be “beneficial”, are now found to be “designed” changes that still stay within the overriding principle of Genetic Entropy:

Revisiting The Central Dogma (Of Evolution) In The 21st Century – James Shapiro – 2008
Excerpt: Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome (not replication errors). (of interest – 12 methods of information transfer in the cell are noted in the paper) http://www.uncommondescent.com.....revisited/

This overriding truth of never being able to violate the Genetic Entropy of poly-constrained information by natural means applies to the “non-living realm” of viruses, such as bird flu and HIV, as well:

Ryan Lucas Kitner, Ph.D. 2006. – Bird Flu
Excerpt: influenza viruses do possess a certain degree of variability; however, the amount of genetic information which a virus can carry is vastly limited, and so are the changes which can be made to its genome before it can no longer function.
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....it-evolved

The virus is far more complex than most people have ever imagined:

Virus – Assembly Of A Nano-Machine – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofd_lgEymto

For materialists to conclusively prove evolution they would have to violate the principle of Genetic Entropy by clearly demonstrating a non-teleological gain of “non-trivial” functional information bits (Fits) over the parent species (Abel – Null-Hypothesis) in a fitness test. Materialists have not done so, nor will they ever. The interrelated complexity for the integrated whole of a life-form simply will not allow the generation of complex functional information to happen in its genome by chance alone. (Sanford, Genetic Entropy 2005)

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Werner Gitt, “In the Beginning was Information”, 1997, p. 106. (Dr. Gitt was the Director at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology) His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published.

etc…etc…etc..

So doomsday do you want to try two words instead of just one word?

bornagain77’s claim was that no evolution had ever been demonstrated, period. You know better than that, so take it up with born.

Well Jistak since we are dealing with science and you have yet to show a single example that violates the fitness test, the question that should be asked is WHY are you insisting evolution is occurring when all examples fall under the principle of Genetic Entropy. Is it unreasonable of me to call a spade a spade? All I ask is that you clearly show me an increase in functional complexity of bacteria that passes the fitness test against the parent strain. I am being fair as can be and you think me an idiot? Why do you not question the ability of evolution to generate functional complexity the same way I do? You should be absolutely giddy with excitement to honestly seek this stuff out fully so that you may know with certainty if nature created you or if God created you! Why do you bluff your evidence instead?

I am sure you will find that all is micro evolution and which is not under any type of dispute. These are stupid claims made by those who do not understand the debate or made in desperation by those who do understand it and know they have no evidence.

bornagain77′s claim was that no evolution had ever been demonstrated, period. You know better than that, so take it up with born.

You make a more specific claim–that all demonstrated instances of evolution are cases of micro evolution, as opposed to macro evolution. May I ask where you draw the line between micro and macro?

1) Darwin developed his theory from a perspective of philosophical positivism that was developed from his very early exposure (at age 17) to radical materialism. In short, the philosophy preceded the science. The alleged “objective” and totally unbiased search for truth based upon his observations of the natural world is a fiction perpetrated in Darwin’s own autobiography.

Is it indeed? So you are saying that Darwin is lying?

If that is the case then what shall we say of the theological, philosophical and political perspectives that inform the views of historians and do they render the implied objectivity of their critiques equally fictional?

2) TEs should at least be alert to the fact that, whether or not they can shoehorn theism into Darwin’s theory, the theory itself was never intended to support it.

Yes, it was proposed as a scientific theory. It was intended to explain how life on Earth had diversified and spread after it had appeared. It said nothing about theology or morality because that was not its purpose.

As for whether it can be accommodated within Christian theology, that is for the Christian concerned. All that need be observed is that, if there is an all-powerful and all-knowing God, it would be presumptuous, to say the least, to tell Him what he can and cannot do.

3) The point isn’t that Darwin was a “bad” man, it’s that he was a bad scientist. Howard Gruber, who has probably studied Drawin’s notebooks more than any scholar, pointed out that “Darwin presented himself in ways that are not supoorted by the evidence of the notebooks.” As Gruber says, “his actual way of working . . . would never have passed muster in a methodological court of inquiry among Darwin’s scientific contemporaries.”

Gruber was a psychologist studying Darwin’s notebooks as part of his research into human creativity.

As for the discrepancy between Darwin’s notebooks and his formal presentations, that is standard practice in science. Research papers and theories are written up in a carefully-organized and highly-stylized format which does not reflect the much more haphazard ways in which human beings actually do such work and is not intended to. In any event, what makes historians or psychologists any better qualified to decide good scientific practice than scientists themselves?

4. Supporters and defenders of Darwinism need to be careful about applying a double standard, accusing ID of not being (in their view) “scientific” on the one hand and dismissing the rather shady methodological development of their own theory. On balance, ID is far more honest and indeed scientific in its approach.

Indeed? May I refer you to the phrase “cdesign proponentsists”?

No one denies that research into the detection of intelligent design, regardless of the nature of the designer, could be a good scientific program. But it is disingenuous, to say the least, to pretend that the religious and political roots of the movement do not exist.

As for trying to spin Darwin’s working habits, probably quite common among scientists, into the “rather shady methodological development” of his theory, that is propaganda rather than history and unworthy.

Seversky at 22, you write “Darwin has been accused here and elsewhere of being an arrogant Imperialist, a racist bigot, a dishonest plagiarist and an incipient eugenicist and it has been argued that his theory is irredeemably tainted by those alleged flaws. Even if we allow that all the foregoing were true, how would it bear on whether or not his theory was an accurate description and explanation of what was observed?”

Well, he was all those things.

No, he was not.

The worst that can be alleged against him is that he was a child of his times, as we all are, and could not help but absorb some of the prejudices of his culture.

Against that, once again, he was a staunch opponent of slavery, for example, which is more than can be said for a substantial body of Christian thought at that time who, according to believers here, ought to have known better.

There is no evidence of plagiarism outside the impregnable prejudices of the conspiracy theorists and even his critics concede he would have been horrified by the excesses of the subsequent eugenics movement.

His theory is tainted for lack of consistent good evidence and for the fact that it is commonly enforced on people who don’t believe it for good reasons by court orders.

There has been a mass of evidence accumulated in support of the theory of evolution in the years since Darwin published it. Simply refusing to look a it does not make it go away. And, even at its weakest, it is still vastly more than exists for Intelligent Design.

As for science education, nobody is being forced by law to believe in the theory of evolution. What is required is that, if you study biology, you should learn about the theory, understand what it claims and the nature of the evidence by which it is supported. If you reject it on theological grounds, that is your choice, but it is a part of the science curriculum because it is a part of the science.

If anyone thinks that is the way to teach science, I am glad if they are not a science teacher.

There was survey of science teachers which found that around a third did not mention evolution in science classes for fear of being bullied by students, parents and even school administrators or because they had actually been bullied.

Are you really arguing that only theologically-acceptable science should be taught in schools?

Are you familiar with the name Trofim Lysenko?