The irrelevant “evolution” spin that many science papers seem forced to adopt.
Biology papers are ubiquitously colored by evolutionary interpretation, which can be separated from actual experimental results. Scientists ought to be clear about the difference between the underlying observations and the interpretation layered on them in what they write, and in particular in what they say to the general public. But it is not so.
Now the question becomes which explanation fits the facts. The evolutionary view attributes any observed similarity to evolutionary relatedness, and explains all biological structures as the result of purely natural evolutionary processes. This is the case even for complicated biological apparatus like programmed cell death, the cell cycle system, chromatin remodeling machinery, structures like the nuclear envelope, or for DNA sequences like the Y chromosome MSY (see above). On the other hand, these same structures can be attributed to design. The words used to describe them (apparatus, machinery, system) reveal their similarity to intelligently designed objects.
Life certainly looks designed. Design language unintentionally pervades mainstream papers despite a bias against intelligent design. It’s so noticeable that articles have been written urging scientists to avoid teleological language (that is to say, design language) and use more evolutionary language. In other words, more spin.
Her examples are worth a look. Basically, the story seems to be, shout the “evolution” shout but talk as though design is true And hope that only a fusspot notices.
Note: A researcher who was hostile to design told me many years ago that he would not be allowed to research various projects that interested him if he could not explain to his supervisors how the circumstance arose by Darwinian means.
Garbage in = ?? You smart persons, you do the math to complete the equation, okay?
Follow UD News at Twitter!