Spin, Spin, Spin - Bad Science Meets Bad Politics

Bad Astronomy has a rant up on Tony Snow (the new White House Press Secretary) and his creationist tendencies. I won't linger on the political implications of having an anti-science advocates in our government, but one quote from Snow is so ridiculous it needs to be pointed out:

These little insights give us the basis for admitting both views into the educational system. Evolutionary theory, like ID, isn't verifiable or testable. It's pure hypothesis -- like ID -- although very popular in the scientific community. Its limits help illuminate the fact that hypotheses are only as durable as the evidence that supports them.

First Snow claims that evolution is not testable, and then he claims it is merely a popular hypothesis. In the scientific parlance, a hypothesis must be testable. If it is not testable, it is not a hypothesis. If Snow believes that evolution is not even testable, then what does that make it?

Regardless of what Snow believes evolution is more than a hypothesis. Evolution has been tested: common descent has been shown using morphological and molecular data; natural selection has been detected in natural populations and replicated in laboratories; populations have evolved in the short time we have observed them; and the fossil record provides an incredible representation of evolution. We are way beyond hypothesis here -- evolution is theory.

For ID to get anywhere close to evolution it needs to present some testable hypotheses. As Phil points out, ID is nothing more than anti-evolution. It's a negative argument. It contributes nothing of substance, only attempting to negate the mountains of evidence against it.

More like this

Ilona of True Grit has replied to my response to her comments left on my blog. This time she is replying on her blog. This is her second reply to me, and I think two things are becoming clear and they are the two reasons why I think she fails to make compelling arguments. First, she has a very…
During his testimony, Michael Behe continually brought up the big bang as being comparable to intelligent design. His intent was to show that some people objected to the big bang because it had religious implications as well, but that didn't mean that the big bang theory wasn't a genuine scientific…
Mark Creech, the head of a group called the Christian Action League of North Carolina, has a pretty typical creationist response to the Clergy Letter Project. In the process, he manages to completely mangle how science operates and misrepresent the relationship between observation and proof. And of…
Red State Rabble has an account of Ken Miller's talk at the University of Kansas. "Creationists," biologist Ken Miller, told a large, receptive audience at the University of Kansas last night, "are shooting at the wrong target." Showing a slide of the cover art of "The Lie," an anti-evolution…

As my patron saint Stephen Colbert referred to him at the White House Correspondents Dinner, get ready for a Snow Job.

The second part of the Peter Principle: A person will appoint to his administration only those who are no more competent than himself.

By Anonymous (not verified) on 12 May 2006 #permalink