More interesting info from my reading - "Scientists Confront Creationism" ed. Petto and Godfrey. a book of essays by various authors.

One. TIA's statement about provisionality appears here. In the form "Though modern creationists refuse to take note of this remarkable scientific fusion (natural selection and genetics*), the theory of evolution is now as much in doubt in biology as quantum mechanics is in physics (whiuch, of course, doesn't guarantee that either of them is "true", since science can by its nature only provide provisional answers). (Massimo Pigliucci)

*my brackets.

Next, in a piece by Eugenie C. Scott. Reference to the museum at the Institute for Creation Research where a tree of evil shows evolution as the source of communism, imperialism, bestiality, infanticide, slavery, and child abuse. And a book, Johnson's "Reason in the Balance" which equates evolutionary naturalism with tolerance of homosexuality, pornography, abortion, genocide, and other evils. These are given as examples of the creation-science ID proponents posited dichotomy of God, creation, purpose and goodness on one side, and evolution, meaninglessness, and social degeneration on the other. This is clearly the position pete and Iona have imbibed.

Then, same piece. a discussion on the use of the word "Darwinism". Not a word in frequent use by scientists, where it could mean either the general idea of evolution by natural selection, or Darwin's specific ideas in the 19th century. In ID and creationist literature it can mean evolution itself, natural selection, Darwin's ideas, neo-Darwinism (modified evolutionary theory, scientific term), but most commonly materialist ideology inspired by godless evolution. The public equates Darwinism with evolution, and this confusion enables certain ID arguments to challenge whether evolution actually occurred, by picking up reasonable scientific controversies about the mechanisms of evolution. The influence of this can be seen in pete and Iona's contributions.

Finally, for this time, Scott points out that no-one on the ID/creationist side carries out research, or attends professional conferences, or publishes in peer-reviewed journals, but they report on other scientists' work, often with severe distortions.

Penny