Larry Moran gets the evolution debate right (sort of)

Larry Moran at Sandwalk:

The National (USA) Center for Science Education (NCSE) has just endorsed a four-year-old statement on teaching evolution from the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution [Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution adds its voice for evolution].

Here's the statement:

There is overwhelming evidence that life has evolved over thousands of millions of years. The ancestors of modern organisms, as well as whole groups that are now completely extinct, have been found in great abundance as fossils. The main processes responsible for evolutionary change, such as variation and natural selection, have been repeatedly observed and verified in natural populations and in laboratory experiments. All the features of living organisms, including those discovered in the recent advances in molecular biology, are readily explained by the principles of evolution. Any scientific theory that provides a clear mechanism, offers a broad explanation of natural phenomena, receives strong support from observation and experiment and that is never refuted by careful investigation is usually called a “fact”. The cell theory of organisms, the germ theory of infection, the gene theory of inheritance and the theory of evolution are all facts. Teaching alternative theories as though they had equivalent scientific status is a perversion of education that damages children’s ability to understand the natural world. In particular, creationism is a religious doctrine long since known to be a fallacious account of Earth history that has no scientific standing and cannot be represented as a credible alternative to evolution. Evolution is the single most important principle of modern biology and the foundation of any sound biology curriculum.

Graham Bell

President, Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution

I expected Moran to endorse the statement without reservation. I was wrong.

Moran:

I don't like this statement because: (1) it implies that the "theory of evolution" is only about variation and natural selection, (2) it confuses evolutionary theory with the facts of evolution, and (3) it confuses creationism with Young Earth Creationism. 

If you are going to claim that your version of evolutionary theory is correct then you would be well-advised to define it. And if you are going to claim that it's a fact then what's the point of calling it "evolutionary theory"? The "theory" part of evolution is an explanatory model that's used to understand and interpret various facts about the history of life. 

With respect to point #3, one of the main threats to science these days comes from Intelligent Design Creationism and there are many IDiots who do not subscribe to an obviously "fallacious account of Earth's history."

Moran makes some very good points. I have noticed that Moran, despite some horrendous bigotry against Christian students and some juvenile posts unworthy of a senior academic, has a deeper insight into some of the issues with evolution that many of his less cogent compatriots. Perhaps it's because Moran is a genuinely accomplished scientist  who is still doing science, rather than a has-been mediocre scientist or a never-been scientist.

Here's my take on the Canadian Society's statement, line by line:

There is overwhelming evidence that life has evolved over thousands of millions of years.

If by "evolved" they mean 'changed', it's true. The evidence only supports change. Nothing else in evolutionary science, especially the cause of the change, is supported by "overwhelming evidence". Evolutionary biology is a federally-funded food fight. Except for atheism. They all agree on that.

The ancestors of modern organisms, as well as whole groups that are now completely extinct, have been found in great abundance as fossils.

Fossils certainly show many extinct species. Whether organisms in the fossil record are ancestors of modern organisms depends on the truth of the theory of common descent. There is some evidence for common descent, but much of that is also evidence for common design. The evolutionary tree of automobiles is analogous in many ways to the evolutionary tree of life. Automobiles didn't evolve by natural selection from a common ancestor. Automobiles were designed by intelligent agency.

The main processes responsible for evolutionary change, such as variation and natural selection, have been repeatedly observed and verified in natural populations and in laboratory experiments.

Variation and natural selection aren't "processes". They don't constitute causes of an effect. Natural selection is a tautology-- survivors survive-- and variation is a trivial fact of all of nature. Classically, nature is defined as 'that which changes' (Aristotle). Change in nature and survival of survivors have been "observed and verified in natural populations and laboratory experiments." But a banality isn't a scientific theory of any value.

All the features of living organisms, including those discovered in the recent advances in molecular biology, are readily explained by the principles of evolution.

There are liberal drug laws in Canada, and it shows.  Is it really true that "all features of living organisms are readily explained" by invocation of random variation (stuff changes) and natural selection (stuff that survives survives)? These folks are on hallucinogens. Nothing in  biology is explained by tautological drivel. There is not a single experimentally confirmed evolutionary pathway for even one biological molecule. Just-so-stories don't count.

Any scientific theory that provides a clear mechanism...

'Stuff changes' and 'survivors survive' isn't a mechanism.

offers a broad explanation of natural phenomena...

The explanation is too broad. How did trait X evolve? 'Well, in a population of organisms that lacks X a mutant organism with X emerged, and it produced more offspring than the organisms that lacked X.'

Evolution 'accounts' for anything, and therefore nothing. That's the problem with elevating triviality and tautology to the status of a scientific theory.

receives strong support from observation and experiment...

What observation or experiment would disprove the theory that 'stuff changes and survivors survive'?

and that is never refuted by careful investigation is usually called a “fact”.

A scientific theory that is never refuted by careful observation is usually called a 'tautology'.

Teaching alternative theories as though they had equivalent scientific status is a perversion of education that damages children’s ability to understand the natural world.

Teaching alternative theories is called 'science'.

In particular, creationism is a religious doctrine long since known to be a fallacious account of Earth history that has no scientific standing and cannot be represented as a credible alternative to evolution.

 Intelligent design theory is the primary scientific challenge to Darwinism, and it's not "creationism". The reason that Darwinists don't specifically address ID, and repeatedly refer to it as a form of young earth creationism, is that they realize that the ID arguments are very persuasive. It's easy to assert that the earth is 5 billion years old rather than 6000 years old. It's much harder to credibly assert that the genetic code shows no sign of intelligent agency.

Evolution is the single most important principle of modern biology and the foundation of any sound biology curriculum.

Evolution is the single most important principle of modern biology atheism and the foundation of any sound biology atheist curriculum.