1

Will someone please explain to me how "the vulgar truth of evolutionary theory" can possibly include material evidence that man has neither an immortal soul nor free will?

These are assertions that are no less faith-based than their negations.

2

It seems like this project is to give substantiation to a fallacious appeal of authority to counter the "uneducated" theist majority. Whatever the case may be, what exactly does he hope to discover? Don't we already know "the degree belief in naturalism is backed by its practitioners at the highest level?"

3

Some of Graffin's propositions are dubious.

For example,

"Any teacher of evolution is by default a teacher of a deeply philosophical world-view, one that differs dramatically from that of traditional theistic religion."

What "philosophical world-view" is necessary to teach the evidence for evolution? That human beings can see things with their eyes and come to logical conclusions based on what they see? What other "world view" is necessary to understand that life on earth evolved from earlier life forms?

"Theists do not appreciate hearing the vulgar truth of evolutionary theory, that mankind is no fallen angel, has no immortal soul, nor free will, and was not specially created."

Huh. Most of the molecular biologists I worked with at Berkeley were theists and quite unconflicted about it. All of them believed in evolution. Where's this necessary "conflict"?

"The most important feature of evolutionary biology is its integrated view of humankind's place in nature that easily lends itself to a deeply satisfying metaphysics based entirely on materialist principles."

So says Graffin. As a scientist who has been fascinated with evolutionary biology since I was about five years old, I can't say that I've ever noticed this "deeply satisfying metaphysics based entirely on materialist principles" that Graffin is talking about. Nor do I know any other scientists, theist or atheist, who have mentioned this "metaphysics" as the "most important feature" of evolutionary biology.

Most scientists just enjoy doing science -- i.e., making hypotheses and testing them and discovering new things about the world in which they live. I am not aware of single scientist who studies organisms as a means to address a "metaphysical" issue such as whether or not humans have souls. Science has nothing to do with souls or God or "life's purpose." Zilcho.

"The intellectual foundation of materialistic naturalism is already crumbling."

Do the "materialistic naturalists" know about this? Do they have a website?

4

Douglas,

Do the "materialistic naturalists" know about this?

Probably not since it is doubtful that they can "know" anything at all. "Knowing" requires consciousness, which lies outside the scope of a purely materialistic naturalism. By denying the existence of metaphysics, it would be unable to prove that consciousness even exist.

5

How ridiculous! You are the only person I have ever heard of asserting that consciousness "lies outside the scope of a purely materialistic naturalism." Please support this. Metaphysics are not necessary for consciousness to exist, and no proof of consciousness is necessary as it is self-evident. Even if such proof were necessary, it could be provided with current technology. The mysteries of sleep and consciousness are being unraveled, and much data already exists that establishes the parameters of consciousness as determined by objective measurements of brain activity.

6

Metaphysics are not necessary for consciousness to exist, and no proof of consciousness is necessary as it is self-evident.

This is circular reasoning. Unless the concept of “self-evident truth” is composed of matter then there is no way that it can make sense under a pure materialistic naturalism (i.e., “matter/energy/whatever” is all that exists).

Even if such proof were necessary, it could be provided with current technology. The mysteries of sleep and consciousness are being unraveled, and much data already exists that establishes the parameters of consciousness as determined by objective measurements of brain activity.

You’re confusing cause with effect. What can be “observed” is the physical processes that are affected by matter. The non-material part (consciousness), however, can only be inferred by taking a leap into the metaphysical realm.

7

Me: Do the "materialistic naturalists" know about this?

Joe: Probably not since it is doubtful that they can "know" anything at all.

Holy crap! That was not the answer I was expecting. I guess the question then is how the "intellectual foundation" of materialistic naturalism can be crumbling when materialisit naturalists are incapable of "knowing." It sounds to me like the foundation never even existed.

But I still take issue with Graffin's statements that "Evolutionary biology as a unified field is at stake." What is he talking about? What does he mean by a "unified field"? And why should anyone care? Scientific fields change and splinter all the time as new discoveries are made and new paths of research are opened up. For example, with the recent development of DNA and protein "arrays", scientists can measure and study the expression of thousands of genes simultaneously. This technology will enable scientists to learn more about the inter-relationships between complex metabolic pathways and between gene expression and disease susceptibility. Thus, new fields such as "proteomics" are opened up and the research in these fields will certainly increase our knowledge about the relationships between organisms and how we may have evolved from our ancestors.

Likewise, "the credibility of Darwinian theory in the public eye" has very little to do with any "crumbling foundation" of "materialistic naturalism" and more to do with the fact that a substantial portion of Americans is scientifically illiterate. As I recall, recent polls have shown that a significant number of Americans still believe that the sun revolves around the earth. I'm sure that most people have no clue about what DNA is except to recite some buzz phrase such as "it's the blueprint for life." And RNA? And proteins? And the relationship between these things? I think a sixth grader at a decent public school could tell you what they are and what they do but the average adult? No way.

The greatest danger to the credibility of "Darwinism" (which I assume is Graffin's shorthand for the theory that mutation and natural selection is the primary mechanism for evolution) comes from religious groups who refuse to accept the fact that human beings, like every other animal on the planet, evolved over the course of the last 5 billion years and continue to evolve every day. These groups (e.g., the conservative "Discovery Institute") have become increasingly sophisticated in their efforts to distort the findings of scientists and force public schools to teach "alternative" views *in science classes* which are intended to "balance" the views held by nearly every working biologist with the views of a few Moonie and/or Christian charlatans who have contributed NOTHING to our understanding of evolution or any other biological topic.

I was never a particular fan of Bad Religion or any so-called "skate punk," (more inclined towards the New Zealand scene on one hand and Japanese acts like Les Rallizes and High Rise on the other) but I'm sorry to see that Mr. Graffin has decided to become a metaphysician of dubious merit. I hope his lyrics are a bit more comprehensible than the thesis extracted here.

8

Douglas,

Holy crap! That was not the answer I was expecting. I guess the question then is how the "intellectual foundation" of materialistic naturalism can be crumbling when materialisit naturalists are incapable of "knowing." It sounds to me like the foundation never even existed.

True. I think it’s a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Too many people just assumed that such otherwise smart people must have a sound philosophical basis for their epistemology. (I’ve taken up this point before: here and here )

9

Rob Ryan,

A lot of philosophical work being done today on consciousness involves what David Chalmers has labeled "the hard problem of consciousness." Chalmers' website can be found here: http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/

Probably the best introduction to the hard problem can be found here: http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html

The hard problem of consciousness isn't the problem of explaining the difference between being awake and being asleep nor the reporting of mental states nor the ability to have access to your own mental states.

Rather, Chalmers says that the "really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience." It is the problem of explaining that there is something it is like to be in a conscious state.

In the article I listed above, Chalmers gives some introductory reasons why the hard problem cannot have a materialistic explanation. This results in rejecting all reductive explanations and accepting a non-reductive explanation.

Also note that Chalmers is a naturalist, just not a materialist.

10

Take Rand's Objectivism or Kant's altruism, tack on some statement about the "universe evolving us to observe itself" (I've seen this idea entertained before), add some vague goal of ascending/evolving to a higher state of existance, and churn out some theory about the origin of human conciousness being in the quantaum realm and (they can theorize about the universe starting with "waves of nothingness") and your pretty close to a "neism."

11

Joe: "The intellectual foundation of materialistic naturalism is already crumbling."

DW: Do the "materialistic naturalists" know about this?

Joe: Probably not since it is doubtful that they can "know" anything at all.

Me: I disagree, I think they do know (at least some of them). But the ones that do know wouldn't put it that way. In philosophy, at least, they realize that naturalism is not the only game in town and in many cases they are losing the game.

Here is an interesting article by Quentin Smith, an atheist and a naturalist, entitled "The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism." Some (long) selected quotes:

"The secularization of mainstream academia began to quickly unravel upon the publication of Plantinga's influential book on realist theism, God and Other Minds, in 1967. It became apparent to the philosophical profession that this book displayed that realist theists were not outmatched by naturalists in terms of the most valued standards of analytic philosophy: conceptual precision, rigor of argumentation, technical erudition, and an in-depth defense of an original world-view. This book, followed seven years later by Plantinga’s even more impressive book, The Nature of Necessity, made it manifest that a realist theist was writing at the highest qualitative level of analytic philosophy, on the same playing field as Carnap, Russell, Moore, Grünbaum, and other naturalists. Realist theists, whom hitherto had segregated their academic lives from their private lives, increasingly came to believe (and came to be increasingly accepted or respected for believing) that arguing for realist theism in scholarly publications could no longer be justifiably regarded as engaging in an 'academically unrespectable' scholarly pursuit."

...

"...the vast majority of naturalist philosophers have come to hold (since the late 1960s) an unjustified belief in naturalism. Their justifications have been defeated by arguments developed by theistic philosophers, and now naturalist philosophers, for the most part, live in darkness about the justification for naturalism. They may have a true belief in naturalism, but they have no knowledge that naturalism is true since they do not have an undefeated justification for their belief. If naturalism is true, then their belief in naturalism is accidentally true."

12

Wolker,
The fact that they are caring about 'evangelizing' the public with their belief-system, and are worried about 'heresies' (loss of 'unity') in their midst indicates fairly well that metaphysical naturalism is a religion that invokes passion, loyalty and fervor.

It is not science.

13

Hey Macht,

"They may have a true belief in naturalism, but they have no knowledge that naturalism is true since they do not have an undefeated justification for their belief."

I agree with the passage you quoted. In my lazy response I failed to clarify that while they may have a true belief they don't have a justified true belief.

Thanks for the correction.

14

"The fact that they are caring about 'evangelizing' the public with their belief-system"

No, scientists are just teaching science in science class. Do you not believe that the scientific method has great utility for anyone that understands how to use it?

"and are worried about 'heresies' (loss of 'unity')"

What are you talking about? I read science journals every day and I haven't seen any discussion about "heresies" or "loss of unity." Where are you getting your information?

"metaphysical naturalism is a religion"

If you say so. Maybe in 50 years a court in Louisiana will agree with you, although by then posers like Graffin will have come up with some other stupid nomenclature to blather on about. Zzzzzzzzzz....

"that invokes passion, loyalty and fervor."

I'm passionate, loyal and fervent when it comes to my Oakland Athletics, my record collection, and gardening. Are these three separate religions or just one, Puzzled?

For the record, I've been reading this blog for months and I've yet to see a comment from you that would suggest you spent more than 1 second thinking before you typed.

15

"The greatest danger to the credibility of "Darwinism" (which I assume is Graffin's shorthand for the theory that mutation and natural selection is the primary mechanism for evolution) comes from religious groups who refuse to accept the fact that human beings, like every other animal on the planet, evolved over the course of the last 5 billion years and continue to evolve every day. "

I simply don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Religious groups don't accept the fact that every other animal on the planet is evolving, humans serving as the sole exception. Further, I thought that scientists believe the earth to be 5 billion years old? Did life start right away?

" . . . which are intended to "balance" the views held by nearly every working biologist with the views of a few Moonie and/or Christian charlatans who have contributed NOTHING to our understanding of evolution or any other biological topic."
But, that's the point, isn't it? They don't believe in evolution, so how could they be faulted for not contributing to its understanding? I reject Communism, and served to oppose it. That I did nothing to further the understanding of Communism, or that I may have been seen as a danger to its credibility, is more a compliment to my efforts than a attack on my efforts.

16

Wolker - Re: your response to Puzzled: labelling something does not change its nature. Calling what you believe "science" does not necessarily make it non-religious. I'm fairly certain you don't believe that advocates of intelligent design can end the debate by labelling themselves "scientists teaching science."

17

Kevin analogizes:

"I reject Communism, and served to oppose it. That I did nothing to further the understanding of Communism, or that I may have been seen as a danger to its credibility, is more a compliment to my efforts than a attack on my efforts."

Yes, but if in the course of your attacks you repeatedly make false statements about Communism such that people decide that you are full of crap, then why is it important to recognize your views? What if we discover that in another forum you've stated that your ultimate goal is to rid the world of red flags because your religion says that red flags are signs of the devil? Should we still take your criticisms about communism seriously?

"Religious groups don't accept the fact that every other animal on the planet is evolving, humans serving as the sole exception."

I haven't heard this "sole exception" part you're referring to. But in any event, it's only SOME religious groups who don't accept the fact that life on earth evolved. Most scientists, like most people in other professions, are very religious and are not conflicted about their beliefs because science has NOTHING to do with matters of faith (the existence of God, souls,etc).

The question you need to ask yourself, Kevin, is why it is that only some religious groups don't accept the fact that life evolved?

18

The question you need to ask yourself, Kevin, is why it is that only some religious groups don't accept the fact that life evolved?

In what I see/read, they only view it as a theory, not fact. And it is not a fact, in fact, but a theory with evidence that does indicate it is a reasonable answer, but far from a fact. It would be a fact if I saw a fish give birth to a frog, but until then, it is only a theory.

I still have yet to see any eveidence of species jumping. Have I missed something? Micro-evolution, perhaps, but nothing of the macro sort.

19

"In what I see/read, they only view it as a theory, not fact. "

The theory you refer to is the theory of HOW life evolved, i.e., Darwin's theory that natural selection of mutations is responsible (or mostly responsible) for the changes we observe in populations of organisms over time. That fact that living things evolve and change over time is as solid of a fact as any other fact in science. Scientists judge theories by how useful and predictive they are and suffice it to say that Darwin's theory has been phenomenally useful to explain what we see when we examine the differences between extant organisms and between extant organisms and the fossil record.

"It would be a fact if I saw a fish give birth to a frog, but until then, it is only a theory."

Actually the exact opposite is true. When a fish gives birth to a frog, then we can throw Darwin's theory out the window.

Just so it's perfectly clear: when you make a statement like this fish statement, you demonstrate your complete and utter ignorance of evolutionary biology. More than ignorance, it shows utter contempt for the thousands and thousands of scientists who have studied the world for the past several hundreds of years and who have managed to make YOUR life a whole lot more pleasant.

If you want to believe only what you read in your Bible, then go ahead and do that. If you want to criticize scientists, then spend a few years reading the scientific literature before popping off with ignorant nonsense about what is needed to convince you that living creatures evolved.

"I still have yet to see any eveidence of species jumping."

Define what you mean by "species jumping."

"Micro-evolution, perhaps"

Again, I can't be sure what you mean by microevolution, but if you have ANY doubt that scientists have not observed natural selection-changes in genotype or phenotype, then you may be a lost cause.

"but nothing of the macro sort."

Define what you mean by "macro sort." Also, let me know whether you have seen any evidence to support the "theory" of geologists that the the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon.

20

The theory you refer to is the theory of HOW life evolved, i.e., Darwin's theory that natural selection of mutations is responsible (or mostly responsible) for the changes we observe in populations of organisms over time. That fact that living things evolve and change over time is as solid of a fact as any other fact in science. Scientists judge theories by how useful and predictive they are and suffice it to say that Darwin's theory has been phenomenally useful to explain what we see when we examine the differences between extant organisms and between extant organisms and the fossil record.
Again, I can't be sure what you mean by microevolution, but if you have ANY doubt that scientists have not observed natural selection-changes in genotype or phenotype, then you may be a lost cause.
Define what you mean by "species jumping."

I refer to the fact that there are changes that occur within species (micro), but that I have yet to see them change into something other than what species they started out as (macro). There is a difference, and the terms I used are quite common, so I did think I needed to elaborate.
Trying to kill 3 birds with one stone here.

Actually the exact opposite is true. When a fish gives birth to a frog, then we can throw Darwin's theory out the window.

Just so it's perfectly clear: when you make a statement like this fish statement, you demonstrate your complete and utter ignorance of evolutionary biology. More than ignorance, it shows utter contempt for the thousands and thousands of scientists who have studied the world for the past several hundreds of years and who have managed to make YOUR life a whole lot more pleasant.

Forgive my example, but the point was that I have not seen/read evidence of evolution being a fact regarding the origin of life. A dramatic example, I admit, but you could take it down a notch regarding your tone. Need I put a question mark in bold to alert you to the fact I would like to hear your comments on the points I brought up? I was not insulting you, merely using a dramatic example to provoke an intelligent response, yet I receive insult? Did they miss manners in your schooling, or is the air thin in your ivory tower? If you are unwilling to discuss without insulting, then fine, I will not bother to continue. I am interested in learning, but your post seems to imply that you are not interested in anything but your own voice.

I apologize if my post came off as smart/sarcastic, it was not meant so, but the written word lacking in certain ways, so again, forgive me. If you are willing to continue in a civilized manner, please, lets. But if you choose to continue in the fashion of your response, then I'll bother you no longer.

21

Crusader

Look, forgive me if I jump to conclusions but from where I sit I see on one hand thousands of research articles mostly written by "theistic" scientists which fully support and confirm the tenets of evolutionary biology "theory" and on the other hand a bunch of loud-mouthed creationists proclaiming that all these scientists are deluded. And what is the evidence these creationists provide that the scientists are deluded? NADA. The only "evidence" the Christians provide is that "they" aren't convinced by the data. They demand a video that shows evolution happening.

News flash: unlike creationists, scientists don't claim that evolution happened overnight.

Try hundreds of millions of years. Try to understand how long that it is. Try to understand that all of recorded human history is just a blink of eye relative to that amount of time. Look at what humans have been able to do to the form of animals in that blink of an eye. Now imagine what nature can do given *100 million blinks*. Seems obvious to me that just about anything is possible.

"Forgive my example, but the point was that I have not seen/read evidence of evolution being a fact regarding the origin of life."

You are mixing apples and origins. I don't know what you mean when you say "evidence of evolution being a fact regarding the origin of life." I didn't say that scientists KNEW precisely how life evolved from a cooling earth. The question how life BEGAN is different from how life EVOLVED. Regardless of how life on earth began, however, it is a fact that life has evolved. If this is news to you, then ... I am not surprised. As I said, most Americans are scientifically illiterate.

Humans did not walk with dinosaurs: fact. Apes did not walk with dinosaurs: fact. Some modern animals kind of look like some dinosaurs but are not identical: fact. Small animals which vaguely resemble some modern animals did walk with dinosaurs: fact.

I'm no paleontologist but the fact that different animals can be found in the fossil record over time and the fact that as one gets closer to the present day one finds more animals that look like modern animals ... geez, I mean, that's pretty good evidence. Moreover, this stuff was known a hundred years ago, before anyone had any idea what molecular biology was going to be about.

22

I think the point made above re: microevolution is similar to some of the readings I've done. I only cautiously venture into this subject because I, too, have made some points in the past which were not answered, but I was accused of being a small-minded, anti-science primitive ingrate. Or something.

The work being done at the molecular levels suggest that DNA govers all. That something like 90% of all DNA is shared across species (lending some credence to the theories of evolutionary biology) but that the other 10% is so crucial. And that DNA is immutable: mutations in DNA are weaknesses, and are quickly bred out of the species.

I do realize that species change over time. The taller and faster giraffes survive to pass their genes on. It's harder to see that, in a million years, giraffees will be able to run 200 miles per hour, and will be chased by lions moving at 225. Similarly, I know that men are bigger today than in generations past. Was it the result of mutation? Or from improved diet, sanitation, and medicines? Or a combination? And it would be dangerous for anyone to assert any of it with any degree of certainty.

Evolution, microbiology, zoology are all relatively young sciences. Every time I pick up a magazine, some scientist is tacking on another billion years or so for the start of the universe. Too little is known to be teaching any theory--and too much about evolution is purely theoretical--as fact.

23

"Evolution, microbiology, zoology are all relatively young sciences.. . . Too little is known to be teaching any theory--and too much about evolution is purely theoretical--as fact."

Wow. I haven't heard this one before. This is just plain nutty. "Kids, people around the world have only been learning about the living creatures we share the world with for as long as we have records of human intelligence. Given this problem, please accept everything I tell you about animals with a huge grain of salt."

What a joke.

"Every time I pick up a magazine, some scientist is tacking on another billion years or so for the start of the universe."

Classic hyperbole from Kevin and also irrelevant to the issue of whether evolution, microbiology, and zoology are sufficiently "mature" to be taught in science classes without disclaimers as to the veracity of scientists findings. "Kids, scientists claim to have discovered a long ago that tetanus is caused by bacteria but that might not be true. It's just as likely that it's caused by thinking bad thoughts about your mommies and daddies." Blah.

"It's harder to see that, in a million years, giraffees will be able to run 200 miles per hour, and will be chased by lions moving at 225."

Yeah, that's because animals are constrained by the laws of physics, Kevin. It's just as hard to imagine them acquiring antigravity and invisibility properties. We do have some absolutely humongous mammals, however. We call them whales. They live in the ocean.

"The work being done at the molecular levels suggest that DNA governs all."

Wrong. It certainly governs a lot but not all. Their are many scientists studying extrachromosomal inheritance.

"And that DNA is immutable: mutations in DNA are weaknesses, and are quickly bred out of the species."

Wrong. Some DNA mutations have no effect whatsoever on fitness. And some mutations have beneficial effects. Just about every time an organism reproduces, some mutations are introduced into the genome of the organism's offpsring.

"Similarly, I know that men are bigger today than in generations past. Was it the result of mutation? Or from improved diet, sanitation, and medicines?"

Sigh. Rather than just be ignorant about it, Kevin, why not go to PubMed and so some research like scientists do? Just as a quick aside -- people in the Netherlands are the tallest on earth. Why? Do they have a "tall gene"? No. Their diets as children are better (probably has something to do with their decreased antagonism towards "socialized medicine.") DOn't believe me? Your problem. Look it up.

"it would be dangerous for anyone to assert any of it with any degree of certainty."

It would be "dangerous"?!!! Wow, that sounds really alarming. It's a good thing that no one will take you seriously when you hardly know anything about the subject.

24

See? Everyone's stupid but you. We is justa buncha dum hicks. Shudda known betta then to aks a kwestion or two.

Isn't it interesting that it's the Evolutionists who are absolutists, and intolerant about anything or anyone that raises questions.

Something to keep in mind.

25

"Isn't it interesting that it's the Evolutionists who are . . . intolerant about anyone that raises questions."

Oh, Kevin, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Please don't hide under your mommy's skirt from the mean scientists. I simply failed to appreciate that you were asking questions when you said:

"Evolution, microbiology, zoology are all relatively young sciences."

"work being done at the molecular levels suggest that DNA govers all."

"DNA is immutable"

"mutations in DNA are weaknesses"

"Too little is known to be teaching any theory--and too much about evolution is purely theoretical--as fact."

All of the above statements are false.

And yet, even though you obviously do not know what you are talking about, you do not hesitate to proclaim that "[I]t would be dangerous for anyone to assert any of it with any degree of certainty."

What a joke. Are you so damn conceited, Kevin, that you can't accept the possibility that you might not know enough about something to have a meaningful opinion? Do you really suppose that you know more than each of the RELIGIOUS people who spent decades and decades researching this stuff? Do you really suppose that you, who doesn't understand the simplest aspects of DNA metabolism, has some insight into evolutionary biology that has eluded thousands and thousands of RELIGIOUS scientists for the past 100+ years?

Talk about arrogant.

26

I'm no auto mechanic but the fact that different models of cars can be found over time and the fact that as one gets closer to the present day one finds more cars that look like modern cars ... geez, I mean, that's pretty good evidence that cars are the product of evolution by random mutation and natural selection.

27

"Just as a quick aside -- people in the Netherlands are the tallest on earth. Why? Do they have a "tall gene"? No. Their diets as children are better.
So, Doug, genetics plays no role in height, now? So if, say, the Chinese adopted a Niederlander diet, they would catch up?

Here's our problem. We don't mind evolution being taught in schools as a theory, even a compelling one that is believed by many people. But that isn't enough for you. You WILL shove it down our throats, and not even mention that there are legitimate problems with the theory. But you won't admit that.

You didn't hurt my feelings. C'mon Doug--it's obvious that NOBODY's opinion is worth a damn, unless it mirrors yours. You're the intolerant one, I'm more balanced. See? You should try to be more like me. Calm. Introspective. Open to new ideas. And try persuading people, gently, rather than beat them over the head. All you've done today is prove my point: evolutionists will brook no compromise, will see no other point of view, will tolerate no dissent.

28

"geez, I mean, that's pretty good evidence that cars are the product of evolution by random mutation and natural selection. "

Interesting theory. Let's weigh your "evidence" against the evidence which supports my theory that people made cars.

1) Cars don't reproduce.

I'll stop there because your theory has already fallen apart. Nice try, though.

29

"So, Doug, genetics plays no role in height, now?"

I didn't say that. Genetics is certainly a factor in determining height but it is quite clear that diet, especially before puberty, is also a factor.

"You WILL shove it down our throats, and not even mention that there are legitimate problems with the theory. But you won't admit that."

What are the "legitimate problems" Kevin?

Please tell me what is so "balanced" about demanding that "legitimate problems with evolutionary biology must be taught in schools" without any evidence to support the position that these "legitimate problems" exist (not to mention any attempt to articulate what the problem is). And why is there no great effort to mandate that children be taught about all the "legitimate problems" that exist in physics, chemistry, and geology?

" All you've done today is prove my point: evolutionists will brook no compromise, will see no other point of view, will tolerate no dissent."

Hmm. I tell you what. Do you live near a University? If so, check to see if there are any meetings of evolutionary biologists coming up. If there are, see if you can attend one of them. Let me know if everyone at the meeting agrees with everything that everyone else says. If you find that is the case, you will certainly have proved your point. If not, then you should retract your statement.

Or perhaps you could just visit PubMed and see whether evolutionary biologists are still testing hypotheses or whether they've answered every possible question there is to be asked. Because if evolutionary biologists agree on everything, then there's no need to ask any more questions right? They can can just say whatever they want and it's just accepted as fact. No dissent is tolerated.

Good luck.

30

"In what I see/read, they only view it as a theory, not fact. And it is not a fact, in fact, but a theory with evidence that does indicate it is a reasonable answer, but far from a fact. It would be a fact if I saw a fish give birth to a frog, but until then, it is only a theory."

No evolutionist claims that evolution works in this way. In fact, the distinction between microevolution (proven, observed in organisms of short generational times like bacteria) and macroevolution is purely semantical. Macroevolution is the cumulative effect of microevolution. It is easy to set the standards of proof so high that they can't be met. Evolution is a fact; it has been observed. It explains the origin of species, but has a ways to go in explaining the origins of life itself.

"Evolution, microbiology, zoology are all relatively young sciences. Every time I pick up a magazine, some scientist is tacking on another billion years or so for the start of the universe."

Last time I checked, scientists were estimating the age of the universe at about 15 billion years. And what does my 40 year-old set of World Book encyclopedias say? 15 billion years! There may be some dissent, but the consensus has remained remarkably stable.

"Too little is known to be teaching any theory--and too much about evolution is purely theoretical--as fact."

In churches, creation is taught as fact with much less objective evidence. Of course, public education should and does have higher standards, and evolution has passed muster despite the howls of some who haven't bothered to examine the evidence

31

I think he is referring to this.

32

I examined your link. That hardly constitutes support for his statement:
"Every time I pick up a magazine, some scientist is tacking on another billion years or so for the start of the universe."
Surely there must be DOZENS of examples, or perhaps he only picks up a magazine every 40 years. 15 billion years 40 years ago, 15 billion now. Remarkably consistent.

33

Kevin,

I didn't see any questions in your post on DNA, so I'm not sure how you can accuse people of not answering your questions if you are instead making (incorrect) statements.

It might help if you did some research on your topics before you posted, then you might get a better response... most scientists don't mind answering intelligent questions and its a sign of respect if you take the time to learn something about the subject before asking. Nothing in your post on DNA was true, and it would have taken only a small amount of reading to find this out - less, given the power of modern databases such as pubmed (remember abstract indexes?). This suggests that you respect neither the scientist nor the field of study, and is unlikely to earn you a polite response.

Doc

34

Why don't you guys just admit you don't know? It's obvious to the rest of us, but nevertheless here is but one of the articles I read re: the age of the universe.
I keep forgetting--ivory towers and all that:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html

From Space.com:

Age of Universe Revised, Again
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 11:22 am ET
03 January 2003

We speculated just last week in our Top 10 Space Mysteries [See #8] that the ongoing effort to figure out how hold the universe is would yield at least one more estimate during 2003.

We had no idea it would come so soon.

In a study published today in the journal Science, a team of researchers says the universe is between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years old.

Most estimates in recent years have ranged between 10 billion and 15 billion years. Last year, data supplied by the Hubble Space Telescope led to an apparently refined estimate of 13 billion to 14 billion years.

The new calculations, by Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University and Brian Chaboyer at Dartmouth College, involved new information about old star clusters in our galaxy and a better understanding of how stars evolve. It was based on when stars are thought to end the main sequence of their lives, a point at which they've used up the hydrogen that fuels thermonuclear fusion and therefore begin to dim.

More Stories


Top 10 Space Mysteries for 2003

Hubble Space Telescope Helps Pin Down Beginning of Time

Age Of Universe Hidden in Star Clusters of Milky Way

All Galaxies to Become Ghosts, Frozen in Time and Space

In New Theory of Universe, Time Never Ends

The new appraisal comes with a 95 percent level of confidence, which means the door is still open for further revision and that last year's tighter Hubble estimate might prove on track.

The new estimates were made as part of a larger effort to understand how the universe is structured, and they agree with an increasingly solid case suggesting that 95 percent of the universe is controlled by so-called dark energy. Scientists don't know what this mysterious force is, or how it works, but they see evidence of it in the fact that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate.

Dark energy is sometimes described as applying a negative pressure to the universe. While gravity holds individual galaxies together, dark energy works to pull galaxies from each other at faster and faster rates.

Cosmologists, who speculate about the origin and operation of the universe as a whole, know they have their work cut out for them even as their understanding grows.

"We are living in a golden age of observational cosmology, where our fundamental picture of the universe has been revolutionized in the last decade," Krauss said. "At the same time, we are establishing the essential features of the cosmos that will serve as the datum at the basis for fundamental physics in the 21st century and beyond."

35

Wolker - You are too modest about your scientific credentials - most people don't know that cars don't reproduce.

You cited as evidence of evolution by chance "the fact that different animals can be found in the fossil record over time and the fact that as one gets closer to the present day one finds more animals that look like modern animals ...." My point was that this "record" is equally supportive of intelligent design. You know, like your theory that "people made cars."

36

Henry Ford --

--My point was that this "record" is equally supportive of intelligent design. You know, like your theory that "people made cars."--

First, I think my "theory" about the cars is a pretty good one. Do you want more evidence?

What do you mean exactly when you say "intelligent design"? And how does the fossil record provide evidence to support your "intelligent design" theory? Does your "intelligent design" theory have any scientific utility, i.e., does it make any predictions which could be tested by scientists? Or is really just a code word for a faith-based belief in creationism?

37

Kevin --

--Why don't you guys just admit you don't know? It's obvious to the rest of us--

Kevin, who is "you guys"?

As for the text of the article you cited, it fully supports what

"In a study published today in the journal Science, a team of researchers says the universe is between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years old."

In case anyone has number phobia, 15 billion is between 11.2 and 20 billion years old.

Also, Kevin, please note the language scientists typically use to show their uncertainty about subjects such as the age of the universe:

"The new appraisal comes with a 95 percent level of confidence, which means the door is still open for further revision and that last year's tighter Hubble estimate might prove on track."

Note also that this passage indicates that it possible that the age of the universe is less than 15 billion years, as was suggested in studies performed last year. So much for your earlier claim that "Every time I pick up a magazine, some scientist is tacking on another billion years or so for the start of the universe."

Will we get a retraction from Kevin? Doubt it. Unlike most scientists, Kevin is more interested in propoganda than accuracy.

38

Wolker - You don't seem to understand that I am not challenging your theory that people build cars. I am pointing out that the same phenomena that you cite as evidence of evolution by chance is observable in a situation where we all know that intelligent design is the source of the various. Therefore, the facts you cite, without more, lack explanatory or evidentiary value.

You who cited changes in animals over time and greater similarity of more recent to existing forms as evidence of evolution by chance. You have been confronted with a counter argument via example, i.e., that the same facts also support ID. It is up to you to either (1) make an argument that those facts support evolution but not ID or (2) acknowledge that the cited facts have little or no probativeness on this issue.

39

Rob Ryan writes:

"[T]he distinction between microevolution (proven, observed in organisms of short generational times like bacteria) and macroevolution is purely semantical. Macroevolution is the cumulative effect of microevolution. It is easy to set the standards of proof so high that they can't be met. Evolution is a fact; it has been observed."

When and by whom has macroevolution been observed?

40

"I am pointing out that the same phenomena that you cite as evidence of evolution by chance is observable in a situation where we all know that intelligent design is the source of the various. Therefore, the facts you cite, without more, lack explanatory or evidentiary value."

Henry, this makes no sense. I pointed out the existence of fossils over millions of years which show organisms changing over time. Where did you point to the "same phenomena"?

Are you actually going to sit there and pretend that with some ludicrous statement about cars changing over time that you can dismiss the fossil record as lacking "explanatory or evidentiary value"? That's absurd.

"You who cited changes in animals over time and greater similarity of more recent to existing forms as evidence of evolution by chance."

I can't comprehend this sentence but I do note that you are putting words in my mouth because I never said anything about "evolution by chance." What is "evolution by chance"?

"You have been confronted with a counter argument via example, i.e., that the same facts also support ID."

Huh?? You haven't told me what you think that "ID" is or how "ID" accounts for the diversity of life in the fossil record OR the diversity of life forms which we observe today OR the evolutionary relationship between DNA sequences of organisms, which are very consistent with the evolutionary relationships between organisms which were proposed long before anyone knew what DNA was. What does your ID theory have to offer scientists?

I think it has nothing to offer. I think it's religion and politics disguised as science. And that's what the school boards who have rejected idea also think. When ID "scientists" (of which there are only three or four deluded people on the planet willing to accept the moniker) actually succeed in agreeing on what ID is, do some research, and publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals, then maybe the vast majority of the world's biologists will start to take them seriously *as scientists*.

I"m not holding my breath, however, because I know it's not going to happen. I will take ID creationists seriously as a political lobbying group, however, because they are a reasonably well-oiled (e.g., Moonie-funded) propaganda machine. They certainly seem to have sucked you into their vortex, Henry.

41

"And that's what the school boards who have rejected idea also think"

Correction: "idea" should be "ID".

42

Wolker -

First, my sentence "You who cited changes in animals over time and greater similarity of more recent to existing forms as evidence of evolution by chance" should read "You cited changes in animals over time and greater similarity of more recent to existing forms as evidence of evolution by chance." It was a typo, like "idea" instead of "ID."

You offered changing forms over time as proof of unguided evolution. I pointed out that changing forms over time can also be interpreted as proof of intelligent design by giving you an example of analogous changing forms that you acknowledge are the result of ID. By your own admission, changing forms over time is not necessarily proof of evolution by chance, as you originally argued.

You ask ID "accounts for the diversity of life in the fossil record OR the diversity of life forms which we observe today OR the evolutionary relationship between DNA sequences of organisms, which are very consistent with the evolutionary relationships between organisms which were proposed long before anyone kneYou haven't told me what you think that "ID" is or how "ID" accounts for the diversity of life in the fossil record OR the diversity of life forms which we observe today OR the evolutionary relationship between DNA sequences of organisms, which are very consistent with the evolutionary relationships between organisms which were proposed long before anyone knew what DNA was. What does your ID theory have to offer scientists?
w what DNA was." As the person advocating evolution, you need to explain why it is a better explanation for these phenomena than ID.

To help you in your thinking, let me return to the car example, keeping in mind that cars have been around for about 100 years. Is there a diversity of car models in the car fossil record? Is there a diversity in car models today? Are these the result of intelligent intervention or chance?

The Ford Mustang was developed from the Falcon, sharing its chassis, engine, running gear, etc., but not its sheet metal. The Mustang was gradually refined and improved,adding features never available in the Falcon, like the 289 V-8, and the Falcon phased out. Compare a "fossil Mustang" and a "fossil Falcon" and you will see many similarities and a few differences. Do these reflect a common origin and the development of a new car "species" via random change and natural selection?

Try to answer and leave the "Moonie funded conspiracy" nonsense out of it.

43

"By your own admission, changing forms over time is not necessarily proof of evolution by chance, as you originally argued."

Alan, you caught me! I admit that I don't have videographic evidence of species evolving. Is that the only kind of evidence that will convince you that the species living on earth (and those that are fossilized) evolved? If there is other evidence that you would accept which would convince you that evolution occurred, please feel for describe it. If there is no evidence that will convince you (and I suspect that is the case if you refuse to accept the mountains of research available for your perusal on PubMed) then there is no point to this discussion. You have your book of Genesis or whatever your religious beliefs are. Enjoy.

"As the person advocating evolution, you need to explain why it is a better explanation for these phenomena than ID."

How can I "explain why" evolution is better explanation for the millions of observations scientists have made about life on earth than ID when you won't even tell me what you think ID is????? What the heck do you think ID is anyway? Please tell me what ID "explains."

"Do these reflect a common origin and the development of a new car "species" via random change and natural selection?"

Alan, cars don't reproduce themselves. So the answer is no, as I said. Also, as I said, it's irrelevant, i.e., a crap analogy.

Your analogy might hold some water if, in fact, we had no idea where cars came from or what forces conspired to put them together, but somewhere in a big canniser somewhere we found a set of blueprints for all cars that were ever built, where the blueprints were older than any living creature. Then you would be able to say that something that appeared to have evolved was in fact designed by some mysterious entity of whom we have no knowledge (except that "it" felt the need to make blueprints). In that case, you would be taken very seriously indeed and many conclusions of scientists would be called into question.

Under the present circumstances, however, your analogy is just silly.

44

Henry Ford said

"Try to answer and leave the "Moonie funded conspiracy" nonsense out of it."

Nonsense? Are you suggesting that ID is not first and foremost a religiously-funded and inspired enterprise? Please read:

http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Wedge_document

and this statement by ID apologist and self-proclaimed Moonie Jonathan Wells:

http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm

At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life . . .

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity...

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

45

Uh, Doug, hate to tell you, but the magazine said that the age of the universe had been revised upward by a billion years, and that it leaves the door open for future revisions of billions of years more. Which is what I said in the beginning: all the time I'm seeing new work that says the universe needs a few hundred million more years tacked on to the beginning of it.

Okay. So here we are: the universe is between 11 and 20 billion years old. A few posts up, you said it was definitively around fifteen, and you challenged me to find where it was being revised. I did so, and got attacked again.

Here's the deal: I don't take you seriously. It's an absolute joke that you can't peg it down to within 10 billion years!! The difference between 10 billion and 20 billion is a margin of error of 100%. This passes for science? And you want to come into schools and say, definitively, that the universe is 15 billion years old?!

Do what I do: just admit you don't know. Teach the kids the wonders of astronomy, of biology, of philosophy, of religion, and let them decide. Why is that so objectionable?

46

"Why is that so objectionable?"

Do you need other reasons than the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution?

I don't care what the students learn about religions in History class, or English class, or philosophy class, as long as it isn't promoting religion per se. But there's just no place for religion doctrine (e.g., stories of how or why things "came to be") in science classrooms. It's irrelevant to science that some people believe Shiva created this and Kukumas created that and God created this. I mean, who cares? So what? What's the point?

"the magazine said that the age of the universe had been revised upward by a billion years"

Where? I see that some scientists did a caclulation and determined that the universe is between 11.2 and 20 billion years. That's what the scientist say, at least within a 95% confidence limit.

"Which is what I said in the beginning: all the time I'm seeing new work that says the universe needs a few hundred million more years tacked on to the beginning of it."

That's not what you said. You said every time you pick up a magazine the age of the universe increases by a billion years. That's bogus.

"And you want to come into schools and say, definitively, that the universe is 15 billion years old?!"

Um, no. I don't want to say that. I want to say that scientists are 95% confident that the age of the universe is between 11.2 and 20 billion years, just like the article you quoted says. I'd also explain how scientists determine the age of the universe, what data they consider, and how and why the calculations and our confidence in them has varied over time.

I challenge you to show me a textbook that says that "scientists have proven definitively that the universe is 15 billion years old."

Scientists are the FIRST people to admit that they don't have all the answers. That's one of the hallmarks of science -- every time a question is answered, new questions are raised. That's why scientific research never stops.

In contrast, creationists advocate exactly the opposite. They want to teach kids that because scientists can't explain every single detail of evolution for 100s of millions of years, that "nobody knows anything" about evolution. And because scientists can't explain everything, the creationists say, we can assume that some incredibly talented "designer" must have created everything.

How quaint.

There was a time in this country where Americans took pride in their classrooms. Now we've got a bunch of religious fundamentalists attacking the work of thousands of American scientists. Bizarre. Thankfully, the fundies plan is not working very well thus far.

Last but not least, I note that whether the universe is 11.2 or 20 billion years old doesn't matter so much for evolutionary theory. The age of the earth is still roughly 5 billion years old and that's more than enough time for lots of evolution to have taken place. Dig it.

47

I'm proud of our schools, our classrooms, and our scientists. I don't see the problems you do.

True, I attack the work of thousands of scientists. I believe that the thousands of scientists who don't believe in man-induced global warming are right, and the thousands of scientists who believe in it are wrong. I believe that the scientists who run around like chicken littles whenever someone wants to build a nuclear power plant, designed by other scientists, impede human progress. I believe that the last century has seen more scientific and cultural progress than the last three hundred, combined, that preceded it.

I just don't see how science is threatened by Creationism. The Big Bang is a theory, is it not? Much of evolution is theoretical. I have some grave reservations about quantum theory: multiverses existing independently of our own, yet able to affect each other? Yet, it should be taught, in my view: I'm not going to wait for Feynman's disciples to get it all 100% nailed down before it should show up in a textbook. Teach it now--some kid might create a time machine with a box of toothpicks with what comes out of it.

Let me give you a hint from my career as a salesman: admit the problems in your product before the competition does. Much of evolutionary theory is not science, because science requires the capacity to test a hypothesis. Instead, it is based on observation of phenomena. Say that. That these are educated guesses, and work is constantly ongoing. But attacking those of us who say what, deep down, you already know, is more counterproductive to your cause than to ours.

48

"Let me give you a hint from my career as a salesman: admit the problems in your product before the competition does."

Every scientist would agree with that advice. Scientists, remember, spend their lives trying to convince other scientists that what they are doing represents a meaningful contribution to their chosen field, i.e., trying to convince other scientists that they are discovering and characterizing new phenomena and not creating artefacts or reproducing work that has already been done.

"That these are educated guesses, and work is constantly ongoing."

Of course the work is constantly ongoing. There are an infinite number of questions to ask about the universe and especially about biology. And the ever-questioning nature of science should certainly be taught.

But teaching kids that scientists are "unsure" about evolution merely because some very religious people on the very outermost fringes of science are screaming "we aren't convinced by any of this!" is dishonest, completely misrepresents the evidence, and ignores the fact that you can't find a serious biologist anywhere who has any doubt that life as we know it evolved. The precise details of HOW we evolved will be debated by scientists forever. But that doesn't mean that Darwin's theory that natural selection is responsible for evolution (at least to a large degree) is seriously questioned by scientists. On the contrary, Darwin's theory has proven to be one of the most fruitful and useful theories ever postulated, which is how scientific theories are judged.

49

Hi, I just discovered this blog a few days ago. I've been combing the archives for a few days, mostly in regards to homosexuality, which is how I found this site in the first place. (I'm not gay, but the political/scientific debate is very interesting, nonetheless.)

I'm also a Christian, and after doing a whole lot of research about it, I've come to the fairly secure position of accepting evolution as a biological process. What I don't (or more specifically, [i]can't[/i]) believe is that this process can account for everything we know and cherish about ourselves and humanity in general (i.e. scientific reductionism.) Free will, consciousness, art, literature--these are things that no amount of evidence could convince me to give up (in the transcendent sense), because I think to do so would be the worst thing that could happen to humanity. Man as machine, a mere cog in the meaningless procession of the universe--these are the inescapable conclusions of a materialist philosophy and ones that I just can't accept. I could be wrong, but I think in this case, ignorance is most definitely bliss.

Of course, it doesn't really matter what I think--the scariest part will come when those who do hold to these ideas are also the ones in power. The future prescribed by all those dystopian novelists doesn't look so far off anymore.

Okay, sorry to go on an apocalyptic rant there, but I do think that will be the logical end to the materialist philosophy if it takes hold. I just can't see how it could go any other way, by definition.