While trying to make sense out of Aristotle’s physics, the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn had an epiphany:
When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them. When you find an answer…when those passages make sense, then you may find that more central passages, ones you previously thought you understood, have changed their meaning.
I thought of this quote after reading the latest outrageous remarks by zoologist Richard Dawkins. Although Dawkins is considered by some to be one of the premier public intellectuals in Great Britain, it would be a stretch to consider him an important thinker. In fact, my view of the scientist can be summed up in a remark he recently made after meeting a political opponent: "You, sir, are an ignorant bigot."
But since some otherwise intelligent people take Dawkins seriously, I feel an obligation to do the same, if only to make sense of his apparent absurdities. In a recent interview with Salon.com, Dawkins provides just such an opening into understanding his murky logic:
Salon: You delve into agnosticism in "The Ancestor's Tale." How does it differ from atheism?
It's said that the only rational stance is agnosticism because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural creator. I find that a weak position. It is true that you can't disprove anything but you can put a probability value on it. There's an infinite number of things that you can't disprove: unicorns, werewolves, and teapots in orbit around Mars. But we don't pay any heed to them unless there is some positive reason to think that they do exist.
Salon: Believing in God is like believing in a teapot orbiting Mars?
Yes. For a long time it seemed clear to just about everybody that the beauty and elegance of the world seemed to be prima facie evidence for a divine creator. But the philosopher David Hume already realized three centuries ago that this was a bad argument. It leads to an infinite regression. You can't statistically explain improbable things like living creatures by saying that they must have been designed because you're still left to explain the designer, who must be, if anything, an even more statistically improbable and elegant thing. Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection.
Salon: Those who embrace "intelligent design" -- the idea that living cells are too complex to have been created by nature alone -- say evolution isn't incompatible with the existence of God.
There is just no evidence for the existence of God. Evolution by natural selection is a process that works up from simple beginnings, and simple beginnings are easy to explain. The engineer or any other living thing is difficult to explain -- but it is explicable by evolution by natural selection. So the relevance of evolutionary biology to atheism is that evolutionary biology gives us the only known mechanism whereby the illusion of design, or apparent design, could ever come into the universe anywhere.
Note that Dawkins claims that you can't statistically explain improbable things like living creatures by saying that they must have been designed because you're still left to explain the designer. The unstated assumption is that you can statistically explain improbable things like living creatures by natural selection because you don’t have to explain it's existence. (Which is certainly true since natural selection doesn’t, at least ontologically, exist.) All that natural selection does do is provide a post hoc means of explaining what is otherwise inexplicable – the existence of living creatures.
Notice, though, that Dawkins uses the term “natural selection” as if it were an objective fact that could be discovered rather than an inference drawn internally from experiencing other “facts” (i.e, similarities in DNA between two species). He even seems to imply that natural selection has some form of “creative power.” Although he must surely know better, he can’t help but act as if natural selection were a real process that acted upon living beings.
This is not merely an example of linguistic imprecision, but rather a necessary sleight-of-hand when attempting to pass off the intrinsically absurd notion of philosophical naturalism/materialism as a plausible hypothesis. It is also, I believe, the hermeneutical key to understanding the Westernized form of atheism.
As philosopher Mary Hesse claims, the methodology of science is irreducibly circular: the parts cannot be understood without the whole, which itself depends on the relation of the parts; data and concepts cannot be understood without theory and context which themselves depend on relations of data and concepts. Another way to look at it would be in understanding a sentence. The whole of a sentence can only be understood in light of the parts of the sentence and the parts of the sentence are understood in light of the whole sentence.
In a similar way, the process of natural selection cannot be understood apart from the relation of the parts (mutation and selection) to the whole (living creatures). But natural selection is itself a part of a whole and cannot be properly understood without knowing how it fits into that larger schema. As Dawkins said, “Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that's because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection.”
But what holds true for design is applicable to natural selection. Natural selection can never by the ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. But where, we may ask, did “natural selection” come from?
If an answer could be found – natural selection came from X - it would merely lead to another question of where X came from and so on, ad infinitum. This would normally lead to an infinite regress but those of us who accept modern cosmological explanations believe that an outer limit exists: the Big Bang.
At this point it would be easy to hide behind the mysterious cause (assuming there is one) behind the Big Bang. But we do not need to go back that far. It is enough to carry the atheist’s hermeneutical spiral back until the earliest known age of the universe, approximately 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years ago. The ultimate cause of natural selection, and the creation of man, morality, consciousness, etc, must lie in the moment after that singularity. Every cause, in fact, can be traced back to that point and can be carried forward to every subsequent cause that has every occurred.
If the universe was deterministic at that point then it would continue to be so today (since nothing supernatural changed the course of causality). The brute fact of Dawkins being an atheist, therefore, can be traced back to that specific point in time. He would have no control over his beliefs and could therefore not claim to be in possession of “truth.”
But Dawkins overlooks another fact. He claims that:
“If [natural selection] was random, then of course it couldn't possibly have given rise to the fantastically complicated and elegant forms that we see. Natural selection is the important force that drives evolution. Natural selection is about as non-random a force as you could possibly imagine.
Again we find that Dawkins refuses to consider the parts in light of the whole. Natural selection is a biological process and all biological processes are ultimately physical processes. At the quantum level, however, the universe appears to be irreducibly random. Dawkins appears to imply that the difference in randomness and non-randomness is a matter of perspective (biological rather than physical). In “interpreting” nature how does the zoologist know which takes primacy in creating life?
It is doubtful that Dawkins has ever thought through the implications of his belief (he doesn’t appear to be a particularly nimble or deep thinker) so he may not realize that all parts of a theory have to fit into the theory as a whole. While he might prefer to cherry-pick which parts of his theory have explanatory value and where it will begin,** he has to explain how it fits into the overall pattern of universal laws. To do so, however, would require that he ascribe a form of deistic power to the universe. Instead, he follows the typical atheist tactic of making an irrational leap of faith by embracing mysticism.
For example, he often refers to such terms as “meaning”, “morality”, and “beauty” even though they have no place in his own explanatory theories. The universe, after all, is merely a conglomeration of individual parts and the individual parts are merely bits of the universe. If the universe as a whole does not contain intrinsic meaning, morality, or beauty, then how can the parts be said to do so? The answer, of course, is that they can’t. Such talk is nothing but gibberish.
An atheist like Dawkins must choose which he will believe – that the universe is meaningless, undesigned, and undirected or that we can speak meaningfully about beauty, intelligence, and the “quasi-religious feeling” of awe. He can’t have both. Once he accepts an atheistic hermeneutic for interpreting life, the universe, and man’s existence, he must follow the spiral all the way down to the abyss.
*Hesse summarizes the post-empiricist view of science in the following five points:
1. In natural science data [are] not detachable from theory, for what count as theory are determined in the light of some theoretical interpretation, and the facts themselves have to be reconstructed in the light of interpretation.
2. In natural science theories are not models externally compared to nature in a hypothetico-deductive schema, they are the way the facts themselves are seen.
3. In natural science the lawlike relations asserted of experience are internal, because what count as facts are constitutited by what the theory says about their inner-relations with one another.
4. The language of natural science is irreducibly metaphorical and inexact, and formalizable only at the cost of distortion of the historical dynamics of scientific developments and of the imaginative construction in terms of which nature is interpreted by science.
5. Meanings in natural science are determined by theory; they are understood by theoretical coherence rather than by correspondence with facts.
(From Revolutions and Reconstructions in Philosophy of Science as Quoted in God and Culture, D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (eds))
**Dawkins glosses over the fact that natural selection can only begin once life has already been created. When speaking to general audiences he tends to imply, rather dishonestly, that this is a minor point rather than one of science’s most intractable problems.
1
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that men are without excuse. -Romans 1:20
Great Post Joe!!
posted on 05.03.2005 5:30 AM2
But what holds true for design is applicable to natural selection. Natural selection can never by the ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. But where, we may ask, did “natural selection” come from?
Exactly.
If the universe as a whole does not contain intrinsic meaning, morality, or beauty, then how can the parts be said to do so? The answer, of course, is that they can’t. Such talk is nothing but gibberish.
That's true, Joe, but you really should go ahead and act as if the universe has meaning because ... because ... well, because I say so!
posted on 05.03.2005 5:38 AM3
The unstated assumption is that you can statistically explain improbable things like living creatures by natural selection because you don’t have to explain it's existence
Uh, yeah, as long as you keep to phenomenal descriptions. So what?
“natural selection” as... an objective fact that could be discovered rather than an inference drawn internally from experiencing other “facts”
The inference is, almost certainly, (I love using that mathematical description; I so rarely get to use it) true; as Dawkins notes elswhere in the article, creationists of any stripe are left to explain why some fossils don't appear in some places, and, at the same time, are at a loss to explain why what we observe in distortions of the ecosystem due to rapid changes in the population of one species don't give rise to the observed phenomena of natural selection.
But where, we may ask, did “natural selection” come from?
You may; step into the realm of metaphysics then - if by what you really mean is "existence." "Natural selection" as a phenomena, though is readily explainable: it comes from self-replicating life + a dynamically changing ecosystem + random or catastropic events. There's no mystery here.
Nor mysticism.
At the quantum level, however, the universe appears to be irreducibly random. Dawkins appears to imply that the difference in randomness and non-randomness is a matter of perspective (biological rather than physical).
I will admit that the less enlightened part of me wants to smack folks who spout stuff like this; it is, to put it as politely as I can, ignorant nonsense.
OK, Carter, listen up, and listen up good:
RANDOM DOES NOT MEAN WITHOUT AN OBSERVABLE ORDER. IN FACT, WHAT QUANTUM PHYSICISTS- AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS- MEAN AS "RANDOM" IS CHARACTERIZABLE IN VERY MUCH THE SAME WAY.
The mathematical models are different, to be sure, but the nature of the ability to make a characterization of stochastic phenomena is the same.
IN FACT, IF THIS ABILITY TO CHARACTERIZE DOES NOT EXIST (AND HOW IT CANNOT BE CHARACTERIZED CAN ITSELF BE CHARACTERIZED) THEN WE CANNOT DESCRIBE IT.
The fact that Dawkins draws his atheist, naturalistic outlook from his observations should be no less repugnant to you or me than a Christian who declares that the heavens declare the glory of God.
posted on 05.03.2005 5:54 AM4
So, where do you get that definition of "should be" less repugnant? Oh, was that a C.S. Lewis "ought"?
"Human beings all over the earth have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way." - Mere Christianity
Random: "Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically"
When used as an idiom - which it was. In both instances.
posted on 05.03.2005 8:00 AM5
Quickie:
Dawkins: Evolution by natural selection is a process that works up from simple beginnings, and simple beginnings are easy to explain.
-- > SInce Origin of Life researchers are in despair over the complexity and detailed specification of the molecular machinery of life, this counts as a breathtaking case of the fallacy of confident manner.
-- > There is also a key stat thermo-d result that is all too relevant: S = K ln w, where the number of ways in which matter and energy at microparticle level could have been arranged spontaneously is truly astronomical, leading to some seriously high improbabilities for the emergence of the required highly specified [DNA, RNA, Ribosomes, Enzymes] component macromolecules.
-- > Could that be why, after years of parallel correspondences with Dawkins and Habermas, Antony Flew (formerly the leading philosophical atheist in the anglophone world) decided to become A Deist?
Of course, many are inclined to believe the Dawkins claim. Kindly supply the evidence that credibly shows -- without handwaving -- that the stat mech barriers can be reasonably surmounted.
[NOTE: Nor can "open systems" by itself do it: the classic entriopy calc is for heat exchange between open sub-sytems in an isolated system, and the 2nd law asserts that the net effect for the overall system is increase. That is, dumping energy into an open subsystem increases its disorder. It takes a flow-through and a heat engine to couple energy to get work. And, the spontaneous heat engines, e.g. hurricanes, are nowhere near the specified complexity of cellular machinery. THAT is the problem: hjow to get that machinery spontaneously.]
Okay, have fun on this one.
$ 0.02
Gordon
posted on 05.03.2005 8:49 AM6
For example, he often refers to such terms as “meaning”, “morality”, and “beauty” even though they have no place in his own explanatory theories. The universe, after all, is merely a conglomeration of individual parts and the individual parts are merely bits of the universe. If the universe as a whole does not contain intrinsic meaning, morality, or beauty, then how can the parts be said to do so? The answer, of course, is that they can’t. Such talk is nothing but gibberish.
The Klein bottle (a mathematical structure) may be thought of having beauty yet not only does no such thing exist in our universe such a thing cannot be constructed or exist in our universe (math geeks out there, if I'm wrong about this I'm sure you can suggest a substitute)...yet how could our 'universe' contain the idea of a beautiful structure if such a thing cannot exist in it? (BTW, before you say something like 'it exists on paper or in the ideas of our heads' what exists on paper is just a representation of such a thing...not a true depiction of it anymore than a painting of your wife is the same as your wife). This seems to be the old debate over Plato's idea of a seperate universe of 'ideal forms' where such abstract ideas as beauty, meaning and so on exist and our universe is somehow able to model & study them without actually containing them.
**Dawkins glosses over the fact that natural selection can only begin once life has already been created. When speaking to general audiences he tends to imply, rather dishonestly, that this is a minor point rather than one of science’s most intractable problems.
How is it one of science's most intractable problems? Considering that we are talking about a period in Earth's history when there's no fossil evidence that we are aware of left it appears to be an area where we have made excellent progress. Even without knowing the origin of life it is pretty impressive to have an excellent explanatory model that applies nicely to over a billion years of history on earth!
Joe, you seem to be obsessed with various attempts to prove ID scientifically almost to the point that one would believe religion itself is at stake if it cannot be done. If it turns out that a complete picture of how life can develop from inorganic atoms is formed...even to the point that every chemical reaction is plotted in a huge list that doesn't preclude the possibility of God. When we talked about the nature of death on the soul I pointed out that it is entirely possible the world has no supernatural elements at all and even the soul was created by natural forces. I see no reason to assume God could not do this if he so wished.
posted on 05.03.2005 9:16 AM7
The unBelievers play patty-cake with the facts of our causal universe day-in day-out yet are totally unwilling to deal with the necessity of a First Cause; The Causemaker.
Aren't they ready for any old 'tooth-fairy' that comes down the pike?
Never mind their 'science;' where is their simple honesty? None.
Back to Kindergarten.
posted on 05.03.2005 9:54 AM8
forget about the scientific aspect of dawkins statments - his argument falls apart long before that. he fails in his logic regarding causality, supposing that the designer must be designed. only that which has a beginning must have a cause, otherwise, you have infinte regress. i think dawkins should ask himself if he is absolutely sure that he has exhausted all knowledge and can set himself up to declare that God either doesn't exist or can't be known.
question: who is better off?
(a) the person who knows where they came from, where they're going, why they're here, and have an objective base for morality.
or
(b) the person who is unsure of where he came from, where he's going upon death, how to live rightly and what this all means.
excellent post joe
posted on 05.03.2005 10:37 AM9
Jeffrey, did you even read what Dawkins wrote?
i think dawkins should ask himself if he is absolutely sure that he has exhausted all knowledge and can set himself up to declare that God either doesn't exist or can't be known.
Gee, I show me where he said he exhausted all knowledge:
It's said that the only rational stance is agnosticism because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural creator. I find that a weak position. It is true that you can't disprove anything but you can put a probability value on it. There's an infinite number of things that you can't disprove: unicorns, werewolves, and teapots in orbit around Mars. But we don't pay any heed to them unless there is some positive reason to think that they do exist.
question: who is better off?
(a) the person who knows where they came from, where they're going, why they're here, and have an objective base for morality.
or
(b) the person who is unsure of where he came from, where he's going upon death, how to live rightly and what this all means.
(C) the person who tries to be honest about what he knows and doesn't know. The person who does not try to pretend science proves his ideological or religious beliefs when it really doesn't.
10
mumon:
In keeping with the tone established in your post:
You're an idiot.
The article (I assume on your blog) that you cite a New Scientist article which apparently stated: ... [the] team is attempting what no one else has done before: to create a new form of living being from non-living chemicals in the lab. Well, we've read about these proto-gods of the la-bore-atory creating life before. Remember Miller/Urey? In the past, these highly rigged experiments (and I have no problem with the rigging - that's a necessary part of science) created a bunch of amino acids, or proteins, or some other interesting but nevertheless less-than-earthshaking result and declared victory. No results yet, but our sober reporters at the New Scientist are already mulling possible sources of "clean fuels" and other free lunch outcomes. I chuckle when I think of how splicing a gene or two in a corn plant gave the eco-left the vapours. It's almost enough for me to hope they succeed just to watch the show.
Now let's turn to the other weighty scientific source you cite: the PBS website. Your intellectual journey from cottonwoods, aspens, wolf reintroduction, etc. to the location of fossils and natural selection is simply amazing. Unintelligible, but amazing in its vaulting leaps of illogic.
But, saving the best for last, my personal favorite is your modest explanation of randomness and stochastic processes. I love this phrase: ... the nature of the ability to make a characterization of stochastic phenomena is the same. I think what you meant to say in this brief paean to randomness was that random processes can be described by parameters. For example, a stochastic Gaussian noise process has a mean and a variance. That doesn't mean that you can guess the next random number coming out of a Gaussian noise generator, but you can say it's more likely to be near the mean than not, and how likely it is to fall within any particular value range. So where does that get you, or, more particularly, Dawkins? Dawkins still must grapple with the vanishingly small probability that an extremely complex molecule "just happened" by chance. I suppose one could believe that the monolith in "2001: A Space Oddessey" just happened to condense out of thin air (I was actually tempted to write a book on roughly this topic once, and the title was going to be "The Grand Piano from the Cloud Chamber" - too lazy, though), but not many would, I'll wager.
As an aside, one of the things that amuses me is the convergence between the Darwinist community and the SETI community. Simultaneously, they suppose that RNA jus' kinda happened one day, while straining to hear some electromagnetic fluff from the vast reaches of space that may somehow, through mathematical gymnastics, not be random.
My problem with Darwinism is regression to the mean. That does not mean that I believe God created the universe and all that's in it over the course of 8640 minutes back around 5000 BC (or whatever the current date is for the starting gun). I mean, maybe that's true, but my conception of God doesn't allow for planting fake brontosaurus butts around to throw us off. But Darwin? Naaah. Nice try, but no cigar from this guy. Anyways, why is so much deception required (c.f., Haeckel's pretty pix) if it's such a hot theory? Imaginary comment: Oh yes, this experiment does demonstrate cold fusion. That wire? The one going into the next lab? Ignore that wire, Sir.
Somebody'll come along one of these days and make hash out of Charlie's work. But hey, Aristotle and Ptolemy aren't such bad company.
posted on 05.03.2005 11:02 AM11
"My problem with Darwinism is regression to the mean. "
If you would be so kind as to elaborate on this a bit???
posted on 05.03.2005 11:07 AM12
George,
A young-earth theory does not mean that the dinosaurs were not real. Genesis states that God created all land animals and that would include your brontosaurus butt. Also there are passages in Job (think behemoth and leviathan) which vividly describe creatures who fit dinosaur descriptions more than any other. Visit www.answersingenesis.org if you want more information about dinosaurs and the Bible. :-)
posted on 05.03.2005 11:08 AM13
RazorsKiss:
Random: "Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically"When used as an idiom - which it was. In both instances.
No, it was used in 2 specific instances: in quantum physics and in evolutionary biology, which, themselves are hardly "unsystematic."
Sorry, but it's impossible to wiggle out of this.
posted on 05.03.2005 11:33 AM14
jeffrey allen:
What's wrong with infinite regress? Other than that it provides no insight whatsoever into the existence of a mentally constructed deity that is.
posted on 05.03.2005 11:35 AM15
"How is it one of science's most intractable problems? Considering that we are talking about a period in Earth's history when there's no fossil evidence that we are aware of left it appears to be an area where we have made excellent progress. Even without knowing the origin of life it is pretty impressive to have an excellent explanatory model that applies nicely to over a billion years of history on earth!"
Boonton...fossils???...excellent progress??...excellent explanatory model?? You are a classic example of 'rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic goes down!' Yours and Mr. Dawkin's problem is a problem of logic and philosophy. As much as you hate to admit it, you must decide between an eternal universe with no first cause(poor scientific support) or spontaneous generation (thoroughly disproven). I stand in awe at the atheist's ability to 'whistle in the dark' in the face of serious intellectual/scientific problems with their theory. When you can at least begin to explain from your theory how matter, energy and then life might have begun to exist and not violate the rules of logic, then people might begin to take you seriously.
Please try to answer this question and not go into a subject-changing tirade on your problems with ID theory.
posted on 05.03.2005 11:46 AM16
HumbleBumble, what are you talking about? Seriously? The origin of life is a different topic than the origin of the universe. As far as the origin of the universe is concerned, not only has spontaneous generation not been disproven it appears to be the most probable answer.
As you should know, bacteria and other single celled organisms do not usually leave fossil records. Hence our ability to get direct physical evidence of the very first living things on earth is much more limited than our ability to get evidence in regards to the hundreds of millions of years of life that came since until the recent generation of Paris Hilton and Michael Jackson.
Two issues would be involved here concerning ambiogensis (the origin of life). The first would be to derive an explanatory model which goes into as much detail as possible. The second is to prove that model (as opposed to other unimagined alternative models) is what happened.
In this regards spontaneous generation has never been disproven. It's been disproved only in the older form of the theory which argued that things like flies were generated by old bread and such. The classic experiment here was to let bread rot in a jar with a fine mesh covering it. This doesn't disprove spontaneous generation as understood by modern science unless you believe modern science believes life on earth started as a piece of bread thrown out the window of a passing UFO. As part of evolutionary theory spontaneous generation has to be assumed to be either very rare or impossible under current conditions (if it wasn't then there would be two origins of species...those that generated spontaneously and those that evolved from others).
posted on 05.03.2005 12:09 PM17
Who was the allegedly "ignorant bigot" that Dawkins allegedly called to the floor (see Joe's post)???
posted on 05.03.2005 12:50 PM18
"An atheist like Dawkins must choose which he will believe – that the universe is meaningless, undesigned, and undirected or that we can speak meaningfully about beauty, intelligence, and the “quasi-religious feeling” of awe. He can’t have both."
Obviously he can. And so can I. I can and I do.
The dichotomy you create is false.
An atheist can't speak meaningfully about "beauty"?
What a bizarre claim.
posted on 05.03.2005 12:54 PM19
Larry
Beauty for you (personally, only) yes
Beauty as a societal concept, no.
Which is why materialists tend to be existential. Reality, and truth, are simply extentions of you; what you believe and what you think is real. If there is no "higher power", no governing idea of right and wrong - then you are free to choose as you wish. And define beauty as you wish. After all, who can say your concept of beauty is false.
Good luck
posted on 05.03.2005 2:12 PM20
boonton:
Suppose you own a dairy herd. The average (mean) milk yield per cow is 10 l/day. But, you have a cow that yields 20 l/day. You breed this cow. In all likelihood, the calf, when grown, will have a yield somewhere between 10 and 20 l/day. Or suppose you are 7 ft tall. You think size matters, so you marry a woman 7 ft tall. You two have a child. Your child's height (assuming health factors equal) is likely between 7 ft and whatever the mean is. Both the yield and the height have regressed toward the mean. Gauss (one of the greatest geniuses in human history immortalized by the distribution that carries his name, aka the "normal" distribution or the "bell curve") discovered regression to the mean when trying to predict the heights of children from perents, in fact.
blestwithsons:
Given my personal experience with God, I have no problem believing that He could have done it all in 8000-odd minutes. But I also believe that science (and this is why I take such exception to dogmatic "science" as Darwinism has become) is a means for humans to reveal God's will as expressed in the laws of the universe (e.g., gravity). Having said that, when I look at the geological record, I see the passage of time. Vast time. Maybe I'm wrong. As chancy as radioisotope dating is, and it's very "noisy" (much more noisy that some would have you believe), unless our current understanding of nuclear physics is utterly wrong, this is (by human standards) a very old planet. Many orders of magnitude older than 10,000 years.
Just for fun
A little joke, inspired today...
Two guys, a believer and an atheist, are walking down the road when they come upon a Lego factory. In front of the factory is a majestic spire of legos, intertwined helixes, ten thousand feet tall.
The believer is struck with the beauty and near-impossibility of building something so monumental. He notes this to the atheist. The atheist dryly replies, "Fiddlesticks. They probably had a tornado here last night."
posted on 05.03.2005 2:15 PM21
Suppose you own a dairy herd. The average (mean) milk yield per cow is 10 l/day. But, you have a cow that yields 20 l/day. You breed this cow. In all likelihood, the calf, when grown, will have a yield somewhere between 10 and 20 l/day. Or suppose you are 7 ft tall. You think size matters, so you marry a woman 7 ft tall. You two have a child. Your child's height (assuming health factors equal) is likely between 7 ft and whatever the mean is. Both the yield and the height have regressed toward the mean. Gauss (one of the greatest geniuses in human history immortalized by the distribution that carries his name, aka the "normal" distribution or the "bell curve") discovered regression to the mean when trying to predict the heights of children from perents, in fact.
Ok, so let's make it even more complicated. Suppose with a normal distribution half of my cows will produce more than 10 l/day and half less. I choose only to breed the upper half of my distribution and slaughter the lower half. The mean of my next generation of cows will be higher than 10 l/day...although not as high as the 'best cows' of my first generation. What's the problem here regarding Darwin???
I like your perspective regarding science and God & the earth being old. I think you agree that if God could create a naturalistic unierse 13B yrs old (plus or minus whatever the error is) that could form an earth as an implication of natural laws then he could have allowed life to form as well as a consquence of those same natural laws.
posted on 05.03.2005 2:29 PM22
Regression to the mean, IMO, tells us very little about Darwin. If you read the history of the plants and animals we have domesticated then you would know that modern dogs, strawberries, corn, potatoes, etc. and their mean characteristics look nothing or very like the original wild plants and animals they were domesticated from.
posted on 05.03.2005 2:34 PM23
At its simplest, evolution is a 'scientific theory', which is significantly different than a plain old theory or idea. Gravity is a scientific theory, as is quantum physics, and many other scientific diciplines. They are all scientific theories, which means they are backed up by tons of scientific research and evidence.
I point this out because the biggest argument against evolution is that it is a theory. What these people don't tell you is that a scientific theory is a theory that has been tested, over and over again, under many different circumstances by many different people, and is shown to be true after all the testing. Creationists would have you believe that evolution was just concocted by Darwin (who's papers, by the way, only dealt with a very small part of evolutionary theory).
Also, evolution covers many different sub-diciplines which are all very unique but all inter-related. Creationists would have you believe it is only about how we magically changed from single-celled organisms to apes to humans. The fact is, evolutionary theory is highly complex and involves geology, biology, chemistry, and history in varying amounts. The creationists attempt to dumb evolution down into sound-bites that they can use to bully school boards.
So, the complexity and diversity of evolutionary theory makes it easy for someone with a little knowledge to present information out of context in order to disprove some piece of evidence. This is not only dishonest, but it flies in the face of scientific inquiry. Even if you disprove a part of a theory, that does not necessarily mean that the entire theory is wrong. There have been pieces of evolutionary theory that have been proven wrong over the years. That is part of true scientific inquiry. Creationists would have you believe that by casting doubt on a small part of evolutionary theory you are disproving the entire thing. This is just silly, and ask any scientist and they will say the same thing.
Next, the scientific community has a pretty good set of standards regarding evidence. When someone comes up with a new theory in any dicipline, it has to be presented with a body of evidence. That evidence must stand up to rigorous due diligence by the scientific community.
That said, a number of papers on creationism and inteligent design have been submitted to scientific journals for publication, and every single one has been rejected due either to lack of evidence or evidence that did not meet that journals' standards for evidence. Those submitting the papers will try and convince you that they were being discriminated against, but that is not the truth. The truth is that these papers did not stand up to the standards that the scientific community accept. The creationists answer to this is to cry foul, to say that they are being discriminated against, and to post their theories on the internet. To this I say; read the papers accepted for publishing in scientific journals, on any topic. Look at the work done by the authors, the scientific tests, the surveys, analysis. Then read a rejected creationist/ID paper. Even a layman will be able to tell that the research done by the creationist/ID proponents is so sub-standard that it doesn't deserve to be considered for publication.
Another point to consider is that according to a Gallup poll 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists believe that evolutionary theory is valid. And about 40% of those scientists are also theists who feel that, based upon the evidence, evolution was god's method of creation.
So, in the scientific community's support for evolution is pretty much unanimous across all religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs).
In closing, the following two points need to be made.
1) Evolutionary theory is very a very broad and complex science that is difficult to understand for the layman.
2) Virtually all scientists agree that evolutionary theory is valid.
Given these two points, why should anyone take an opinion on evolution from someone who most likely got his/her research from picking apart papers on the internet looking for sound bites to prove his/her point.
There is so much evidence on evolution out there, and it is complicated and difficult to wrap your head around. So let's let the scientists do their stuff and listen to them? If there is a scientist who disagrees with evolution, let him debate another scientist in the proper forum, or submit a paper to a respected journal? A scientists who posts his ideas on a website to garner a following is looking for noteriety, not science. True scientists live their lives in labs studying, not proselytizing.
I for one will not debate evolution. I will point anyone who asks to the major scientific journals and tell them to read what is published there. For me, the facts stand for themselves, and anyone who cares to look can see it.
Evolution is not debatable, Period. Now can we move on to something else?
posted on 05.03.2005 2:51 PM24
Excellent post EricJP, one item I would add is that scientific theories only tell you about their subject matter. Einstein's theory of Relativity, for example, tells us a lot about mass, gravity, time and what happens when things move at very high speeds. Trying to figure out the 'implications' of this theory for morality and religion are very dangerous and likely to be done by people whose understanding of the theory is a less than those who actually use it every day.
Arguments about the 'implications' of Darwin on society are likewise likely to be riddled with logical errors and misunderstandings both of what Darwin wrote as well as the developments that came after him. You are likely to hear on lists like this commentors who will claim there's a straight line between Darwin's Origin of the Species and Hitler's Final Solution (or Marxism). The truth is quite different.
posted on 05.03.2005 3:16 PM25
"There is just no evidence for the existence of God." -- Dawkin.
What about that thing we call "Faith?" That faith is almost humanly universal does indicate a focus on something or someone beyond scientific ability to measure by typical methodology. Such as God.
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen... By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." --Hebrews 10:1,3 (English Standard Version)
posted on 05.03.2005 3:17 PM26
A guy who taught a Creation Science class at my church made a valuable point: creationists do not agree on the age of the earth - even based on scripture. The point is it is useless to discuss new earth vs old earth issues with people who do not believe in creation at all. Christians do not agree - why should they?
[He quoted a professor at Multnomah School of the Bible (give you all this because I do not know name) who had a pre-release discussion manuscript called (at least then) "Genesis Unchained". - I only mention this because it is an interesting view on age of earth in the Bible - if it ever got published]
As to Intelligent Design, the people who explore this scientifically are exploring many types of intelligence - including an organism's ability to step outside its biology and physics and change its own genetic code to meet a specific crisis. As the "cracks God is found in" have narrowed by science, they are finding structures and processes (unexplainable by normal materialist, naturalist methods - and by that I do not mean not yet explained) that are information rich and look like design (DNA being the biggest). I think most of them would not give you a cosmology either - specifically they have told people to go elsewhere if the are looking for God. Evolutionary scientists are not nearly so certain of the proof of evolution as those, like EricJP, who have belief in evolution are; but they are certain that they will find the explanations someday in physics and biology. The science will eventually prove somebody right - I certainly do not fear the outgrowth of science. Of course, those who automatically discount possible answers because of their cosmology, and do not allow the facts to lead them, are not scientists. And some have let the existance of DNA lead them to intelligent design by space aliens salting the earth with life.
Now, I was a "strong agnostic" who had a personal experience with the living christian God - so I accept Him until proven otherwise. For 10 years, I have watched science confirm, not deny, my faith (outside of ID science which is 2 months old in my research). Do I believe that "I now" could have convinced "me then" intellectually about the existence of God - absolutely not. I just wasn't open. "Mere Christianity" is a wonderful book for those philosophically interested in this topic - but those who are not seeking answers will not be moved. "Case for Christ" is an amazing "court of law" level proof of the resurrection (Christ resurrected is all the proof of God necessary - you have to collapse in front of that) - but if someone is not open they will not see it; or make it an extraordinary physical event that happened in "someway not yet understood " that has nothing to do with God.
Arguing religion with those not actively seeking is an intellectual waste of time. Those like Boonton and Larry Lord are not intellectually honest. They are here to play logical mindgames with the superstitious fools who believe in christianity - and satisfy themselves to their intellectual superiority.
Tell them what God has done in your life; and pray you planted a seed that will sprout someday and be harvested. Otherwise, if our cosmology is right they will have a horrible shock at some point which they, and we, will regret but couldn't help.
posted on 05.03.2005 3:20 PM27
Joe:
I really, really, really wish you would put even a quarter as much scrutiny to bear on your own worldview as you do toward the other "absurd" worldviews you criticize. That life gradually evolved from fairly simple beginnings seems absurd to you, but you have no trouble swallowing that we get three Gods for the price of one; or that one of these is simultaneously the son of and the same thing as another; or that the son is the father made flesh, even though the son consistently refers to the father as though he's talking about a separate entity entirely; or that the "son" can be killed and raised from the dead, but that same son can't be bothered to spell out his teachings, and instead passes over his own brother (who, mystifyingly, is neither father nor son) and pegs some obscure guy from a city you've never heard of prior to that point to do it for him, on the condition that he change the first letter of his name. Yeah, that all makes sense, but that Dawkins character, well he's just nuts!
posted on 05.03.2005 3:21 PM28
Ericjp
Let me see if I understand this... Only scientists are smart enough to understand evolution so I should just turn off my brain and accept blindly whatever scientists choose to tell me. Oh wait - there are Creation Scientists. But by your definition, anyone believing in Creationism/Intelligent Design is stupid. Therefore I actually only blindly listen to evolutionary scientists? So in order to protect belief in evolution I must carefully guard what science I read in order to avoid coming across a dissenting view-point or fact. Hmph!I issue an opposite challenge to Ericjp's. Study Hard! Look at the evidence on both sides. Then make your decision. Don't let someone tell you "you're too stupid to understand so leave science to the 'experts'" in an attempt to shut down rational inquiry.
Oh, and speaking of publications, here's a quote from Science Digest "Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of the fastest-growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Larry Hatfield
posted on 05.03.2005 3:23 PM29
"Suppose you own a dairy herd. The average (mean) milk yield per cow is 10 l/day. But, you have a cow that yields 20 l/day. You breed this cow. In all likelihood, the calf, when grown, will have a yield somewhere between 10 and 20 l/day. Or suppose you are 7 ft tall. You think size matters, so you marry a woman 7 ft tall. You two have a child. Your child's height (assuming health factors equal) is likely between 7 ft and whatever the mean is. Both the yield and the height have regressed toward the mean. Gauss (one of the greatest geniuses in human history immortalized by the distribution that carries his name, aka the "normal" distribution or the "bell curve") discovered regression to the mean when trying to predict the heights of children from perents, in fact."
yeah, umm, you realize that you ar arguing that Chihuahuas ar eimpossible, right? I mean, if you are saying that a regression to the mean is proff that evolution cannot take place, thenits prove that people could not turn wolves into tiny, little, annoying yapping dogs.
Which, as we know, they did. Curse them.
posted on 05.03.2005 3:26 PM30
JCHFleetguy, I like the way you think! And your taste in reading for that matter!
posted on 05.03.2005 3:27 PM31
"What about that thing we call "Faith?" That faith is almost humanly universal does indicate a focus on something or someone beyond scientific ability to measure by typical methodology. Such as God."
Or an evolutionary trat that encouraged society building, whihc is good for the long term survival of the species. Just saying.
posted on 05.03.2005 3:29 PM32
Kevin:
Or an evolutionary trat that encouraged society building, whihc is good for the long term survival of the species. Just saying
And you can show that it is an evolutionary trait how?
posted on 05.03.2005 3:35 PM33
EricP,
Evolution may not be debatable, but evidence is.
I like the discussion.
G.M.
34
Let me see if I understand this... Only scientists are smart enough to understand evolution so I should just turn off my brain and accept blindly whatever scientists choose to tell me.
I think it was more like if you're not going to turn on your brain then you might as well accept the word of people that have.
Oh, and speaking of publications, here's a quote from Science Digest "Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of the fastest-growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Larry Hatfield
Heh, one of the oldest and lamest statistical tricks in the book is the 'X is the fastest growing whatever' one. People who believe the earth is flat represent one of the fast growing minorities in the world! They went from one to ten last year, a growth rate of 1000%!
posted on 05.03.2005 3:43 PM35
Boonton,
You wrote: "Trying to figure out the 'implications' of this theory for morality and religion are very dangerous and likely to be done by people whose understanding of the theory is a less than those who actually use it every day."
Can you give me an example of how evolution is used every day?
G.M.
posted on 05.03.2005 3:43 PM36
The academic sciences for one. Labs which map out the changes in viruses and bacteria are another. I'm sure some of our more scientific posters can give us a more comprehensive listing.
I can give you examples of how scientific theories are misused everyday by people who don't really understand them. If I have some free time I bet I can even find some examples among your posts!!!
posted on 05.03.2005 3:51 PM37
tgirsh, considering your poor understanding of the Bible and your willingness to take parts out of context, I don't know that your rant there has much merit.
Also, since this is Joe's blog, I would assume he gets to discuss what he wants to discuss.
38
Boonton,
Biology is evolution? Where has the theory of evolution contributed to progress in science?
I am always grateful to anyone who can show me where my perception is wrong. I value truth much more than my pride.
". . . when stubborn pride has flowered, it ripens to self deception
and the only harvest is a glut of tears."
-Persians-
I have an advantage over you Boonton: Once I thought as you do now, but you have yet to think like me.
G.M.
39
Chris Lutz:
tgirsh, considering your poor understanding of the Bible and your willingness to take parts out of context, I don't know that your rant there has much merit.First, I'd be willing to bet that my understanding of the Bible is better than that of most Americans, and probably better than 80% of self-described Christians. Of course, that bar isn't very high.
As to the citing out of context barb, you seem only concerned when people who disagree with you do that, saying nothing when people with whom you agree do the same thing, so it's hardly a legitimate criticism coming from you.
Also, since this is Joe's blog, I would assume he gets to discuss what he wants to discuss.I never said he couldn't discuss what he wanted; I merely chided him for holding those who disagree with him to a vastly different standard than those who agree with him.
My rant is here to make a point: if he insists on attacking charicatures of beliefs he doesn't like, he can't cry foul when others charicature his beliefs.
posted on 05.03.2005 4:09 PM40
George:
Where has the theory of evolution contributed to progress in science?Start here:
Evolutionary biology is central to the development of:posted on 05.03.2005 4:14 PM
- drug/chemical compounds for medical use
- methods for tracking pathogens, i.e., infectious diseases
- biochemicals for medicine and other industrial use
- data that reveals relationships among organisms
41
Regression to the Mean:
Oh goodness. I didn't realize I was coming out of retirement and going back into teaching...
Those pesky subpopulations. Suppose we take two strawberry plants (or wheat, or corn, etc.) which bear exceptionally large fruit. Next, we isolate them from the larger gene pool. We breed those two, whose offspring very likely will yield smaller berries than the parents, but still larger than the original population. We keep doing this, keeping them isolated all the time, and we soon have a subpopulation of Great Dane strawberries isolated from the mutt population.
But remember it was necessary to genetically isolate these plants. Once those pesky mutt genes get back into our carefully designed Great Dane population, in a generation or two we're back to where we started on the rejects table going to the jam factory. Regression to the mean. It can either be the mean of a subpopulation, or the population at large. Sometimes reliable variations of a species occurs because of geographic isolation. Sometimes we deliberately do it and construct elaborate facilities so that the feral fruit fly yowling on the wall of the trash bin where the banana peel landed can't interbreed with the freaks we have bred. But nowhere in this discussion of fabulous fruit have we crossed the species boundary - which is what Darwin is all about, folks.
Scientific Theory
At its simplest, evolution is a 'scientific theory', which is significantly different than a plain old theory or idea. Gravity is a scientific theory, as is quantum physics, and many other scientific diciplines. They are all scientific theories, which means they are backed up by tons of scientific research and evidence. I point this out because the biggest argument against evolution is that it is a theory. What these people don't tell you is that a scientific theory is a theory that has been tested, over and over again, under many different circumstances by many different people, and is shown to be true after all the testing.
Back when Usenet was an interesting place to be, I used to participate on a newsgroup called rec.pets.dogs. I recall a woman, tartly responding to a post about a bad night in a Wyoming winter with working sheepdogs, posting that her lapdog was never, ever allowed out in chilly weather without a sweater. My response to the above quote is the same as the Wyoming sheeplady's: "That's sweet."
EricJP, your understanding of how theories are formed, what constitutes a theory, and the nature of how science as an endeavor works is so sweetly naive and so utterly wrong that I would hardly know where to begin in an attempt to enlighten you. Before you embarass yourself in public again, please take the time to educate yourself on the topic. Note, however, that disagreement with Darwinian theory is not, as you seem to believe, because it is a theory.
43
George Maddox
"Biology is evolution? Where has the theory of evolution contributed to progress in science?"
Wow, you are naive.
Got to www.pubmed.gov and type "evolution" and see what comes up. Freak.
posted on 05.03.2005 7:52 PM44
Larry Load,
Looked at sight - 1st two articles had to do with evolution (or progression) of a disease in a patient - not evolutionary biology
Please tell me how far I have to dig to find anything that relates to this discussion
posted on 05.03.2005 8:01 PM45
FleetGuy says
"Reality, and truth, are simply extentions of you; what you believe and what you think is real. If there is no "higher power", no governing idea of right and wrong - then you are free to choose as you wish. And define beauty as you wish. After all, who can say your concept of beauty is false."
Who can say that anyone's concept of beauty if false? That was my point.
Anyone who claims to have "discovered" what "true beauty" is and claims to have proven that my concept of beauty is "meaningless" is an arrogant jackass.
Got it? Or do I need to climb up on your high horse and shout that in your face?
Seriously, these so-called intellectual evangelicals are the most arrogant people on the planet.
Another example:
"A young-earth theory does not mean that the dinosaurs were not real."
If you believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago you are a moron.
M-O-R-O-N.
I could care less if there are a million morons like you. A 10,000 year old earth -- even a 1 million year old earth or a 100 million year old earth -- is just plain indefensibly stupid anti-science anti-reality bullcrap.
Please go back to your cave and suckle your sasquatch babies if you insist on reciting completely debunked creationist scripts.
Why can't evangelical Christians spend more time attacking astrology and psychics and mediums who communicate with the dead? Why do so many of them insist on attacking solid basic science?
Answer: many of them have been brainwashed to believe that evolutionary biology represents an attack on their faith.
That is because many evangelicals -- especially contemporary evangelicals such as the Johnsonite Christian and Dobsonite Christian cults -- subscribe to the faith of Thomas.
Jesus was not a big fan of Thomas' faith, as I recall. But I'm sure some arrogant bible thumper will tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Perhaps I'll get a lesson in how Thomas' weak faith comes across completely differently when the scrolls are read in "the original Hebrew."
posted on 05.03.2005 8:06 PM46
FleetGuy
"Looked at sight - 1st two articles had to do with evolution (or progression) of a disease in a patient - not evolutionary biology
Please tell me how far I have to dig to find anything that relates to this discussion"
Are you joking? The next five references are about evolution and there are over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE REFERENCES and the database isn't even close to complete.
Do you want me to change your diapers, too, FleetGuy? After your amazing display of laziness (or just lying?), I wouldn't believe you if you said they weren't wet.
posted on 05.03.2005 8:10 PM47
Another example:
Anyone who claims to have "discovered" what "true beauty" is and claims to have proven that my concept of beauty is "meaningless" is an arrogant jackass.I said I thought you picked beauty for reason. But even being the hardest, most concepts of beauty transcend centuries and cultures.
"A young-earth theory does not mean that the dinosaurs were not real."
If you believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago you are a moron.
M-O-R-O-N.
I didnt say any of this - how'd it get into a rant against me.
and finally:
Personal Troll Policy:
I have found you troll-like. As such:
1) Any question you ask of me must be answered by you in advance. This must include your moral, ethical, and /or political opinion. If you do not have an opinion, you must make the issues you are attempting to resolve in to arrive at a opinion clear. Once done, I can decide whether I wish to enter this line of thought.
2) You questions and statements must show a reasonable attempt to process and understand any of the points I have made in this thread.
3) Any hyperbole, implied insult, and tone indicating you are not here to examine and explore ideas in order to understand yourself or others better will disqualify you from deserving an answer.
Thank you
posted on 05.03.2005 8:14 PM48
FleetGuy
"I didnt say any of this - how'd it get into a rant against me."
It didn't get turned into a rant against you.
I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
"Those like Boonton and Larry Lord are not intellectually honest."
That's false and rather rude. Why, the "tone" of that statement is "troll-like" and "not deserving of an answer." Nevertheless, I oblige.
I'm not the one who made a claim that atheists could not speak meaningfully about beauty (among other things).
That claim is intellectually dishonest.
As a matter of fact, it's pure baloney.
I already pointed that out, of course. And your response was to dissemble and engage in goalpost moving, i.e., I couldn't speak meaningfully about beauty "as a societal concept."
What a bunch of garbage.
Pathetic, really.
Do let us know if this isn't a "reasonable" attempt to "process" what happened upthread, FleetGuy.
49
No, it wasn't. But your trying.
Original post you responded to (not me):
"An atheist like Dawkins must choose which he will believe – that the universe is meaningless, undesigned, and undirected or that we can speak meaningfully about beauty, intelligence, and the “quasi-religious feeling” of awe. He can’t have both."
Your response:
Obviously he can. And so can I. I can and I do.
The dichotomy you create is false.
An atheist can't speak meaningfully about "beauty"?
What a bizarre claim.
My response:
Beauty for you (personally, only) yes
Beauty as a societal concept, no.
Which is why materialists tend to be existential. Reality, and truth, are simply extentions of you; what you believe and what you think is real. If there is no "higher power", no governing idea of right and wrong - then you are free to choose as you wish. And define beauty as you wish. After all, who can say your concept of beauty is false.
It was a mistake to tack the beauty thing on the end, because I was really talking about real standards vs existential ones. Beauty isn't a hard (not using that in the "difficult" sense) value, but again there are common human concepts of beauty (a lot not a few) that cross centuries and cultures.
One of the great sci-fi themes is the computer that transcends its physics and programming and becomes sentient. I think the original article speaks to this: why have human's become the only creature that transcends our biology and physics to become sentinent, and then act on our own evolution? Maybe the only creature on the planet with the concept of beauty? Biology or physics in a certain order. Maybe. God. Maybe (more for me). Explained by evolution in particular or science in general. no
posted on 05.03.2005 9:40 PM50
As to the intellectual honesty thing: I do not believe (I may be wrong, I have been every other day of my life) you think you have anything to learn here. I do not really believe you have respect for my viewpoint. What I find is an attempt, in going to the extremes, of trying to debunk the middle - that is really not argument. Trashing the 80% over the 20% is not even scientific.
I, however, do respect your opinions. Belief in evolution certainly puts you in line with the scientific community. I went to the site you mentioned, bookmarked, and looked at the 1st couple of articles. I was even smart enough to change the search to "evolution of species" to narrow the field (before you called me names!) and get about 20000 articles. This is an issue I care to understand, not approach with pre-determined notions (as I believe you do)
If you believe in God at all you keep it well hidden, and your disdain for those that do (at least this group) does put you in a very small minority telling the very large majority that we are fools. That is arrogant. If I am wrong, let me know. I haven't been around here for long - maybe your views on God are clear to everyone; not to me.
posted on 05.03.2005 10:05 PM51
Evolution is a THEORY. That means it is a best guess concept to explain observed data. I don't think an honest scientist would ever say "I believe in evolution." "Evolution is a theory which explains certain observations" would be as far as he/she would go.
There are (at least) two kinds of science, experimental and historical/observational. Chemistry is experimental: you can test your theories with experiments. Astronomy, geology, evolution, a little harder, at least with human lifespans.
In my life as a microbiologist I've seen some bacteria evolve as a response to selective pressure (from antibiotics used in hospitals.) So that portion of evolutionary theory is difficult to argue with. Same for the selective breeding of dog varieties.
But the theory of evolution does have some challenges. The idea of gradual change and slow adaptation via natural selection doesn't really jibe with the fossil record, which shows long periods of relative stability punctuated by rapid change. Also, the theory of evolution basically has nothing to say either way about the initiation of life, only what might happen once it has arisen.
Scientists (and I am one) have to watch very carefully for arrogance. There is an old saying: when you have a hammer, the entire world begins to look like a nail. The theory of evolution as espoused by some comes dangerously close to a dogma that "cannot be disproved" and scientists ought to mistrust any scientific statement that cannot be disproved.
Oh, and congratulations, Larry. Several posts, and no mention of Iraqi children or George Bush. I may have underestimated you.
posted on 05.03.2005 10:27 PM52
Jim
Unless I've misunderstood you, your example of "selective breeding of dog varieties" is one reinforcing ID, not evolution.
And in the case of the "evolving" bacteria, did their DNA change, or were they just cases of variation within the species?
posted on 05.03.2005 10:40 PM53
Shawn,
Actually, just points to one of the first common definitions you have to have - what constitutes a new species? Great danes and miniature poodles are not likely to mate "in the wild" (sexually isolated) but their DNA is not incompatible (they can breed). So, the general definition is that they are variants within a species; not a separate species.
Jim:
The bacteria - separate species or variant?
54
I just wanted to say that I think that the author is mischaracterizing Dawkins and his work. Dawkins goes into great depth with his definitions, meanings, and arguments in a number of his books. The author is attacking him based on some things he says in an interview for popular media, which is hardly going to have the same level of detail and analysis as his serious works. From there, the authors makes many claims that could not be reasonably made if he had actually read his works.
posted on 05.04.2005 1:19 AM55
antidepressant treat may doctor. comes also tablets. mg conditions your 30, buy Paxil by used 40 used to depression. 20, is to treat determined 10, an http://buy-paxil-online.here.ws in be as and other
posted on 05.04.2005 4:00 AM56
each 800 for pulls, patients relaxants. sprains, a muscle is mg cheap Skelaxin pain by who result muscle FDA. as strains. or are experiencing of approved http://buy-skelaxin-online.here.ws
posted on 05.04.2005 5:09 AM57
It is true that you can't disprove anything but you can put a probability value on it.
Can Dawkins prove or disprove that statement?
What is the probability value on the axiom that every axiom has a probability value?
It's the same fallacy as the "all truth is relative" school.
posted on 05.04.2005 6:04 AM58
Evolution, natural selection et al are not the problem. For those of you intent on literal interpretation of the Bible your dilemma has not changed. You must hold your creation science up the bright light of empirical observation and see what shakes out. You have to put out your data, show us the evidence, let us weigh and measure and then retest to be certain. But of course this is a terrible paradox since you would have to rely on the very scientific methods that have substantiated evolution in the first place. Good luck!
59
"He who forms the mountains,
creates the wind,
and reveals his thoughts to man,
he who turns dawn to darkness, and treads the high places of the earth-
The Lord God Almighty is his name."
AMOS 4:13
60
"But as for you who forsake the Lord
and forget my holy mountain,
who spread a table for FORTUNE
and fill bowls of mixed wine for DESTINY
I will destine you for the sword,
and you will all bend down for the slaughter;
for I called but you did not answer,
I spoke but you did not listen. . ."
Isaiah 65:13
61
"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."
Romans 1:21-23
62
Peter:
You must hold your creation science up the bright light of empirical observation and see what shakes out. You have to put out your data, show us the evidence, let us weigh and measure and then retest to be certain. But of course this is a terrible paradox since you would have to rely on the very scientific methods that have substantiated evolution in the first placeOK, your right - and folks are doing just this. And we are chatting about that - arguing, sharing our info, calling each other names, etc. What is your responsibility? To breeze through and state the obvious - or do you have a responsibility to truly understand the arguments beyond the trite you just said.
Natural selection works by traits that have "proven" advantageous being passed on to offspring more than traits that aren't (because perhaps the predator next door ate the animal, or they starved to death). There is no doubt about this anywhere - including us pea-brained christians. Natural selection causes evolution at least within a species - no one disputes this. At this point, this is all that science by empirical observation can prove. It will never observe the 1st life arising from non-life (abiogenesis); and it has never observed one species evolving into another distinct, biologically isolated (unable to mate with precursor) species (that is why I asked Jim whether that was a variant or a species - if he observed a new species formed it would be huge). It may not. Evolution occurs over huge time periods, and if in 200 years we haven't observed it (or missed it) this means nothing (granted). New species appear in the fossil record in bursts, so it might be a million years before another burst (or never). So, the complexity of life on the planet is a huge debate point.
Back to abiogenesis: In order for advantageous traits to be passed on, DNA must exist. Even the most simple one-celled organism have very complex DNA - a hugely complex molecule. So, in order for life to begin and reproduce, DNA had to exist - but DNA is much more than even a chain of amino acids becoming a protein; and would have had to happen simultaneously with the formation of the 1st organism - or that organism couldn't reproduce. This is a conundrum. Evolutionary biologists haven't figured this out, but have faith (as I am sure you do) that a naturalistic explanation will be found. Intelligent design biologists are not so sure any such explanation will be found. So, let the science rage - we will all know someday but probably not by empirical observation.
Since this is a thread on atheism (and its support from evolution), not evolution, abiogeneis is all you really have to deal with. At least one huge atheist thinker was "tricked" by the problem DNA creates into re-thinking the issue of some sort of designer.
The nice thing for me is that I know my God - so if evolution from abiogenesis on up was proven my faith wouldn't be shaken. I choose to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong - and I can always run like a little superstitious squirrel to the refuge of it being allegory.
If you have some science to bring in, this would now be the place.
posted on 05.04.2005 11:11 AM63
But remember it was necessary to genetically isolate these plants. Once those pesky mutt genes get back into our carefully designed Great Dane population, in a generation or two we're back to where we started on the rejects table going to the jam factory. Regression to the mean. It can either be the mean of a subpopulation, or the population at large
What you are missing here is that by using selection you are changing the distribution of genes. Originally there were a few freakishly small berry genes and a few freakishly large and many inbetween. By breeding only the large genes you are changing the distribution of the next generation. The freakishly small genes are being forced into extinction while the large ones are being forced to become a more dominante part of this subpopulation. In the case of strawberries it was humans who were genetically isoloating certain types of genes but natural processes can do it as well.
But the theory of evolution does have some challenges. The idea of gradual change and slow adaptation via natural selection doesn't really jibe with the fossil record, which shows long periods of relative stability punctuated by rapid change. Also, the theory of evolution basically has nothing to say either way about the initiation of life, only what might happen once it has arisen.
The key word here is challenges which I agree with. All good theories have challenges otherwise they wouldn't be interesting. I do not think, though, that these challenges are sufficient to merit taking ID or creationists seriously. For example, it does not require a radical remaking of the theory to account for periods of long stability followed by 'rapid change'. By radical I mean moving the theory towards creationists/ID lines. A host of undramatic modifications have been proposed that can account for this (undramatic in the sense of the evolution vs ID/creation debate...to those in the know they are dramatic). I'll let others address the details if we want to go into it but I'll just ask what do you mean by 'rapid change'? Are we talking really rapid like a few hundred or a thousand years or are we talking rapid like 100,000-1M years instead of 5M years? If it's the later then how rapid is it really?
Shawn, Actually, just points to one of the first common definitions you have to have - what constitutes a new species? Great danes and miniature poodles are not likely to mate "in the wild" (sexually isolated) but their DNA is not incompatible (they can breed). So, the general definition is that they are variants within a species; not a separate species.Jim:
The bacteria - separate species or variant?
I suppose bacteria do not normally breed with each other so it's kind of hard to apply the "can they breed in theory" test to tell. But this leads to a serious question that IDers/creationists have never answered to my knowledge. Is 'species' an objective definition or simply one we use for the sake of easy sorting? I've asked this before:
Suppose we accept the critique that 'microevolution' is possible (great danes and poodles from dogs) but not macroevolution. What is the barrier? In other words, there should be an objective barrier beyond which selective breeding...even if the breeder could work for millions of years...cannot push. This should be able to be stated as a statement of fact such as "you can make a dog into a Great Dane or a little poodle but you can never give it wings!". We can then say that if we can push the dog species so far but we could never, using just breeding, get it over that 'hump' to create a flying dog. Such a thing would require a different species!
But if this is the case then what mechanism prevents it? What mechanism allows a species to drift wide and far (from Great Danes to poodles) but not beyond a particular boundary? DNA makes this question all the more difficult to answer because as far as we know all living things are built with the same 'alphabet'. I can take a Tom Wolff book and turn it into a Falkner book by changing the letters that make up its text since I'm just using the standard English alphabet. However I cannot turn it into the Koran because to do so would require the Arabic alphabet which I cannot access if I'm limited to English letters. Dogs and cats, though, are made with the same DNA alphabet!
posted on 05.04.2005 11:34 AM64
Boonton
Very nice - I take back everything I said about you not being intellectually honest.
Species isn't just a concept for ID/creation - evolutionary biologists work from this framework too. Somebody is talking about using out newfound genome/dna mapping to redraw the "tree of life" - the assumptions about evolutionary parents and children. Should be interesting.
What forms that boundary is exactly the question: I read a guy who was doing this research on fruit flys. I cannot remember how many generations/years he pushed to get past that boundary - and said he came so tantalizingly close, but no cigar. Never a fruit fly biologically distinct from the first one.
This is the "crack that God is in" (and a large one) right now. If all biologically isolated life appears suddenly, fully formed, and stable - then intelligent design wins the day. People may flee to space aliens keeping the planet as a garden to avoid God - I do not know. If "macro-evolution" is observed, then I will be fleeing somewhere.
posted on 05.04.2005 11:59 AM65
Thanks Fleetguy, however a major problem is that there is no evidence that all life forms appeared at once, stable and unchanged. This means that if you want ID to win the day you have to try to assert that the ID has periodically 'inserted' new species throughout the history of the Earth down to the present day.
I'm still unclear what you mean by barrier? What is the dividing line between species? What is the barrier that would prevent microevolution from proceeding to macroevolution?
posted on 05.04.2005 12:28 PM66
FleetGuy
"Belief in evolution certainly puts you in line with the scientific community."
Um, what other "community" could possibly have a relevant opinion on the matter?
This is another strange statement that amounts to dissembling.
You see, you and I can both "believe" whatever we want. But if we pretend that facts are not facts, then we are living in denial.
I choose not to do that.
posted on 05.04.2005 12:36 PM67
Boonton:
I dont know what constitutes that barrier (I will grant it may not exist - naturalistic processes may in the end explain all)
My belief would be a living, creative God keeping biology and physics and natural selection from doing more than varying his creation. ID (which isn't really God centered) may have a different answer; certainly evolutionary biologists will not settle for that.
I exactly believe in a creative God who is responsible for several periods of intense creation; some periods of stasis; and a few extra species thrown in along the way. Other than believing that God created the earth with a fossil record designed to test the faith of this creations (which I do not believe, but do now believe God might do) - that is where the science leads.
Obviously in that I have stepped away from a purely literal interpretation of the Bible - but it isn't anti-Bible either.
posted on 05.04.2005 12:41 PM68
"But the theory of evolution does have some challenges. The idea of gradual change and slow adaptation via natural selection doesn't really jibe with the fossil record, which shows long periods of relative stability punctuated by rapid change."
No mechanistic theory explains every observation perfectly. That is why science is a continuing process.
"Also, the theory of evolution basically has nothing to say either way about the initiation of life, only what might happen once it has arisen."
That is true. Scientists are working to understand prebiotic events leading to life and also trying to figure out ways to determine if new life forms are arising anywhere on earth today (how to detect them?).
Inserting "mysterious alien beings" and their "mysterious powers" is not helpful to the conversation. It's worse than a bad joke as far as sincere scientists are concerned.
posted on 05.04.2005 12:43 PM69
"My belief would be a living, creative God keeping biology and physics and natural selection from doing more than varying his creation."
If you think this is where "the science leads" then you are clueless about science.
I might also add that your insights into God's wishes strike me as profoundly arrogant, although this is not an uncommon practice among certain religious people.
posted on 05.04.2005 12:47 PM70
"I'm still unclear what you mean by barrier? What is the dividing line between species? What is the barrier that would prevent microevolution from proceeding to macroevolution?"
I think macroevolution has taken place when a species has branched into two or more species.
If two populations no longer can produce viable offspring, that indicates speciation. For example, a lion and a tiger may produce offspring, but that offspring is infertile.
Evolutionists often infer that such speciation has occurred in the past because of anatomical similarities, high correspondence of DNA structure, and fossil evidence. The okapi and the giraffe, the camel and the llama, The leopard and the jaguar are examples of pairs that seem likely to have evolved from common ancestors. In the case of the latter two pairs, geographical isolation due to the theorized separation of the African and South American land masses provides a reasonable explanation for the speciation.
posted on 05.04.2005 1:50 PM71
How would that definition apply to a species that reproduces by asexual reproduction...such as bacteria?
posted on 05.04.2005 2:56 PM72
Larry,
I might also add that your insights into God's wishes strike me as profoundly arrogant, although this is not an uncommon practice among certain religious people.Come on. Why is it arrogant to speculate on God's wishes? The whole point of a world view is to understand the problem, figure out how we got here, and find a solution for that problem. Those with a religious world view have to speculate on God's wishes.
Also, since this thread is about atheism (not really evolution) how can bringing "mysterious powers" into the mix be counter-productive.
If you are saying scientists will not stop at a "mysterious power" being the cause of something - well of course not. It's their job to narrow the cracks "where God is found" - more power to them.
posted on 05.04.2005 3:05 PM73
Jim:
Evolution is a THEORY.So's gravity, but I'm not going to go walking off a cliff any time soon because it's "just a theory."
The idea of gradual change and slow adaptation via natural selection doesn't really jibe with the fossil record, which shows long periods of relative stability punctuated by rapid change.True, however this calls into question the posited mechanism driving evolution, not whether evolution itself occurred. (As an example, finding a hominid fossil dating to the Cambrian would certainly do the latter).
Also, the theory of evolution basically has nothing to say either way about the initiation of life, only what might happen once it has arisen.This is very true, and why it's not intellectually dishonest (IMO) to believe in theistic evolution.
Scientists (and I am one) have to watch very carefully for arrogance.This is absolutely true, and it's why the peer review process is so important. Unfortunately, it's this part that those who deny evolution want to bypass...
The theory of evolution as espoused by some comes dangerously close to a dogma that "cannot be disproved" and scientists ought to mistrust any scientific statement that cannot be disproved.Also true, although I'm not sure Dawkins qualifies.
Ridolph:
The author is attacking him based on some things he says in an interview for popular media, which is hardly going to have the same level of detail and analysis as his serious works.Welcome to the blogosphere! :)
Chris Lutz:
Here's your chance! George Maddox and blestwithsons are not only citing scripture out of context, they're doing it seemingly at random! Surely you will take them to task for this! (Right after the Milwaukee Brewers win the World Series, I'm sure...)
George and blestwithsons:
It's really not my fault. God made me believe that which is not true:
The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.(Of course, one wonders why it is necessary to send the delusion if we already don't believe the "truth," but that's another question for another time...)
JCHFleetguy:
OK, your right - and folks are doing just this.No, we're just a bunch of shmoes in an informal debate. Nobody here is doing anything even remotely close to meeting the standards of evidence needed for something to be considered serious science. Of course, no ID/Creation advocates anywhere are doing much of that...
But here's the thing: If you want ID or Creationism to be taken seriously, you must state those theories discretely and allow them to stand or fall on their own. That is, you're not allowed to simply present them as "an alternative to evolution." It has to live or die on its own merits, without even mentioning evolution. That's the problem with ID and Creation "theory": They never frame themselves in their own terms, only as a foil to evolution. Without evolution as a foil, there's no "there" there.
Boonton/Rob:
What is the barrier that would prevent microevolution from proceeding to macroevolution?Isn't the whole "micro/macro" divide artificial anyway? The process is the same, and IIRC, the term "microevolution" was only coined by ID/Creationists who could no longer deny that evolution actually occurred at least on a small scale. I'm not aware of any prominent scientist who thinks that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are two distinct things. posted on 05.04.2005 3:34 PM
74
Indeed the divide is artificial in my opinion but if ID/Creationists are correct then a barrier would have to exist. If that barrier exists then there should be a mechanism that explains how it is maintained.
posted on 05.04.2005 3:48 PM75
Fleetguy you are working hard at this and that I can appreciate. But ultimately you are looking for God in the gaps.
The gaps are shrinking. You have to ask yourself a central question; At what point do I begin to approach these questions without forcing all data to conform to a predetermined outcome,i.e God is the maker.
And remember there is still the science of geology to contend with and there is even less wiggle room there.
76
FleetGuy
"The whole point of a world view is to understand the problem, figure out how we got here, and find a solution for that problem."
I forget that some of the folks around here were given Mein Kampf to read in their high school history classes.
The term "worldview" is meaningless. It's a divisive talking point that evangelicals use to pretend that their faith-based believes are equivalent to facts.
"Come on. Why is it arrogant to speculate on God's wishes?"
Um, because you're a human being like me and how in heck could you possibly know what God desires when it comes to topics like dinosaurs and genetic drift?
posted on 05.04.2005 4:22 PM77
I hasten to call this commentary a 'post'. What is really funny is that Joe insults Dawkins as not being a 'deep thinker' and then rambles on without ever making on worthwhile point.
To say Dawkins isn't a great thinker is silly. Provide evidence and rebut him, your ad hominum's are tiresome. The this:
'What about that thing we call "Faith?" That faith is almost humanly universal does indicate a focus on something or someone beyond scientific ability to measure by typical methodology. Such as God.'
No it doesn't, thats a non-sequitar. Not all humans have faith, most humans do not share the same faith even within any one religion. There are plenty of good reasons why people have 'faith' that certainly don't provide evidence for a supernatural being in the sky.
And the stupid:
'. I choose to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong -'
My gosh, have you seen snakes talk? Virgins give birth? Talking burning bushes? evidence for a global flood? the exodus? people living to 900yrs old? People flying? Chariots flying and taking people to other realms? How much more do you need?
'. Study Hard! Look at the evidence on both sides. Then make your decision. '
Good should be a short study. Evolution-years and years of evidence and work. ID/Creationism-nothing. Moving on.
'Dawkins glosses over the fact that natural selection can only begin once life has already been created'
No he doesn't, that is a blatant lie. He knows the work on abiogenesis is to date incomplete. So what, it doesn't change the fact that natural selection works once life starts.
'Again we find that Dawkins refuses to consider the parts in light of the whole. Natural selection is a biological process and all biological processes are ultimately physical processes'
Having you lecture Dawkins on what HE doesn't understand about evolution has got to be one of the best laughs I've had in some time. You call quantum physics irreducibly complex despite not knowing a thing about what your talking about. Appearances can be deceptive.
'For example, he often refers to such terms as “meaning”, “morality”, and “beauty” even though they have no place in his own explanatory theories.'
He is a human, he is aloud to voice an opinion. He doesn't base his science on the above.
'The universe, after all, is merely a conglomeration of individual parts and the individual parts are merely bits of the universe.'
Yes, point?
'If the universe as a whole does not contain intrinsic meaning, morality, or beauty, then how can the parts be said to do so?'
Horrible, horrible piece of logic. So freaking stupid as not to deserve a response of any kind. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Meaning, define the term and then perhaps a discussion is possible.
'The answer, of course, is that they can’t. Such talk is no