1

For me the turning point against the scientific establishment re human origins was when Gould et al began to push the idea of "puncuated equilibrium". Since the late 18th century the idea behind the natural sciences was that slow change, measured over long time spans, could explain the natural world equally as well as Biblical catastrophism. Darwinists clove to this idea. Then when it could not explain the fossil evidence it was jettisoned to save the theory. Bad science, but good at saving the materialistic explanation for the world.

2

I have read nearly the whole of Evolution [probably Acworth’s unpublished “The Lie of Evolution”] and am glad you sent it. I must confess it has shaken me: not in my belief in evolution, which was of the vaguest and most intermittent kind, but in my belief that the question was wholly unimportant. I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders. ~ C.S. Lewis

Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and rather vague, and the method that you use for figuring out the consequences is a little vague - you are not sure, and you say, ‘I think everything’s right because it’s all due to so and so, and such and such do this and that more or less, and I can sort of explain how this works'... then you see that this theory is good, because it cannot be proved wrong! Also if the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the expected consequences. ~ Richard Feynman

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything. ~ Richard Lewontin

3

That post is a textbook example of projection.

A few points...

Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory? Is it due to a resurgence of religious-based creationism? Or is it that the Discovery Institute and other advocates of Intelligent Design are more persuasive?

Religion is a powerful idea in this country. I think, frankly, it all has to do with a denial of death. Death is a strong motivator.

In most other countries, with the Islamic areas notable exceptions, nobody has a problem with evolution.

While it is possible that the credit belongs to the opponents of neo-Darwinism, I believe another group deserves the honor: evolutionists.

Scientific theories evolve- because no scientist who wants to examine fundamental claims really approaches anything in his work from anything other than a position of skepticism. And every now and then, whether it's the theory of relativity or punctuated equilibrium, some scientist comes along that provides a new explanation for something that prior theory couldn't explain.

If closed-minded people want to use that to doubt that speciation happens that's fine, but Americans ought to care about the state of their educational system if creationist nonsense is put in the schools. It's all very Maoist to me.

...Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are ...

not really related to the theory of origins, except, I would imagine, for the analogs of animal behavior (you know, like the way some breeds of dogs are known for their particular temperaments...

So why you are making a generalizing fallacy (critiquing the theory of origins because of critiques of evolutionary psychology), well... that'd be worth an explanation...

4

Joe,

Does it make any difference if evolution is taught in public schools? Apparently not. Eighty years after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the public still refuses to accept many of the claims made about Darwin’s theory.

Certainly, public schools have done a crappy job of teaching science. Since a great many of those who refuse to accept Darwin's theory have only a vague understanding of its details, we probably should be cautious about drawing conclusions about the reasons for that rejaction. You wouldn't want to be guilty of the same sin as the "evolutionists" by writing a detailed just-so story to explain why people reject evolution.

As just one example, a great many people who reject Gould and Eldridge's theory of punctuated equilibrium think of it vaguely as a sort of "hopeful monster" rapid evolution. How many of them could actually summarize it as a way of explaing the fossil record in terms of population genetics and Mayr's peripatric speciation, and discuss the evidence pro and con?

Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm of faith.

The problem with this analysis is that a theory which is correct will also explain all the available data. How do you distinguish the two possibilities? I'd suggest that you have to analyze actual examples rather than simply quoting people like Philip Skell.

There's also the problem of overgeneralizing "evolution" as a simple, homogeneous theory, instead of specifying that it contains a wide variety of competing hypotheses. One could make a similar argument against ID. There are so many different ideas about when the design occured and the extent of the designers input, that ID can explain anything at all. I would prefer to see critiques of ID discussing specific hypotheses about the mechanism, timing, and extent of the design, but that would require the IDers to make state those specific hypotheses rather than a series of unrelated ID just-so stories.

Since you seem to have a strong interest in the evolution/creation/ID debate, I would love to see you write a critique of, for instance, Darwin's adaptive explanation for the co-evolution of orchids and insects, or of the fossil evidence for whale evolution. I think that would be a much more valuable contribution to the debate than trying to prove that someone like Richard Dawkins has a religious faith in evolution.

Much of what passes as evolutionary explanation in the popular press should probably be characterized as hypothesis, but that subtlety is lost in compression to soundbites. To actually address the issue, one would need to look in detail at one of those hypotheses and assess the evidence for and against specific adaptive explanations for the struucture in question.

5

Another approach by the evolutionist is to ridicule all belief as absurd. See the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory at www.venganza.org

6

One problem with this discussion is that "evolution" is used in different ways to refer to different things. Here are at least a few of the uses of the term:

(1) That natural selection occurs. This is pretty well attested in microbiology, studies of moth color in areas where there is coal smoke, loss of eyes in cave fish, etc.

(2) That the earth and the life on it are very old and existing species are descended from very diffferent ones. Unless you believe that God placed geological strata and fossils on the earth just to tempt or trick people, there's a great deal of evidence for these propositions as well.

(3) That all kinds of behavioral and cultural phenomena can be explained by evolutionary influences from the past (e.g., men were hunters and so have a greater ability to visualize space and 3-D objects). These ideas are sometimes interesting, but mostly speculative and very difficult to test.

(4) That life arose as a result of a random process/life is so complex it must have been deliberately designed. So far, no one has devised a way of testing either of these propositions.

(5) That human beings, at least as to their "souls," if not their physical form, were/were not specially created. This idea, also, is very difficult to test by empirical methods. What observable facts would tend to make one more or less confident of either of these ideas? Hard to say.

What is true is that historically people used Scripture to answer all kinds of questions we now consider scientific or historical ones, and there is more and more evidence that the old Scripture-based propositions weren't true in the sense people used to assume. The Bible's certainly an important book (or set of books), but it's not a very accurate physics-geology-biology textbook if taken literally, as historically it was. (This is not the place to ask why believe the Bible as opposed to the Bhagavad-Gita, the Zend-Avesta, or any other book; absent faith, I have trouble seeing why).

Another consideration is "Occam's Razor"--don't multiply entities needlessly. Put another way, the most parsimonious explanation, all things being equal, is best. I'm neither a professional scientist nor a theologian, but I'm not persuaded most scientific theories require a Creator. (I don't think scientific evidence to date disproves the existence of a Creator, either).

I could natter on, but this is enough for now.

7

One problem with this discussion is that "evolution" is used in different ways to refer to different things. Here are at least a few of the uses of the term:

(1) That natural selection occurs. This is pretty well attested in microbiology, studies of moth color in areas where there is coal smoke, loss of eyes in cave fish, etc.

(2) That the earth and the life on it are very old and existing species are descended from very diffferent ones. Unless you believe that God placed geological strata and fossils on the earth just to tempt or trick people, there's a great deal of evidence for these propositions as well.

(3) That all kinds of behavioral and cultural phenomena can be explained by evolutionary influences from the past (e.g., men were hunters and so have a greater ability to visualize space and 3-D objects). These ideas are sometimes interesting, but mostly speculative and very difficult to test.

(4) That life arose as a result of a random process/life is so complex it must have been deliberately designed. So far, no one has devised a way of testing either of these propositions.

(5) That human beings, at least as to their "souls," if not their physical form, were/were not specially created. This idea, also, is very difficult to test by empirical methods. What observable facts would tend to make one more or less confident of either of these ideas? Hard to say.

What is true is that historically people used Scripture to answer all kinds of questions we now consider scientific or historical ones, and there is more and more evidence that the old Scripture-based propositions weren't true in the sense people used to assume. The Bible's certainly an important book (or set of books), but it's not a very accurate physics-geology-biology textbook if taken literally, as historically it was. (This is not the place to ask why believe the Bible as opposed to the Bhagavad-Gita, the Zend-Avesta, or any other book; absent faith, I have trouble seeing why).

Another consideration is "Occam's Razor"--don't multiply entities needlessly. Put another way, the most parsimonious explanation, all things being equal, is best. I'm neither a professional scientist nor a theologian, but I'm not persuaded most scientific theories require a Creator. (I don't think scientific evidence to date disproves the existence of a Creator, either).

I could natter on, but this is enough for now.

8

The "evidence" for evolution keeps unraveling.

They have never been able to explain ultimate origins. See Origins of Life, let alone the origin of man: Who was Adam?

9

There are two schools of thought in the evolutionary field, it seems to me.

One school happens to view evolution for what it is, a scientific theory. It's quite clear that evolution, metaphorically speaking, has gotten pretty ramshackle over the years. There are a lot of problems, and drywall mud isn't doing a very good job of covering up the cracks anymore. However, it happens to be the only scientific theory we have. So, until a bright, iconoclastic graduate student comes along, we'll just have to live with the theory. But we must admit what the problems are, publicly, and often. And in schools.

Then there are the True Believers. THey are the ones who view Evolution as Revealed Truth. Sadly, such individuals, many of whom claim to be scientists, require Evolution to support a materialistic view of the universe. Hence, we get the "meteors from outer space" sort of thing. Like their theologically-inspired predecessors, they can brook no argument. If you aren't a Believer, you can't be recommended for med school. If using fake illustrations or falsifying data is required to support Evolution, that's as it must be.

You don't see nearly the hoo-ha about other profound scientific issues, like Bell's Theorem in physics. That's because those issues don't directly address the materialist perspective as Evolution does. Whenever I hear or read someone who goes to any length to defend Evolution, I know I've come upon a True Believer. There is really no possibility of an intelligent debate with such persons.

Re: the evolutionary psychology primer... Interesting stuff, but little different from Freudian "theorizing" and equally likely to be a bag of fluff as Freudian "theory" has turned out to be. The dominant engineering issue in Freud's time was hydraulics, and his "theory" is basically a re-enactment of the Viennese sewer system. Look at any cognitive psychology or evo psychology text today, and you'll get the information processing metaphor. Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose.

10

There are lots of scientific theories that can be applied to very large areas of effect. Gravity explains countless interactions in every day human life, as well as governing the motions of objects throughout the universe. Basic chemical laws describe countless reactions going on all around us. The fact that the theory of evolution can also explain a large area of effects is not a strike against it.

As to why so many people seem skeptical of the theory of evolution, I doubt that has anything to do with a single scientific argument. YECists promote abysmal science and openly proclaim that they will throw out any science that contradicts their preconceptions. IDers try to attack the theory by asking questions that science is incapable of even addressing. The objection that seems to get through is the idea that mainstream science is somehow a philosophy promoting materialism and outright denying that God can exist.

Science must confine itself to the natural world because it is limited to evidence, and thus can only speak to that which can be observed and tested, either directly or through secondary effects. That’s not the same thing as claiming that the observable world is all that can exist. Personally, I think if more people could understand that accepting what science learns does not constitute an attack on their faith and values, the evidence for evolution would acquire the same widespread acceptance as the rest of science.

Meanwhile, ID seems like a pointless exercise in criticism. What is the difference between something designed by direct intervention of a designer, and something designed by the natural laws of the universe? How is direct intervention manifest? If there is a designer, why can his/hers/its/their design not be worked out through those natural laws? How is the purpose of the universe in any way the kind of thing that can be worked out through analysis of the physical evidence?

11

For me the turning point against the scientific establishment re human origins was when Gould et al began to push the idea of "puncuated equilibrium". Since the late 18th century the idea behind the natural sciences was that slow change, measured over long time spans, could explain the natural world equally as well as Biblical catastrophism. Darwinists clove to this idea. Then when it could not explain the fossil evidence it was jettisoned to save the theory. Bad science, but good at saving the materialistic explanation for the world.

Actually you modify the theory as evidence is uncovered. Biblical catastrophism does a horrible job explaining the evidence regardless of whether you think the fossil record indicates 'rapid' change or slow gradual change (rapid here still taking place over super long periods of time).

Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and rather vague, and the method that you use for figuring out the consequences is a little vague - you are not sure, and you say,...

Evolution is hardly a vague theory. Whenever people ask how it could be falsified pro-science people on this list always give specific examples (finding a human fossil dating from the time of the dinosaurs...for example) that are anything but vague.

What is a 'vague theory' is evolutionary psychology...the idea that evolution can provide an explanation for many human psychological traits. It certainly can provide explanations but such explanations are not yet tested. That doesn't change the fact that pop science is pop science & people will publish numerous books on the topic.

One school happens to view evolution for what it is, a scientific theory. It's quite clear that evolution, metaphorically speaking, has gotten pretty ramshackle over the years. There are a lot of problems, and drywall mud isn't doing a very good job of covering up the cracks anymore.

Actually the evidence for evolution has gotton stronger over the years. Being able to sequence DNA and compare different species has reinforced the idea of common descent, for example. You seem to be mistaking revisions in chronology & narratives as a crumbling theory. To use an anology, a crime scene investation team may revise their theory of who committed a crime, when, how etc. as more and more lab results come back. That isn't the same as forensic science 'coming apart'.

The common problem with critics of evolution is that they seem to view it as some sort of scripture & any revision or modification is somehow a show of weakness. While unchanging may be a good quality to have in a religion it is not a good quality to have in scienctific theories. This is hinted at in your next comment:

However, it happens to be the only scientific theory we have. So, until a bright, iconoclastic graduate student comes along, we'll just have to live with the theory. But we must admit what the problems are, publicly, and often. And in schools.

While this is possible it is very rare that such things happen. Even revolutionary theories such as Newton and Einstein are often based on previous work. Any revolution in evolutionary theory will most likely keep the bulk of current theory but explain it in a simplier way...just as Einstein's theory not only explained more than Newton but also showed why Newton's theory works when it does. The exception would be some type of Matrix Theory that holds that the reality we observe is not the 'true reality'. This is where I lump in all the 'God made the earth last year but made it look really old' type theories.

12

I think we have science itself to thank. When Darwin first posited his theory, he thought life was much simpler. As Behe points out, there are actually black boxes within black boxes within black boxes. The more we discover about the complexity of life and our universe, the more incredulous people become that it could have happen by chance - and rightly so.

13

Darwin's theory was always much more complicated than 'life began by chance'. Speaking of complications, the origins of life (ambiogensis) is a seperate issue than what Darwin wrote about which was the origin of species from previous species....in other words Darwinism is more about how life changes than how it started.

14

Then there are the True Believers. THey are the ones who view Evolution as Revealed Truth. Sadly, such individuals, many of whom claim to be scientists, require Evolution to support a materialistic view of the universe. Hence, we get the "meteors from outer space" sort of thing. Like their theologically-inspired predecessors, they can brook no argument. If you aren't a Believer, you can't be recommended for med school. If using fake illustrations or falsifying data is required to support Evolution, that's as it must be.

Hence we get "meteors from outer space" sort of thing? Where do meteors come from? Is there not clear evidence that the earth ahs been hit by meteors in the past? Is there not evidence that the solar system had many more meteor impacts in the distant past than it does today?

What theories about meteors today are so fantastic and out there that merits the above dismissal?

15

Mr. Delaney -- nice post.

As for Joe's criticisms of "evolutionary psychology", Joe is probably aware that many scientists who accept the fact that life on earth evolved are also critical of many attempts of "evolutionary psychologists" to "explain" certain human behaviors by invoking natural selection.

PZ Myers, for example, has written many thoughtful posts on the topic since he started his Pharyngula blog.

Unfortunately for Joe, the existence of a few lazy scientists who enjoy "idling Darwinism" and carelessly resort to Darwinian explanations for every documented behavior does not mean that life on earth did not evolve essentially according to the mechanisms taught in decent public high schools today.

Joe's argument is akin to saying that Christianity is a fraud because Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker are lying adulterers.

That's a pretty weak argument, if you ask me.

16

I don't think most Americans have a clear idea in their head about what the difference between a star and planet is, so I'm not too surprised most don't believe in evolution.

Of course Joe, you always rather dishonestly portray the argument as being either for or against. As if there are only two possible points of view. Either evolution is true and God does not exist or that evolution is false and God does exist. Perhaps you have so much invested emotionally in the argument that you can't accept that many, if not most, people are probably closer in truth to believing that evolution both true and that God also does exist.

You want people to make a choice, but only from the choices you provide. How magnanimous of you. Instead of bothering people with this little game, why don't you go take a long walk off of a short pier.

17

This may be the most disappointing post I've come across here yet. It started off OK, and I expected a critique of evolutionary biologists and some of their exaggerated claims (e.g., the atheistic claims of people like Dawkins, which, though Dawkins and his ilk are in the minority, serve only to confirm the suspicions of those who fear or dislike evolution for largely cultural reasons). But instead, what I read was a post that basically said, "Look what Evolutionary Psychologists say! It's so absurd that no rational human being could believe it."

Well, duh! That's why few if any rational people are Evolutionary Psychologists. And that includes biologists, who have been EP's most outspoken critics. If you want to accuse "evolutionists" of being the cause of their own problems, you should probably attack some real evolutionists, rather than the quack psychologists working with antiquated evolutionary theory and an inability to produce sound empirical methods.

18

Larry That's a pretty weak argument, if you ask me.

Well, it's not intended to be an argument either for or against evolutionary theory. All I'm providing is my own hypothesis for why so many people remain unconvinced.

Patrick Of course Joe, you always rather dishonestly portray the argument as being either for or against. As if there are only two possible points of view. Either evolution is true and God does not exist or that evolution is false and God does exist. Perhaps you have so much invested emotionally in the argument that you can't accept that many, if not most, people are probably closer in truth to believing that evolution both true and that God also does exist.

Sometimes I wonder if people even bother to read my posts before they start commenting. If you would have been paying attention, Patrick, you might have noticed that I wrote:

Evolutionists should not be confused with those who merely believe that evolution is possibly true, partially true, or even the most plausible explanation. Some “creationists” and proponents of ID subscribe to the general the tenets of the theory, while still being skeptical of the theory or subscribe to its naturalistic assumptions.

From this, how do you get the idea that I'm setting up a false dillema between God and evolution?

Chris If you want to accuse "evolutionists" of being the cause of their own problems, you should probably attack some real evolutionists, rather than the quack psychologists working with antiquated evolutionary theory and an inability to produce sound empirical methods.

While I'm sure that most "real evolutionists" reject quack psychologists, why is this not an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy? Like them or not, evolutionary psychologists are only building upon the logical conclusions provided by the "evolutionist's theme" (i.e., evolution created alll biological organisms and must therefore also be responsible for creating behavior).

19

Joe

"All I'm providing is my own hypothesis for why so many people remain unconvinced."

Well, I'm sure the existence of poor science and/or pseudo-science has contributed in some way to the ability of people to ignore basic facts elucidated by sincere and competent scientists. But it is not evidence that life on earth didn't, in fact, evolve.

On the other hand, the existence of "evolutionists" who are detractors of shoddy "evolutionist" science seems to cut against the claims against science that are sometimes made by creationists that scientists don't ask the tough questions of their "evolutionist" colleagues that they ask of creationists.

When I was working in the lab, we had a lot of fun coming up with evolutionary explanations for a data. But imagining possible pathways by which an enzyme might have evolved is a lot easier than proving that one of those pathways is more likely to have occurred than another. So it was always back to the bench to collect more data (or back to the computer, to analyze more data).

I worked mostly in microbial systems and even there the data we collected has to be taken with a very important grain of salt which is that growing those microbes in cultures or in petri dishes is not replicating the environment(s) in which those microbes (and their ancestors) grew. That is a serious caveat (and one that is often noted in thoughtful scientific articles that discuss data in light of microbial evolution).

But now imagine leaping from the analysis of a single enzyme's function in a single cell to the analysis of a complex human behavior from an evolutionary perspective! The list of caveats grows quite long indeed, particularly when the behavior is not obviously an essential one (e.g., like water-seeking or mate-seeking behavior).

20

Jeff B.

"The more we discover about the complexity of life and our universe, the more incredulous people become that it could have happen by chance..."

Actually, history shows that the exact opposite is occurring.

And certain preachers have long used this historical fact as a means of inciting fear in their religious followers.

Specifically, these preachers imply that scientists are out to destroy religion by promoting "unproven theories" about the evolution of life on earth as "evidence that God had no role in our creation."

I find this practice revolting and hypocritical because these preachers should understand that scientists are human beings and many of them, particularly biologists, do what they do because they hope that their discoveries will help us understand more about our own biology so we can live healthier lives.

History also incontrovertibly shows that the work of scientists has improved human health and significantly reduced the incidence of childhood disease and mortality.

Smearing these scientists as frauds or deluded hacks is an ignoble practice.

21

But instead, what I read was a post that basically said, "Look what Evolutionary Psychologists say! It's so absurd that no rational human being could believe it."

Well, duh! That's why few if any rational people are Evolutionary Psychologists. And that includes biologists, who have been EP's most outspoken critics.

Actually evolutionary psychology isn't absurd in and of itself. It suffers, though, from being unrefined. For one thing, it isn't clear how much of our personality traits can be explained by inheritance and how much comes from environment.

I suspect it is less than evolutionary psych advocates would want. Some species adopt a strategy of being highly instinctual. This has an advantage in that it takes less time for young to reach maturity and many good behaviors do not have to be taught or learned. It has a disadvantage in that it is difficult for such an animal to adapt to a changing environment. Humans and many other mammels, IMO, are more generalists. Their brains are built for figuring things out. This makes them very vunlerable when young and very difficult to raise but gives them an advantage in that they can move into a strange environment and adapt to survive there.

Neither my ideas nor evolutionary psychology ideas, though, are silly or absurd. They are valid hypothesises that can be developed and tested.

22

Well, it's not intended to be an argument either for or against evolutionary theory. All I'm providing is my own hypothesis for why so many people remain unconvinced.

Books by evolutionary psychology advocates have sold quite well despite the fact that the scientific community is skeptical of their ideas. Are you saying that people are spending their money on these books, reading them and then deciding not to believe in all of evolutionary theory because they get such a chuckle from them?

I suspect the reason the public is so lukewarm on evolution is the same reason why astrology columns and phone lines do a brisk business today. People take the time to learn a subject either because they have to or because they have a desire too. Even doctors and nurses do not need to apply the theory...likewise even a doctor may be found grabbing 'lucky lottery numbers' from the astrology column.

While I'm sure that most "real evolutionists" reject quack psychologists, why is this not an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy? Like them or not, evolutionary psychologists are only building upon the logical conclusions provided by the "evolutionist's theme" (i.e., evolution created alll biological organisms and must therefore also be responsible for creating behavior).

Not really. If a certain behavior is instinctual evolution would be a good place to seek an explanation. However if a organism has a range of decision making behavior then while evolution is probably the best model to explain the origin of its decision making power its actual behavior is more likely better explained by looking at its environment.

23

"They have never been able to explain ultimate origins."

The theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain ultimate origins, as in where life came from. Straw man, dd.

"Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone."

Clever wording there, Joe. The "alone" is what does it. Many, many people who accept the theory as valid think it was set in motion by a supreme being. That doesn't mean they reject the theory, which is silent as to the origin of life.

"The faith of some evolutionists is so strong that they have a fervent need to share their gospel with others."

I think nearly all the stridency among the theory's proponents comes from the unrelenting efforts of Christians to get religion in the schools. Some outspokenness may be born of frustration with those who don't understand the theory or purposely represent it. Charlatans like "Dr." Kent Hovind and cranks like Behe make scientifically-minded people fear that decades of progress will be eroded because of the credulity of the American public.

There is no controversy regarding evolution in the scientific community; it enjoys almost universal wholehearted support.

24

Joe, I don't like it that Evolutionary Psychologists are "built on the evolutionist's theme," but it's not because they are built on that theme. It is because they don't use sound evolutionary biology or sound scientific methods to develop and test their theories. You might as well say that the reason atheists don't like Christianity is because Jehova's Witnesses are crazy, and then defend it by pointing out that they're crazy because they use the "Christian theme."

25

Boonton:

I see you kinda like the meteors from outer space thing. Hey, why not? I personally thought the aliens from another planet thing was more creative and had more potential for a screenplay (a la The Day After Tomorrow). But, as you imply, I've actually seen and touched a meteor and I have not yet been abducted.

So, meteors from outer space it is, dude. Now that's real science!

26

I'm not really big on meteors from space but I don't see what your beef with them is about. Meteors obviously exist and have existed in the past. I'm not sure what your big too do about them is?

27

Not being a scientist myself and seeing that many of the responders on this subject seem to be ardent evolutionists, would one or more of you explain how evolutionary processes developed the first early sexual animal from an asexual crawly thing that replicated itself by division or budding or whatever? What mutations were needed for “survival of the fittest” to act upon in order to create this miracle? Sperm would be needed but from where? Ovum, but from where? Urge to procreate would be a must but from where would that urge come from? Those of you who are ardent Darwinists must have these answers unless you are accepting this theory on faith alone. Perhaps it’s a faith based issue after all.

28

Larry,

Mr. Delaney -- nice post... [blah, blah, blah]

Well, I'm sure the existence of poor science and... [blah, blah, blah]

Actually, history shows that the exact opposite is occurring... [blah, blah, blah}

Well, Dr. Lord, I need to ask you for the name of the doctor who performed that lobotomy. It seems to be working out pretty decently so far.

I'd like to pass your doctor's name to some commenters over at Daily Kos and Little Green Footballs, so please get back to me on that. Thanks!

29

Goggins

"Well, Dr. Lord, I need to ask you for the name of the doctor who performed that lobotomy. It seems to be working out pretty decently so far."

What in heck are you raving about, Goggins? If you doubt the veracity of any of my statements, then let's hear your reasons for doing so.

30

Roger

"Not being a scientist myself and seeing that many of the responders on this subject seem to be ardent evolutionists, would one or more of you explain how evolutionary processes developed the first early sexual animal from an asexual crawly thing that replicated itself by division or budding or whatever?"

How about if I explain to you how to find answers to your scientific questions? Go to www.pubmed.org and type in "evolution of sex", exactly as I've written it, quotes included.

You'll get about 5000 results, in numerous languages, in papers written by scientists who collectively represent many of the world's religions and non-religions (in their personal capacity, not in their professional capacity, of course).

Enjoy reading those papers. Let us know what you conclude after you've finished.

While Roger's busy learning about how science works, can someone explain this breaking news to me?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4196746.stm

31

You'd probably be better off typing in "evolution of sexual reproduction," as "evolution of sex" will get you all sorts of papers on other topics. If you type that into pubmed, you'll still get more than 1300 papers. If you type "evolution of sexual reproduct" with quotation marks into google scholar, the top two papers will give you two of the three most prominent theories of how and why sexual reproduction evolved. You'll probably have to search a little harder to find articles specifically on the evolution of gametes, but they're there too. You might also try Wikipedia or talkorigins. I suspect that since the evolution of sexual reproduction is an issue commonly raised by creationists, they'll have articles on it too.

32

Boonton wrote:
"Actually you modify the theory as evidence is uncovered. Biblical catastrophism does a horrible job explaining the evidence regardless of whether you think the fossil record indicates 'rapid' change or slow gradual change (rapid here still taking place over super long periods of time)."
I think you misunderstand my criticism of 'punctuated equlibrium'. It's not that I don't understand the scientific process that produced it, it's that it's an esthetic and philosophical sleight-of-hand trick. The fossil record does not support Darwin's gradualism so punctuated equilibrium had to be proposed to save the theory by moving the interesting bits, the actual transition from one sort of creature to another, offstage where it can't be observed. Gould's puncuated equilibrium resorts to obscurantism when it was the opposite of obscurantism that made the theory so appealing in the first place. Ditto the many random actions that seem to be required to produce ourselves and our world. Randomness is noise, not knowledge.
Evolution has replaced creation by an unknowable and capricious God with creation unknowable and capricious universe.

33

Terry

"The fossil record does not support Darwin's gradualism so punctuated equilibrium had to be proposed to save the theory"

False. Too bad SJG isn't alive to let you know what he thinks of such bizarre accusations.

34

Larry

Actually, history shows that the exact opposite is occurring.

Actually it doesn't. Even scientists themselves have doubts. In a 1997 poll 55% of SCIENTISTS believe that God guided the process of evolution. Many Christians also hold this view (which I reject). Others believe God created man outright.

The rest of your reply is a straw man. Christians actually love science and respect the many accomplishments of science. We have the utmost confidence that there can be no conflict between scripture and real science. It is the self-righteous scientific religionists we deplore. Metaphysics and philosophy disguised as science gets our dander up - the dogmatic pronouncements from on high don't help much either.

One wag puts it this way:

"I am perfectly willing to believe what you can actually establish. Reproducibly create life in a test tube, and I will accept that it can be done. Do it under conditions that reasonably may have existed long ago, and I will accept as likely the proposition that such conditions existed and gave rise to life. I bear no animus against the theory, and champion no competing creed. But don’t expect me to accept fluid speculation, sloppy logic, and secular theology."

Moreover, adherence to the theory of macro-evolution is not required for the advancement of science, as some argue. Take the argument that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology." Pure hogwash.

Quote:

As for the claim that Darwinism is the cornerstone for all of modern biology, National Academy of Sciences member Philip S. Skell investigated the claim, and reports his results in the latest issue of The Scientist. He writes:

My own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

35

Joe writes:

Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.

I can only guess that you meant some different link than the one you offer. That one you have goes to a page that shows 63% (which according to you is "overwhelming") of respondents agree more with the evolution than intelligent design. But here's what's interesting:

Of the breakdown of respondents by religion only three groups favor ID: Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims.

Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Spritual with No Organized Religin, and Other all favor evolution.

There is no information given about how the respondents were selected, what their professions are, or even what country they are from.

A shoddy post, Joe, and an unethical use of your punditry even assuming that the link was given in error.

You make a claim and give a link that if anything shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming. That's just lying if it is not a mistake. A retraction is in order.

36

Larry,

Oops!

Sorry Larry, I agree with everything you said, sir.

It's just that you left not one, but three very civil comments (plus another good one over at The Devil's Allies:
Atheism, the Courts, and the Myth of Religious Neutrality comment thread), so I thought it would be a good idea to tease you about your newfound tone.

But apparently I should have chosen to refrain from my lame attempt at humor. Please accept my apology, thanks.

37

Andy S,

You were looking at the wrong page.

Take a look at this page, but click on "Q7 vs. Q1". Then you will see the results that Joe is referring to.

38

AndyS,

I can only guess that you meant some different link than the one you offer. That one you have goes to a page that shows 63% (which according to you is "overwhelming") of respondents agree more with the evolution than intelligent design.

You are right. Thanks for the correction. The link has been changed.

There is no information given about how the respondents were selected, what their professions are, or even what country they are from.

I apologize for not including that information. The survey was conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies. According to them, it was a national survey of 1,472 physicians.

Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Spritual with No Organized Religin, and Other all favor evolution.

Yes, it appears they do. They favor theistic evolution: 32% of Jews, 78% of Catholics, 54% of Hindus, 2% of atheists, 48% of SwNOR, and 54% of "Other" all believe either that God created humans exactly as they appear now or that He initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings.

A shoddy post, Joe, and an unethical use of your punditry even assuming that the link was given in error. You make a claim and give a link that if anything shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming. That's just lying if it is not a mistake. A retraction is in order.

When you can't rebut the claim, call someone a liar. Classic move, Andy.

My claim was that "Doctors...overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone."

Follow this link and tell me that this is not exactly what that says.

39

Jeff Blogworthy

"Actually it doesn't. Even scientists themselves have doubts."

Whether any scientists have any doubts wasn't what was originally claimed.

The original claim was that the more we learn by practicing good science, the more people believe and claim that God must have done this, that and the other thing.

That is the opposite of what history shows.

C'mon, must you dispute every plain fact that doesn't favor your religio-politico agenda?

People used to believe that thunder was thunder was gods wrestling because they had no way of knowing what the heck else it could be. We know better now.

As for this Skell character and the "70 eminent researchers" he alleges to have spoken to, I have news for Skell: you are an incomprehensible buffoon and nothing about your poll is relevant to the fact that life on earth evolved.

Skell's funniest line is the last one in the quote:

"I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."

Huh. Imagine that. Scientists use a useless theory to provide an "interesting narrative gloss" to their work. What's so interesting about that gloss?

And where are all those peer-reviewed papers that say "We have no idea why Protein X has a similar amino acid sequence to Protein Y, but perhaps it's because Jesus Christ the Messiah liked the way it looks."

That's sort of an interesting gloss, too! And since so many scientists believe in God, you'd think they'd want to fill their discussions of their data with such interesting narrative gloss.

And yet we don't see scientists doing that.

Am I to understand that the only reason all those scientists don't use this other interesting narrative gloss is because they are afraid of being "shunned" if they do so?

Or could it be that they actually respect the scientific method and the diversity of religious beliefs among the world's scientists?

40

It seems entirely disingenuous to make an argument like the following:
The vast majority (well over 90%) of biologists, who are the people most educated in biology, recognize the facticity of evolution, and recognize that it alone (or at least, without direct intervention from a higher power, even if it was set in motion by a higher power) can account for the development and diversity of life on this planet.

However, 60% of physicians, who know a lot more about some aspects of biology (mostly that relating to the human body, though some are experts in the biology of pathogens, and all had to take an organic chemistry course) than the general population, disagree.

Therefore, we have good reason to believe that evolution alone cannot account for the development and diversity of life on this planet.

If I said, "95% of physicists accept the standard model, but only 60% of engineers accept it," would that be an argument against the standard model? No, it'd be pure bull.

41

On another thread I had previously asked some questions about the statements of Issac Asimov, who is one of the patriarchs of the modern intelligentsia. No one attempted to answer these questions, so I thought I might try again here. The answers to these questions, or the lack thereof, speaks volumes
about the credibility of the system as a whole.

In Issac Asimov's book, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even," he gives the following analysis of the 'evolution' of the human brain.
(pp. 4-10)

1. "This law is considered the most powerful and the most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make."

2. "You can argue, of course, that that the phenomenon of life may be an exception. "

3. "How could the human brain develop out of the primodial slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease of entropy) have taken place? The answer is that it could not have taken place without a tremendous source of energy constantly bathing the earth, for it is on that energy that life subsits. Remove the sun and the brain would not have developed -- or the primeval slime either."

4. "The cosmic egg has exploded and ever since, for billions of years, the universe has been running down; the deck of cards is being shuffled, and shuffled, and shuffled."

Perhaps some of you who are more familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics could answer the following questions.

1. If this law, which Einstien said was the "paradigm of all scientific law" only applies to "closed systems," then is the universe, as a whole, an open or closed system? If it is open, what is it open to?

2. If, as Asimov says, life MAY be an exception to the second law, then, from an evolutionary pov, what is the alternative? Also, what specific examples can you give of this law being controverted?

3. If the existence of the sun controverts the 2nd law on earth, how do you explain the existence of the sun, or for that matter, a 100 billion galaxies, which in order to exist, had to controvert the 2nd law? How would billions of years of unshielded exposure to ultraviolet light turn primeval "slime" into the human brain, when UV light is commonly used to kill bacteria?

4. Is there some unknown process which "unshuffles" the proverbial "cards" and provides both a code and a mechanism
for harnessing raw energy into an ordered arrangement? If so, what is it and where is the evidence for the trillions of errors in the arrangement that preceded it?

42

Terence,

I am not a scientist, and I don't know the scientific consensus about a lot of things. But I will try to answer your questions based on my own limited knowledge.

1) ... is the universe, as a whole, an open or closed system? If it is open, what is it open to?

I expect that many scientists would assume the universe is a closed system. But we have no way of knowing that directly, we have no way of journeying out to the edges of the universe and seeing if any energy/matter/information is coming in from anywhere. In fact, many scientists believe that the universe doesn't have any edges, just like the surface of the earth doesn't have any global edges or corners.

I myself would be skeptical of any scientific claim that the universe is a closed system (although I would also be skeptical of any claim that it is an open system!). The universe is such an enormous and unwieldy object of observation and speculation that it is not clear that any definitive statements about its global nature can be justifiably asserted.

2) If, as Asimov says, life MAY be an exception to the second law, then, from an evolutionary pov, what is the alternative?

The alternative is that life is not not an exception to the second law of thermodynamics. As far as I know, this alternative is what happens to be true. There are no known exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics.

But obviously something very special is going on with life, so I am open to speculation/arguments/evidence to the contrary.

3) ... how do you explain the existence of the sun, or for that matter, a 100 billion galaxies, which in order to exist, had to controvert the 2nd law?

I don't know if there is any scientific explanation for how the universe found itself in a lower-entropy (in other words, with high levels of undissipated energy) state in the past. Is it some sort of fluctuation(s)? I don't know.

About life on earth being bathed in sterilizing UV light: that's why life on earth developed first in the oceans, or possibly deep within geo-thermal vents.

4) Is there some unknown process which "unshuffles" the proverbial "cards" and provides both a code and a mechanism
for harnessing raw energy into an ordered arrangement? If so, what is it and where is the evidence for the trillions of errors in the arrangement that preceded it?

Like most things, when water gets colder it gets heavier (that is to say, it contracts, and that makes it denser). Because of that, cold water sinks down below warmer water, and warm water rises above colder water. A body of water, such as a pond, naturally and automatically self-stratifies itself into warm on top, cold on the bottom, with a continuous gradient of temperatures in between.

However, it is a physical/chemical twist of the properties of water that at about 39 degrees Fahrenheit, water starts getting lighter (less dense) as it gets cooler. Instead of contracting further, it expands as its molecules start to re-arrange themselves to form crystals of ice. This expansion continues down to 32 degrees, which is the freezing point of water (and the melting point of ice). That is why ice floats: it is less dense than the icy water it finds itself in.

Another consequence of the expansion of almost-freezing water is that in an icy pond, there is, quite frequently a layer of somewhat warmer water below the ice. The layer may be a small portion on the bottom, or it may be almost the entire pond, depending on how severe the weather is.

The zone of warmer water below the ice is a lucky break for fish and other water wildlife, for it allows the fish to survive the winter, unless the pond gets so cold that it freezes over entirely. No expanding water would mean dead fish in a lot of ponds and lakes in places with wintry weather.

Now is this property of water a bit of divine providence, or just a life-favoring coincidence? Well, a hundred years ago we would not have been able to explain exactly why near-freezing water should act the way it does. But with the advent of atomic theory, and quantum mechanics as well, we have an excellent understanding of why water behaves precisely the way it does.

But of course, it is possible (hypothetically speaking) that there is a God, and She designed the laws of quantum mechanics in order to produce "lucky breaks" and life-favoring coincidences. But it is also possible that there isn't a God, or that there is a God, but She didn't design things teleologically. The problem here is that science doesn't really address these questions, at least not directly.

Science does produce results, however, that influence our intuition about God and religion.

For example, someone might look at the tremendous scope of the explanatory power of science and say, "Who needs God to answer the puzzles in our world?" Or someone might think that because humans descended over the millenia from chimp-like ancestors, it doesn't make sense anymore to believe that man was created in the image of God.

On the other hand, a different person might find inspiration in science to believe in God and religion. Someone might look at the orderly physical laws of the universe and at the immense complexity of life, and feel an awe at these scientific discoveries that pushes him to believe in a divine power. That's certainly how Newton and Einstein felt about things.

So while science can definitely affect one's view of God and religion, it is not always in a way that increases doubt and decreases faith. Sometimes it is just the opposite, actually.

43

Hi Terence,

These answers are largely drawn from my dimly remembered middle school science, so they could be inomplete. But anyway...

If this law, which Einstien said was the "paradigm of all scientific law" only applies to "closed systems," then is the universe, as a whole, an open or closed system? If it is open, what is it open to?

A. All systems - open and closed, designed and undesigned - operate under the constraints of the laws of thermodynamics. It is wrong to say that open systems are not subject to those laws. However, the flow of energy and matter through an open system does permit a decrease in entropy.

B. The universe is an isolated (not closed)system, as far as we know. So what? Can you explain exactly what aspects of the laws of thermodynamics prevent localized decreases in entropy within closed or isolated systems?

If, as Asimov says, life MAY be an exception to the second law, then, from an evolutionary pov, what is the alternative? Also, what specific examples can you give of this law being controverted?

Life is not an exception to the second law. Living things are open systems, thermodynamically, and they do not contradict the the characteristics of open systems under the second law.

If the existence of the sun controverts the 2nd law on earth, how do you explain the existence of the sun, or for that matter, a 100 billion galaxies, which in order to exist, had to controvert the 2nd law?

The existence of the sun does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, on earth or anywhere else. The existence of the sun is explained by gravity (another fundamental characteristic of the universe), and the thermonuclear fusion of atoms under extreme pressure. Energy from the sun makes the earth a thermodynamically open system.

How would billions of years of unshielded exposure to ultraviolet light turn primeval "slime" into the human brain, when UV light is commonly used to kill bacteria?

Who says the UV light was unshielded? Dust and sediment is good UV shield, particularly suspended in water, and even a sufficient depth of clean water will block UV. The underside of rocks are completely shielded. In practice, UV light is an ineffective sterilant if the bacteria are shielded by even a thin layer of grime.

Is there some unknown process which "unshuffles" the proverbial "cards" and provides both a code and a mechanism
for harnessing raw energy into an ordered arrangement?

Too vague to answer. Please be more specific. Since none of your previous questions have uncovered any contradictions of the laws of thermodynamics, why should "some unknown process" be required?

I'm not positive, but I think there are two misconceptions underlying your questions. First, do you think that human-designed machines are somehow able to contradict the laws of thermodynamics? They do not. They operate because of the laws of thermodynamics. Intelligent input is not a get-out-of-jail-free card with regard to thermodynamics.

Second, you appear to endeavoring to work back to a point that cannot be explained by the laws of physics and then say "aha, there is God." In my opinion, that is an approach that isn't compatible with Christianity. God is creator and sustainer of all. Naturalistic explanations drawn from physics and chemistry do not eliminate God, so there is no need to work backwards through a long chain of explanations to find God.

To put it another way: 'apples fall because of gravity' and 'apples fall because God wills it' are not mutually exclusive propositions. They can both be true. But only the first can be investigated scientifically.

44

Larry,
I did it! I did it! I Goggled a search for “evolution of sexual reproduction” to find out, as you suggested, how science works. Needless to say, I could not read everything but I was able to read some of the sites and their various theories of how sexual reproduction came about. Larry, I’m a really old guy with only a high school education so it’s difficult for me to wade through a lot of this stuff, but I’ve got 60 some years of practical education in the marketplace of life, if you will. And so I can give you a layman’s overview of these scientific explanations, the most interesting one being Brig Klyce who believes various viruses caused the sexual revolution to happen, his summary appears here.

Brig Klyce

Summary
So it is necessary, at least intermittently..., this thing called sex. As of course you and I knew it must be. Otherwise surely, by now, we mammals and dragonflies would have come up with something more dignified. — David Quammen

Evolution can proceed by the assembly of subunits.
New genes can get installed into whole species by infectious agents, especially viruses. Viral infections are usually specific to certain hosts only, they are not always harmful to the host, they can enter the germline, and the host can become immune to their harmful effects.
The process of gene conversion can correct deleterious mutations even in silent genes, where natural selection and gene dominance are useless. Gene conversion could protect large genetic programs requiring several generations to install. Thus sex would be important because it increases the fidelity, not the mutability, of inherited genes. Indeed, a clever recent experiment with sexual and asexual yeast cells that were otherwise identical reinforces this last point. Clifford Zeyl of Michigan State University and Graham Bell of McGill University found that both the sexual and asexual populations produced mutations at similar rates, but the sexual cells eliminated deleterious mutations more efficiently . And yet another experiment, with viruses, affirms that sex prevents the accumulation of deleterious mutations "because recombination lets an organism reconstruct a mutation free genome from two genomes that contain different mutations".
It seems likely that the sexual reproduction process used by multicelled animals and plants is more important than the current paradigm imagines. It is a likely prerequisite for really big evolutionary steps.

To clarify - he knows evolution to be true and therefore something must have happened to change an asexual world to a sexual one. Viruses did it! Just how they served to deconstruct an asexual living thing and then proceeded to construct a sexual one from the remains is not explained in detail. That part, I’m just guessing here, is a matter of faith.

45

Roger,

In using Brig Klyce as an example, you might just be pulling Larry's chain, because Klyce is so obviously a loony, but if not, you should know that Brig Klyce is not really a scientist (his degree is in architecture, I believe), and is in fact a quack. He is one of the most vocal advocates of the panspermia theory of the origin of life on Earth, and while he's all over the web, he's not actually an expert on anything related to evolution. So, using him as a bad example of the discussion of the evolution of sexual reproduction, in order to discredit evolution, is even worse than Joe using Evolutionary Psychology for the same purpose.

46

I did it! I did it! I Goggled a search for “evolution of sexual reproduction” to find out, as you suggested, how science works.

Roger,
Larry didn't suggest a google search. He suggested a PubMed search.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

A PubMed search will get you the scientific papers published in biomedical journals and indexed in Medline. A Google search will get you some of the same publications, plus the musings of every kook on the net.

"They don't call it the net of a million lies for nothing." -- Vernor Vinge A Fire Upon the Deep

47

I suggested Google Scholar, which won't get you many kooks, because it is a database of scholarly articles. I'm also the one who suggested "evolution of sexual reproduction" as the specific search. At least he got one out of two right.

48

Terence

"On another thread I had previously asked some questions about the statements of Issac Asimov, who is one of the patriarchs of the modern intelligentsia. No one attempted to answer these questions, so I thought I might try again here."

Buddy, your Asimov quote-mining exercise was addressed and debunked on the other thread.

I guess you "missed that."

49

Roger

"I’m a really old guy with only a high school education so it’s difficult for me to wade through a lot of this stuff, but I’ve got 60 some years of practical education in the marketplace of life, if you will."

Then you are mature enough to understand that it there are many occasions when it is appropriate or necesseary to defer to the opinions of experts.

When you can't figure out why your car isn't running properly, you don't look for the answer in your Bible or call your preacher.

Stop and ask yourself what you are likely to when presented with such a problem and, more importantly, WHY you are likely to do that.

50

I think you misunderstand my criticism of 'punctuated equlibrium'. It's not that I don't understand the scientific process that produced it, it's that it's an esthetic and philosophical sleight-of-hand trick. The fossil record does not support Darwin's gradualism so punctuated equilibrium had to be proposed to save the theory by moving the interesting bits, the actual transition from one sort of creature to another, offstage where it can't be observed

Aye but it can be observed. First of all it can be simulated either by computer, calculation or with fast breeding organisms. Second of all it can be observed in the fossil record. How can that be?

1. If punctuated equilibrium is accurate then the fossil record should roughly follow a pattern of older species -> new species with very little where the -> is because it happens so fast.
2. Naturally if more fossils are found indicating that -> takes place over a much longer period of time then that would be sharp evidence against punctuated equilibrium.
3. Of course, if we found fossils of 'new species' coming before 'old species' that too would demonstrate something is very wrong with punctuated equilibrium as well as traditional evolution.

Actually it doesn't. Even scientists themselves have doubts. In a 1997 poll 55% of SCIENTISTS believe that God guided the process of evolution. Many Christians also hold this view (which I reject). Others believe God created man outright.

Your mother wins the lottery, she thanks God. You thank God as well and even reply yes to a survey that asks if you think God guided your family's good fortune. Nonetheless, do you think an analysis of how the lottery works should center on God or on the laws of probability and their application?

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

There are many physicists & engineers who can get their jobs done using just Newton's laws of motion. Nonetheless, no one would seriously claim Einstein's laws are not the foundation of studying gravity and motion. What you are describing is mostly cookbook science...try a chemical see if it kills the bacteria..no try a different one and so on. That's the grunt work but the theory is as equally important.

Yes, it appears they do. They favor theistic evolution: 32% of Jews, 78% of Catholics, 54% of Hindus, 2% of atheists, 48% of SwNOR, and 54% of "Other" all believe either that God created humans exactly as they appear now or that He initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings.

Joe, your use of this as evidence of widespread rejection of evolution is quite intellectually dishonest.

On another thread I had previously asked some questions about the statements of Issac Asimov, who is one of the patriarchs of the modern intelligentsia. No one attempted to answer these questions, so I thought I might try again here. The answers to these questions, or the lack thereof, speaks volumes
about the credibility of the system as a whole.

Errr no Asimov was a science fiction writer who wrote a lot of easy to read non-fiction books usually summarizing contemporary knowledge in a wide array of fields. Many of us grew up on his work since he is easy to read and wrote a huge number of books...and was quite noticable with his nice personality and funny looking side burns. I wouldn't call him a 'patriarch of the modern intelligentsia' anymore than I would call Stephan King that.

Now your questions were answered on that previous thread, by me myself. For the record:

1. Whether or not the universe is an open or closed system is an interesting but open question IMO.

2. Asimov does not say life may be an exception. He says some may argue that but then states it is not.

3. The sun does not controvert the 2nd law. He does not say that.

4. Your last question isn't really specific. Are you talking about genetic mutation? Are you talking about why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is what it is?

51

Larry - You wrote - "Then you are mature enough to understand that there are many occasions when it is appropriate or necessary to defer to the opinions of experts.

On this particular subject there appear to be no experts and for sure there are no eye witnesses. The opinions are all over the board. Therefore I'll side with the experts who seem to display some degree of common sense. Sorry, but the infinite number of monkeys typing endlessly will not result in anything even closely resembling Shakespeare and those who believe otherwise are displaying a religious faith that is probably greater than my own.

52

Roger

"On this particular subject there appear to be no experts"

Ah, so you are either ignorant or you choose to deny reality. Are the thousands of Ph.D.s on www.pubmed.org who understand that their research supports the evolution of life on earth just "suckers"? Why aren't those scientists able to see that there "are no experts" and that evolution is just a mishmash of contradicting "opinions"?

Please enlighten us Roger. What is your explanation? A conspiracy? Mass delusion?

Let's hear your explanation, Roger.

"for sure there are no eye witnesses."

That is among the stupidest things I've ever heard anyone say.

So, you're simply clueless. If I ignore you from now on it's because you lack the ability to understand that reasonable human beings don't need "eye witnesses" to accept that certain events must have happened in the past (not to mention that those events continue to happen every day, all around us).

53

Roger

"Sorry, but the infinite number of monkeys ..."

)))snip(((

Roger merely regurgitated one of the oldest and most disgustingly false characterization of the claims of evolutionary biologists that creationists have ever formulated.

Look, Roger, any fool can copy and paste garbage from some creationist website. Terence and Gordon do it all the time.

I want to see you use your own brain. I want you to explain, in your own words, why you choose to believe the rantings of cranks over the world's scientists with respect to this one small sliver of reality.

I assume it's not because you are a fundamentalist who believes that every word of the Bible is literally true and anyone who disagrees is a blasphemer.

But correct me if I'm wrong.

54

Dr Lord

[and also to those who wish to see what is going on on this issue]

I see you are very bold on thermodynamics when I am not around in a thread.

But, I think that Mr Moeller has a serious point, your "quote mining" rhetoric notwithstanding -- and certainly your claim on dismissal of the point is less than a full picture of the point -- and he asked serious questions that deserve a serious answer, preferably not too heavy on math: with thermo-d that's hard.

[PLEA: Please, do not inquire too closely as to why I use dS and d'Q in the below, to speak of small changes in values of variables. That gets us into discussions of path vs state functions and partial differential equations will begin to march across the screen, by the dozen: indeed, many so the symbols in thermod are stand-ins for partial derivatives. I don't even know how to get a curly d in HTML easily [apart from a GIF], though I suspect Tim Berners-Lee probably put it in somewhere; after all the web was designed for Physicists sharing papers online at CERN. Does anyone know that trick offhand?]

++++++++++

ThermoD 000.01 . . .

Thermodynamics is relevant to the issues ont he origin of life, so let us look at how we can begin to think about it.

The discussion in TMLO, not surprisingly, is at a somewhat technical level, but the findings are clear enough: http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/ . . . i.e. there is no good reason to infer on stat thermodyn grounds, that life originated by chance, sponaneous processes in the scale of the known universe.

I will do a first, hopefully not too confusing, pass at the subject here; in the context of the wider discussion:

1] The first issue boils down to: while an isolated [no energy or mass flow across the boundary] system must see net at least mainenance of entropy, the open [energy flows across boundary, not mass] subsystems that exchange heat may see entropy rise or fall, but net the entropy rises.

That means some explanation of terms:

Entropy is a measure of the degree of disorder in a system, i.e. of degradation of energy [and associated arrangement of matter] so that it is relatively unavailable for work -- imparting orderly motion. When heat flows into/out of a body, B, the increment in entropy is dS >/= +/- d'Q/T, T being B's temp.

Heat is the energy due to thermal motion that moves from hot to colder bodies by conduction, convection and radiation.

Thermal energy is that of random molecular motion, and temperature is a measure of the average amount of random motion per degree of freedom, typically of order 1/2 kT per molecule per degree of freedom available . . . thanks to Quantum, some degrees of freedom require such a large lump of energy that until temp gets high enpough, they are at their zero point level.

2] Let's do a crude diagram:

ISOL SYS: [[[ A -> d'Q of heat -> B ]]]

d'Q of heat flows from A at Thot to B at Tcolder, so {dSb > |dSa|}; so dS = dSa + dSb >/= 0, i.e. entropy of Isolated sys, is net zero or positive. This is 2nd law in a nutshell.

But observe, right from Clausius' first example, open subsystems are a part of the picture.

(The idea that 2nd law does not apply to closed or open systems is based on a misunderstanding. The isol system that raises the issue to begin with is one in which closed subsystems are exchanging heat . . . sorry on the isol, closed, open terminology, I did not invent it. Closed systems are open to energy flows but not mass flows. And, LL let's not bring in relativity on this point.)

3] Then, when we go to the issue of heat engines [and we can conceive of heat engines that work off energy flows so that simplifies for now], the issue becomes trasferring some of the heat flow from A -> B to work [ordered motion], and exhaust to a yet colder body, C say, the heat sink.

ISOL: [[[ A -> B -> heat to C, plus rise in internal energy of B and work, dW ]]]

So B is now a subsystem that couples some of the energy flow from A into work, exhausting a further fraction of the energy flow as waste heat to C. As a rule, its own internal energy shifts as well; e.g. car engines get hot when they run.

4] It is an implication of the 2nd law that d'Q will not be entirely converted into work, save if C is at absolute zero, and of course the 3rd law forbids a finite refrigeration process to get there. Let's keep track:

Law 1: energy is conserved,or if you want to be more specific this includes rest-mass energy [where E = mc^2 comes in.]

law 2: entropy in isol sys net increases or is constant;

law 3: the one case in which 100% efficiency of engine would happen, you can't go there.

Law 0: If bodies A and B are in thermal equilibrioum separately with body C, then A and B are in the same equilibrioum with each other if brought into contact. That is, we are defining what having the same temp means.

5] Now, I spoke of "coupling" energy into a heat engine.

That is, a heat engine has a particular configuration of matter that is functionally specified: it permits the conversion of some of d'Q into work.

6] In simple cases: vortices, convection cells [and I have now implicitly arrived at OPEN systems, which have mass flows in and out as well as energy flows], the commonly found structures are sufficient for sponaneous occurence . . . ducking the point that the cosmos is so finely tuned that having a universe in which such elements happen is a serious ID issue in itself. In such cases, the particular arrangements of say a cold and a hot body separated by a fluid can give rise to simple spontaneous heat engines, e.g. hurricane Katrina.

7] But, the problem TBO of TMLO tackle and abiogenesis advocates need to squarely face is not the functioning of heat engines of the complexity of life, or even their propagation -- even with random modifications -- from one generation to the other.

8] It is, rather, with their spontaneous origin as appropriately folded clusters of informational macromolecules that work together to carry out very specific forms of work -- unlike Katrina. The relevant statistical thermodynamics [cf TMLO at above link] shows that the probability of such an emergence is vanishingly small on the scale of the observed universe's material content and temporal lifespan. Stick with the Gibbs Free energy, enthalpy, Information stuff and eventually you will get there.

9] In that context, since it is known that we usually deal with one of threee causal forces: chance, necessity and agency, and since necessity is not on the table; since the chance is evidently negligibly different from 0, agency is a reasonable candidate for best current explanation.

10] But that cuts across the evlutionary materialist's favoured view of origins, thus the rancorous debates and issues we see today.

++++++++++++++

That is where Terence has a very serious point, and that is where you have yet -- after nearly five months of my asking -- to show that your molecular biological knowledge base has an answer that stands up to s = k ln w.

Okay, nuff for now. Hope this is followable.

Grace to all

Gordon
PS I am not intending to do a long back-forth; this is just a for reference post.

55

I too would like to see Larry or another here take apart Gordon's thermodynamics point. If for no other reason than I could certainly use a refresher on the matter myself.

56

Mullings (prior wanking deleted):

"agency is a reasonable candidate for best current explanation. But that cuts across the evlutionary materialist's favoured view of origins"

Yeah, it definitely does.

Postulating the existence of a mysterious "intelligent agent" to "explain" an event that occurred billions of years ago is simply bogus. Non-science. Nonsense. The raving of a crank or loonytoon. The fantasyof a science-fiction author. The fireside musing of a moldy irrelevant philosopher. The lame propaganda of an anti-science religious extremist.

Take your pick.

I'm going with the latter in your case, Gordon, but that's because I like you.

57

A shoddy post, Joe, and an unethical use of your punditry even assuming that the link was given in error. You make a claim and give a link that if anything shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming. That's just lying if it is not a mistake. A retraction is in order.

Joe:

When you can't rebut the claim, call someone a liar. Classic move, Andy.

Please note the conditional in my statement, count to 10, and relax.

Joe: My claim was that "Doctors…overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone."

Follow this link and tell me that this is not exactly what that says.

Now that you've provided both the correct link as well as the background on who did the poll and why, we can examine your claim.

Following the link to the polling group at The Jewish Theological Seminary we see their lead paragraph on the results of their study:

Results of a national survey of 1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design.

The rest of their study hightlights are a good read as well.

So let's look at your statement again: "Doctors…overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone." Given the fact that less one half of one percent of those in the poll were atheists, is that of any note?

(On a funny note, one atheist agreed with that statement as well. Go figure.)

58

Boonton

"I too would like to see Larry or another here take apart Gordon's thermodynamics point."

Don't hold your breath waiting for me to do it.

Besides, even if I did "take apart" Gordon's "point" re the 2nd Law, that doesn't mean that a deity couldn't have done something wonderful to influence life on earth.

No one has ever claimed -- to me knowledge -- that the 2nd law precludes the existence of mysterious alien beings who, by definition, are above the laws of nature.

Does Gordon want to argue that his deity is not above the laws of nature?

Or does Gordon want to argue that mysterious alien beings -- and not his deity -- created life one earth?

Answers to those questions should require only a sentence or two from Gordon.

59

If I had to briefly summarize Gordon's argument, it would seem to be that thermodynamics make the chance that a bunch of atoms would just happen to all come together into a 'informational molecule' (whatever that is) so slim as to make it almost impossible to believe it happens more than once every 10E80 atoms (the observable universe)...or even that much.

I suspect the flaw lies in being too confident with probability. In order to know the odds that you'll draw a 2 from a deck you need to know how big the deck is and how many 2's there are. If there's 98 2's per 100 you shouldn't be so shocked if you draw a 2.

Since we have hardly begun to have the computing power to examine all possible chemical reactions by brute force I suspect any probability calculations regarding ambiogensis are highly suspect.

60

Postulating the existence of a mysterious "intelligent agent" to "explain" an event that occurred billions of years ago is simply bogus. Non-science. Nonsense. The raving of a crank or loonytoon. The fantasyof a science-fiction author. The fireside musing of a moldy irrelevant philosopher. The lame propaganda of an anti-science religious extremist.

That's quite a rebuttal there Larry. I see you completely abandoned a scientific argument in favor of philosophical gerrymandering, like evolutionists always do.

61

Someone wrote

"I see you completely abandoned a scientific argument in favor of philosophical gerrymandering, like evolutionists always do."

and signed the name "Jeff Blogworthy".

Was the Jeff Blogworthy who wrote this sentence a human being acting on his own volition?

Or did a group of mysterious alien beings take over Jeff's brain and move his fingers to type the sentence without Jeff realizing that the aliens were controlling his movements?

I hope there is a scientist out there who can help us determine which of these two competing theories is correct.

Or maybe we need a preacher.

Or both.

Gordon?

62

Oh boy. This is really disturbing.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/08/31/chimp.genes.ap/index.html

"Humans and chimps have evolved separately since splitting from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago, and their DNA remains highly similar -- about 96 percent to almost 99 percent identical, depending on how the comparison is made."

I know I have made a lot of arguments defending evolutionary biologists here on this blog. But I never thought that those biologists would take their claims this far.

Humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor? That is simply too much to take. As a human being, I am revolted by the suggestion that I am related to those animals in any way, other than our surface similarities (including our DNA sequences).

This is a truly depressing development for me because I was defending these scientists but they've simply gone off the cliff. I need something to cheer me up. Perhaps a piece of candy. I guess fruit would be healthier. I think I saw a banana in the lunchroom.

63

Was the Jeff Blogworthy who wrote this sentence a human being acting on his own volition?

Or did a group of mysterious alien beings take over Jeff's brain and move his fingers to type the sentence without Jeff realizing that the aliens were controlling his movements?

I hope there is a scientist out there who can help us determine which of these two competing theories is correct.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! How silly. How preposterous! "Is that really Jeff Blogworthy typing at his own volition or is it merely the 'appearance' of Jeff Blogworthy typing at his own volition?"

Um. Wait a minute. Maybe you should further develop that theory...

64

Mummon:

"It's all very Maoist to me."

Given your political views, I can't quite figure out