A few weeks ago I argued that parents who oppose the teaching of neo-Darwinism in public schools were following the wrong tactic. Instead of “Teaching the Controversy” I claimed that they should simply teach students how to think critically and logically and then have them read the claims made by “evolutionists” (people who have an almost religious faith in the ability of the theory to provide "scientific" explanations). At the top of such a reading list would be the complete works of Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins is, inexplicably, what passes for a “public intellectual” in England. He is a zoologist by training, an evangelical atheist by temperament, and a dullard by nature. Time and again he is called out for his illogical, inaccurate, or simply inane claims and yet is always treated as if he were something more than an intellectual poseur.
His latest bout of silliness can be found in this week's New Scientist, in an article titled "The world's ten biggest ideas." (via Pharyngula) Apparently, all reputable evolutionary biologists were busy with actual scientific projects and so Dawkins was tagged to write the entry on “evolution.” As usual he mixes fact with his own farcical claims to come up with a typically Dawkinseque bit of mystical tripe:
The world is divided into things that look designed (like birds and airliners) and things that don't (rocks and mountains).Things that look designed are divided into those that really are designed (submarines and tin openers) and those that aren't (sharks and hedgehogs). The diagnostic of things that look (or are) designed is that their parts are assembled in ways that are statistically improbable in a functional direction. They do something well: for instance, fly. Darwinian natural selection can produce an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant.
Notice that Dawkins claims that the way we discern whether something is designed or not designed is the same: their parts are assembled in ways that are statistically improbable in a functional direction. In order to make such a distinction Dawkins must have something akin to William Dembski’s “explanatory filter” otherwise he would have no way of knowing whether an object is “designed” or “designoid.” How is he able to determine that birds, but not airplanes, could be created by gradual natural processes? He doesn't say. It's one of the gnostic mysteries known only by neo-Darwinists.
So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19th century to realise that it is an illusion. In 1859, Charles Darwin announced one of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative evolution by natural selection. Living complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But only if we assume that all the luck has to come in one fell swoop. When cascades of small chance steps accumulate, you can reach prodigious heights of adaptive complexity. That cumulative build-up is evolution. Its guiding force is natural selection.
Dawkins appears to have a peculiar idea of how probability works. Is something too improbable to have occurred by chance? Then simply divide it up into smaller chance events and – voila! – the improbable becomes inevitable. If the odds of winning the lottery in “one fell swoop” are improbable then just buy millions of successive lottery tickets. No need to get lucky once when its the accumulation of smaller "winnings" will add up to the grand prize.
If this were all that Dawkins was claiming then he would simply be a bad mathematician. Instead he shows that he is really a mystic. Take, for instance, his claim that “natural selection” is a “guiding force.” He doesn’t use such language as a mere literary trope but means it in a very literal way. He truly believes that natural selection is not just a post hoc explanation for what has occurred but a creative force that guides the biological organisms to greater degrees of complexity. We’ll see this when he explains that natural selection is “non-random.”
Every living creature has ancestors, but only a fraction have descendants. All inherit the genes of an unbroken sequence of successful ancestors, none of whom died young and none of whom failed to reproduce. Genes that program embryos to develop into adults who can successfully reproduce automatically survive in the gene pool, at the expense of genes that fail. This is natural selection at the gene level, and we notice its consequences at the organism level. There has to be an ultimate source of new genetic variation, and it is mutation. Copies of newly mutated genes are reshuffled through the gene pool by sexual reproduction, and selection removes them from the pool in a way that is non-random.
Up until the last term, Dawkins presentation of natural selection is rather uncontroversial. Stated in this way, natural selection is a tautology. As Dawkins writes in “The Blind Watchmaker”, “In true natural selection, if a body has what it takes to survive, its genes automatically survive because they are inside it. So the genes that survive tend to be, automatically, those genes that confer on bodies the qualities that assist them to survive.” If a creature is living and has passed on its genes to a descendant, then the creature was fit enough to have survived long enough to pass on its genes to its descendants. Obviously if genetic flaws keep a creature’s embryo from developing into a reproducing adult, then that creature will naturally not be “selected.”
The problem is that Dawkins attempts to claim that natural selection is an adequate mechanism for producing complexity. Because complexity is not inherently related to survival, though, we can’t assume that the process of natural selection is responsible for increasing the complexity of an organism. In fact, it seem rather obvious that a decrease in complexity could, in some instances, aid in survival (mammals, for example, are more complex than some creatures but their longer gestational periods to birth can reduce their chances of survival). Dawkins is merely begging the question by assuming that natural selection is the process by which complexity is created.
But there is another issue with this statement. Dawkins claims that the process is “non-random.” “[T]here is the familiar, and I have to say rather irritating, confusion of natural selection with 'randomness',” says Dawkins in TBW, “Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random.” [emphasis in original] The problem is not with his contention – I too agree that natural selection is not random – but in the way he applies it.
Natural selection is the process, according to Dawkins, by which cumulative selection occurs. But as he admits, “Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself.” In other words, for cumulative selection to begin, we must have an event where an entity went from being non-living to living in one single step. This is, as even Dawkins would likely admit, a “miracle.” “My thesis will be that events that we commonly call miracles are not supernatural, but are part of a spectrum of more-or-less improbable natural events,” he once claimed, “A miracle, in other words, if it occurs at all, is a tremendous stroke of luck. Events don't fall neatly into natural events versus miracles.”
Dawkins even admits that the probability of this event occurring is likely to be very small, which explains why intelligent scientists have not been able to reproduce what unintelligent nature was able to do by accident: “If the spontaneous origin of life turned out to be a probable enough event to have occurred during the few man-decades in which chemists have done their experiments, then life should have arisen many times on Earth, and many times on planets within radio range of Earth.” Apparently, the fact that we haven’t heard from aliens is evidence that creating life in the lab is unlikely to occur.
The need for a naturalistic miracle should be rather disconcerting, and Dawkins does admit that it’s rather paradoxical:
So we have arrived at the following paradox. If a theory of the origin of life is sufficiently 'plausible' to satisfy our subjective judgement of plausibility, it is then too 'plausible' to account for the paucity of life in the universe as we observe it. According to this argument, the theory we are looking for has got to be the kind of theory that seems implausible to our limited, Earth-bound, decade-bound imaginations. Seen in this light, both Cairns-Smith's theory and the primeval-soup theory seem if anything in danger of erring on the side of being too plausible! Having said all this I must confess that, because there is so much uncertainty in the calculations, if a chemist did succeed in creating spontaneous life I would not actually be disconcerted!
Because we are looking for a miracle, a theory that is too plausible wouldn’t explain the paucity of life in the universe. Earlier in this same chapter, Dawkins says that “we should be worried if it turned out to be very easy for chemists to obtain life spontaneously in the test-tube.” Yet if such life were created he wouldn’t be “disconcerted.” (If you find the concept of being worried but not disconcerted to be confusing, just keep in mind that Dawkins isn’t known for logical consistency.)
Let’s skip ahead to the last paragraph: 
Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the sceptical backlash against evolution. Chance cannot explain life. Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers. Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly.
Because he rules out both chance and design, Dawkins is left with only law as the explanation for the complexity-producing process. Natural selection is therefore not merely a post hoc tautological explanation for what has occurred but is a natural law, similar to the law of gravity. Even if we concede that this is true, it faces a major stumbling point. Unlike most neo-Darwinists, Dawkins is honest enough to admit that for natural selection to start it has to pass the initial hurdle, the “single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself.” Despite all the hand-waving and special pleading, neo-Darwinists can’t seem to make this problem of origins go away. It’s like in the cartoon to the right, Dawkins inserts into the evolutionary equation “then a miracle occurs.” After that natural selection can then proceed to produce the proliferate diversity and complexity we find in nature.
But Dawkins, and others of his ilk, need to be more explicit about that first initial step. Why is invoking a miracle in order to set your theory in motion pseudoscience when creationists do it but a necessary scientific postulate when presented by neo-Darwinists?
1
Hmmm...who is more credible on the subject of evolution and the origin of life, the renowned, eminent scientist or the evangelical blogger?
Your post puts words into the mouths of those you call "neo-Darwinians". Dawkins does not call for a miracle; on the contrary, he seems to feel that life HAD to appear given the conditions of the primordial Earth. I don't know if I believe that or not, but I know I'd sooner trust a scientist's opinion than that of someone who merely points to the Bible and heaps scorn on his intellectual superior.
posted on 09.19.2005 7:06 AM2
For scientific materialist the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might therefore more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. ~ Phillip Johnson
posted on 09.19.2005 7:42 AM3
The first thing you say after encouraging people to "think criticallY" and "logically" about evolution is an ad hominem attack on Richard Dawkins.
How is he able to determine that birds, but not airplanes, could be created by gradual natural processes? He doesn't say. It's one of the gnostic mysteries known only by neo-Darwinists.
Ummm...it has something to do with nucleic acids and replication, and isn't a mystery at all. Why, if you had been paying attention in high school, where they actually covered such things, you would have learned it.
But from a behaviorist point of view you might have a point.
posted on 09.19.2005 8:09 AM4
Rob,
Good try.
No one knows the conditions of the primordial Earth. Even in lab conditions that simulate supposed primordial conditions that would greatly favor the experimenter's goal of artificially creating life, the scientist fails. They can't even stack the deck and succeed.
When you get to the bottom of all of what Dawkins and other evolutionists claim, you find that they are standing on what would be called a miracle. Life from non life. Some evolutionists don't want to touch origins theory with a 10 ft pole because they know that there is no way to explain the origin of life in a way that is scientifically plausable. So they, like the intelligent design crowd, avoid talking about how it all got started and focus on what happened afterwards. What they don't want to admit is that you can't have a game without a kickoff.
Creationists don't point at the Bible as their source of scientific information. We use the Bible as a means to help interpret evidence that is available to all--creationists and evolutionists alike. When both camps run into a problem, they look at it based on their presummptions and see if the evidence fits. Evolutionists have to continually change their original presumptions because the evidence just doesn't fit.
You speak of trusting these scientists? Look at the frauds and exagerations that have been committed by this group over the past 150 years.
Piltdown man, neanderthal, lucy, Ernst Mayr's embryos, peppered moths, Miller-Urey, etc...
posted on 09.19.2005 8:13 AM
5
Rob,
I don't like using authority as a trump card in religious discussions, and I like it even less in science discussions.
In any field of knowledge and inquiry, we use the expertise of experts in the field to know what the field is about and to learn what the current consensus in the field is. We may even rely on the judgement of experts when we feel we don't know enough to exercise our own judgement.
But a determined amateur can often learn enough to pose tough questions to even the most authoritative of experts. And if a skeptic does his homework and learns enough, there is no reason he can't challenge the orthodoxy on a particular point of controversy.
Joe has highlighted and outlined his view of Dawkins' version of evolutionary theory. Perhaps Joe is wrong and Dawkins is right. Joe's critique is still smart and raises interesting questions. Joe's essay lets us see for ourselves where Joe believes the controversy lies.
I don't know enough about Joe and Dawkins to be able to judge who is the "intellectual superior". But such a question is highly irrelevant to judging the question at hand. Joe's words stand on their own. We can evaluate Joe's arguments and evidence without having to speculate as to his intellectual capacity.
I don't think making a denigrating comment about Joe's intellect advances the argument one whit, except perhaps to diminish your credibility. Ad hominem remarks are usually put forward as a substitute for proper analysis, due to either a lack of proper analysis, or laziness, or a desire to push an emotional button because an emotional button of yours has been pressed. And ad hominem remarks are also rude and insulting, very poor form.
What's worse, you make out that eminent scientists are generally, if not universally, more intelligent and infallible than evangelical bloggers. This is obnoxiously contentious on your part, and just as importantly, it's not even true.
If you, like myself, would like to defend evolutionary theories from skeptical persons like Joe, it might help to maintain a healthy skepticism towards scientific theories yourself. Not all scientific theories prove to be true, and not every piece of every true theory turns out to be true. You don't want to put yourself in the position of defending a point that ought not to be defended.
But thank you for standing up for science. It can be a risky business, what with God sending all those pesky heretics to hell and all. :) (Sorry, Joe, couldn't resist the temptation!)
posted on 09.19.2005 8:35 AM6
Mike,
You speak of trusting these scientists? Look at the frauds and exagerations that have been committed by this group over the past 150 years.
Piltdown man, neanderthal, lucy, Ernst Mayr's embryos, peppered moths, Miller-Urey, etc...
Ah yes, those untrustworthy scientists.
While you're at it, why don't you remind us of those stinking Jew bankers, those crazy death-loving Muslims, those lazy Mexicans, those hustling tele-evangelists conning retired people of their life savings... Oops -- strike that last one, what was I thinking?
posted on 09.19.2005 8:40 AM7
Rob:
Well, you've certainly demolished Joe's argument. After all, who can withstand the intellectual firepower it takes to say: "You're dumber than him, and he agrees with me, so I'm right and you're wrong"? That's flash, man.
Mumon:
You're my favorite guy around here, Mumon. I like the way you get right down to the nitty-gritty. No miracle necessary, right? All you gotta know about is "nucleic acids and replication". Scientific terms, man. Technical stuff. That, combined with "meteors from outer space", or "primeval soup", or "aliens" gives us what we see today crawling over practically every square millimeter of the planet. Well, OK. If that's where your faith takes you, that's fine by me. But neither you, nor Dawkins, nor any other neo-, paleo-, or otherwise-Darwinist has a single shred - nay, scintilla - of real scientific evidence for such an origin. And until such origins can be demonstrated in a laboratory (with all the restrictive controls that environment permits, in contrast to the dirty real world) your posturing is nothing more than a statement of faith cross-dressing in the terminology of science.
8
Rob Hmmm...who is more credible on the subject of evolution and the origin of life, the renowned, eminent scientist or the evangelical blogger?
Normally, I’d go with the “renowned, eminent scientist” but the only options in this case are me and Dawkins. ; )
I certainly don’t have the knowledge to go toe-to-toe with Dawkins on details of evolutionary theory. But on matters that require basic math and logic I think I’m on safe ground.
Also, other than writing popular books on science, what, in your opinion, is Dawkins “renowned” for? I’ll admit that he has a certain literary flair. But even those who agree with him have pointed out that his books are a bit sloppy when it comes to the actual science.
Dawkins does not call for a miracle; on the contrary, he seems to feel that life HAD to appear given the conditions of the primordial Earth.
No, Dawkins feels life had to appear given those conditions because he has a precommitment to atheistic materialism and refuses to entertain any theories that fall outside of that view.
mumon The first thing you say after encouraging people to "think criticallY" and "logically" about evolution is an ad hominem attack on Richard Dawkins.
Yeah, that was admittedly unnecessary (though I meant it more as an insult than an ad hominem). Dawkins, Brian Leiter, and Peter Singer have a way of bringing out the worst in me. ; )
Ummm...it has something to do with nucleic acids and replication, and isn't a mystery at all.
Well, then, by all means explain it for us. I’m sure we’d all be interested in having this issue put to rest.
9
How is he able to determine that birds, but not airplanes, could be created by gradual natural processes? He doesn't say. It's one of the gnostic mysteries known only by neo-Darwinists.
Your snark is starting to overwhelm your reasoning here. It's blindingly obvious that Dawkins thinks that mutations during DNA replication, combined with natural selection and genetic drift, are capable of generating complex organisms. Research testing specific aspects of that general theory are published every week in scientific journals. Since airplanes do not reproduce or imperfectly replicate their own DNA, there just might be a difference in the ways that birds and ariplanes can be generated. You may disagree with the conclusions, but it is simply empty rhetoric to refer to it as gnostic mysteries.
The problem is that Dawkins attempts to claim that natural selection is an adequate mechanism for producing complexity. Because complexity is not inherently related to survival, though, we can’t assume that the process of natural selection is responsible for increasing the complexity of an organism.
Good thing that biologists don't assume that increased complexity is inherently related to survival, then.
In fact, it seem rather obvious that a decrease in complexity could, in some instances, aid in survival (mammals, for example, are more complex than some creatures but their longer gestational periods to birth can reduce their chances of survival).
Well, yeah. That's stating the obvious. Natural selection is not required to increase complexity (look at parasites, for instance), but it is capable of increasing complexity. While in some contexts, increased complexity and new capabilities may not be a slective advantage, but in other situations it certainly is. If you think seriously about mammals, instead of using them as a one liner, can you think of situations where long gestations, parental care, and few young might be a selective advantage? Are there other situations where it might be a selective disadvantage?
So, if natural selection is capable of increasing complexity and if there are some situations where increased complexity is advantageous, why should we be worry whether or not it always increases complexity?
Dawkins is merely begging the question by assuming that natural selection is the process by which complexity is created.
In other words, for cumulative selection to begin, we must have an event where an entity went from being non-living to living in one single step.
No, that's not other words for what Dawkins said, at least not in the passage that you quoted. A non-living replicator with imperfect replication process could also be subject to natural selection. An entity might have to go from non-replicating to replicating in one single step, but there's no requirement that it go from non-living to living in a single step. In fact, I suspect that if you really try to distinguish the difference between living and non-living, you will have difficulty deciding on a single, specific criterion.
Agree or disagree with him as you like, but at least try to argue with his position, not a caricature thereof.
You might want to consider avoiding Dawkins for a while. He has an unfortunate tendency to make you venomous.
posted on 09.19.2005 9:18 AM10
Natural selection is not required to increase complexity (look at parasites, for instance), but it is capable of increasing complexity. While in some contexts, increased complexity and new capabilities may not be a slective advantage, but in other situations it certainly is.
Dawkins is merely begging the question by assuming that natural selection is the process by which complexity is created.
Ah, the wonder working power of evolutionism.
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
11
Dawkins appears to have a peculiar idea of how probability works. Is something too improbable to have occurred by chance? Then simply divide it up into smaller chance events and – voila! – the improbable becomes inevitable. If the odds of winning the lottery in “one fell swoop” are improbable then just buy millions of successive lottery tickets. No need to get lucky once when its the accumulation of smaller "winnings" will add up to the grand prize.
Well gee Joe that actually works. A few years ago some Austrailian investment fund did just that. They purchased all possible combinations of lottery tickets in some place and scored a guaranteed win and return on their investment for their clients.
The problem is that Dawkins attempts to claim that natural selection is an adequate mechanism for producing complexity. Because complexity is not inherently related to survival, though, we can’t assume that the process of natural selection is responsible for increasing the complexity of an organism. In fact, it seem rather obvious that a decrease in complexity could, in some instances, aid in survival (mammals, for example, are more complex than some creatures but their longer gestational periods to birth can reduce their chances of survival). Dawkins is merely begging the question by assuming that natural selection is the process by which complexity is created.
Complexity may not be obviously related to survival but in some contexts it is. You are right, though, bacteria is much less complex than multi-celled organisms but if we wanted to judge the most successful life forms on Earth they would probably be near the top. Near the top if we judged based on population, mass, or longest history on Earth etc. The natural selection environment is quite similar to a market economy. There are plenty of huge complex firms that are successful (i.e. Wal-Mart, Microsoft) but there are also plenty of large complex firms that are falling apart and struggling (General Motors, just about any large airline). There are also plenty of tiny companies that are simple but doing quite well. That are even successful people who have one simple gimmick that works for them but there's only room for it to work more than once or twice (like the guy who posted a web site with a picture of a cute kitten and a demand for $10,000 or 'the cat gets it!' and actually got people to paypal him the $$$!).
If you had the brain power to sit down on New Year's Day and figure out all possible successful combinations of firms for the upcoming year you would be quite rich. But to do so would be beyond all the computing power humans currently have...and this is for a totally human created system! So don't be so arrogant as to declare what is or isn't 'inherently related to survival'. Quite often you can't know until you see what actually works! Anyway, are you really so dense as to not see how complexity might be a useful tool for an organism to survive? Yes lower complexity may help out sometimes but there's a lower limit on how simple you can get while there is no clear upper limit.
Dawkins even admits that the probability of this event occurring is likely to be very small, which explains why intelligent scientists have not been able to reproduce what unintelligent nature was able to do by accident: “If the spontaneous origin of life turned out to be a probable enough event to have occurred during the few man-decades in which chemists have done their experiments, then life should have arisen many times on Earth, and many times on planets within radio range of Earth.” Apparently, the fact that we haven’t heard from aliens is evidence that creating life in the lab is unlikely to occur.
Actually it would be pretty BAD for evolution if life spontaneously originated easily in labs. Even seeing it happen just once or twice in thirty years of effort would be pretty bad for evolution. Evolution is not a theory of life's origins but of how life changes and the primary driver of change in the theory is natual selection. If living things were spontaneously popping out all the time (even once every 50 years is quite a bit) then new species would be mixing with the evolving species throughout history. It would become impossible to unsort them to see how much was evolved and how much was spontaneous. No, evolution requires that abiogensis be either very rare (improbable) or probable but under conditions that no longer exist on earth.
Beyond this we have no handle on how often (if ever) life arose on planets near earth. As you know full well Joe in order for us to have life near us capable of radio communication it would almost certainly require a more friendly environment than nearly any other planet in our solar system. As for outside our solar system, I've read that if some nearby star had civilized life and they set up a SETI system to look for neighbors they would not see anything from earth. Despite all our radio and tv traffic it is too weak for SETI to detect...SETI is looking for a civilization that has purposefully decided to broadcast a strong beacon type signal out into space. It would miss an earth like planet just sending out run of the mill TV/radio signals.
Despite all the hand-waving and special pleading, neo-Darwinists can’t seem to make this problem of origins go away. It’s like in the cartoon to the right, Dawkins inserts into the evolutionary equation “then a miracle occurs.” After that natural selection can then proceed to produce the proliferate diversity and complexity we find in nature.But Dawkins, and others of his ilk, need to be more explicit about that first initial step. Why is invoking a miracle in order to set your theory in motion pseudoscience when creationists do it but a necessary scientific postulate when presented by neo-Darwinists?
Yawn, no Darwinism does not have to explain origins anymore than Newton had to explain how the planets originally formed when he mapped out the dynamics of their orbits as a result of his laws of motion. In fact, even if an ancient 'security camera' is found with a tape of God himself designing a single celled organism and then releasing it into Earth's ancient oceans 4.7B years ago it would do nothing to challenge Darwinism! Evolution is a theory explaining how life changes, Darwin's famous book was called the "Origin of Species" not the "Origin of Living Things"....he did acknowledge that the origin of living things is an important question and even offered some speculation as to some possible answers but that's it.
Scientific theories work best when they seek to accurately explain a small slice of the universe, not everything at once...that is the job of philosophy. Every good theory leads to lots of questions but leaves an area well explained. Newton's theory is a nice illustration of this, it explains a lot but amazingly never actually tells us why gravity is what it is.
12
Darwin developed his theory because he rejected God. Without God, you have to have some way for life to have come about. We are here after all. Even Dawkins said that Darwin's theory allowed atheists to become intellectually fulfilled.
Newton's theory describes events we can watch and test. It does not depend on a theory of origin. Evolution describes something that has not been observed and cannot be tested. It falls into the category of origins science. It's speculation based on available evidence.
Evolutionists routinely disregard evidence that contradicts their presuppostions. That's intellectually dishonest and shows that their theory based on atheism is more important to them than the truth.
13
Come on, Boonton, don't you know that any flaw in science is absolute proof that Intelligent Design is true? Since Newton was superceded by Einstein, that shows that there is great controversy over gravity. Teach the controversy.
posted on 09.19.2005 10:26 AM14
It's blindingly obvious that Dawkins thinks that mutations during DNA replication, combined with natural selection and genetic drift, are capable of generating complex organisms.
Yes, I agree that he thinks that. What he has not explained is how he is able to distinguish between designoid and designed. Merely postulating that it occurs by replication and drift isn’t an answer.
Dawkins is merely begging the question by assuming that natural selection is the process by which complexity is created.
At least we agree on that point.
In fact, I suspect that if you really try to distinguish the difference between living and non-living, you will have difficulty deciding on a single, specific criterion.
Are you seriously claiming that biologists do not have a specific criterion for distinguishing non-living organisms from living ones?
Agree or disagree with him as you like, but at least try to argue with his position, not a caricature thereof.
The problem I have is that Dawkins version is a caricature of neo-Darwinism (at least I assume that the theory can be structured in a more logical way than he is able to do).
You might want to consider avoiding Dawkins for a while. He has an unfortunate tendency to make you venomous.
Yes, I admit he does. And it’s really not his silly ideas that bother me so much as it is the fact that his fellow scientists don’t call him out on it nearly enough. Perhaps they think that he is a hedge against the “creationists” and attacking him would only advance the opposition’s cause. But it still is rather disturbing that they let him get away with pasing off metaphysical claims as science.
15
Bevets:
Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size?
O.k. Start with a bird species that contains some range of different bill sizes (in no population will all the bills be exactly the same).
If one looked at different populations of a bird species and observed the same distribution of bill sizes in all environments, then natural selection caused by differences in those environments is definitely ruled out as the cause of the distribution in bill sizes. There, that wasn't so difficult. What's so metaphysical about that?
On the other hand, if one observed different distributions of bill sizes in populations that were in different environments, then one could hypothesize that natural selection was responsible for the bill sizes.
However, those differences could be caused by other influences such as random genetic drift. So one would want to test that hypothesis...
If one observed observed a bird population over time and noted changes in the distribution of bill sizes that correlated with changes in the environment (either controlled environmental changes or carefully documented natural changes), then one could conclude that the hypothesis was correct.
What's so metaphysical about that?
posted on 09.19.2005 10:39 AM16
"You speak of trusting these scientists? Look at the frauds and exagerations that have been committed by this group over the past 150 years."
Do you really want to go there, Mike? ;-)
"I don't think making a denigrating comment about Joe's intellect advances the argument one whit, except perhaps to diminish your credibility. Ad hominem remarks are usually put forward as a substitute for proper analysis, due to either a lack of proper analysis, or laziness, or a desire to push an emotional button because an emotional button of yours has been pressed. And ad hominem remarks are also rude and insulting, very poor form."
Perhaps I'm more willing to evaluate the men's relative intelligence based on their writings than you are. Also, I don't think it's insulting to categorize one as an intellectual inferior of a brilliant man; I, too, am Dawkin's inferior in that regard. Still, I appreciate your opinion, even if i'm not always as circumspect as you are. As you surmise (emotional button), my post comes in response to Joe's dismissive characterization of Dawkins as a "dullard" and of his work as "silliness". Since I was pressed for time as I commented (and will be booked up solid for at least 36 hours, by which time there will be over a hundred comments), I decided to return fire for the loyal opposition and let courteous fellows like you engage in analysis. Forgive my leaving you that burden and giving your side a bit of naughtiness to overcome. So have at it, and I will check your progress during class breaks.
posted on 09.19.2005 10:41 AM17
Joe:
Are you seriously claiming that biologists do not have a specific criterion for distinguishing non-living organisms from living ones?
Well, organisms are, by definition, living things, so "non-living organism" is a contradition in terms. But yes, I'm claiming that it is far from trivial, perhaps impossible, to come up with a specific criterion that would reliably distinguish things that are alive from things that are not-alive.
It's a demarcation problem, like the problem of distinguishing science from non-science. There are things that are obviously living. There are things that are obviously non-living. And then there is a fuzzy boundary.
Back to the original point, I haven't seen any hypotheses about abiogenesis that claim that the first replicator was a living organism, so your paraphrase of Dawkins' point seemed suspect. A self-replicating macromolecule is a different kettle of fish than an organism, complexity-wise. It may still be miraculous to generate such a replicator, but it's a rather different problem than the one you attributed to Dawkins.
Nick
posted on 09.19.2005 10:55 AM18
Mike,
Darwin developed his theory because he rejected God.
Darwin believed in God. He developed his theory because he went on an expedition aboard the Beagle to South America. He already knew from the fossil record the broad fact of historical changes in speciation (which is called evolution), but his trip to South America dramatically illustrated the reality of radiation of species into various ecological niches. That was the original impetus for his insight about natural selection. But once he had found his original inspiration, he then went on to meticulously amass volumes of evidence for his theory over several decades.
And he never let go of his faith in God. In his revolutionary book, On the Origin of Species, Darwin makes several references to "the Creator" as the original source of life on earth, and perhaps even the first few species as well.
Evolution describes something that has not been observed and cannot be tested. It falls into the category of origins science. It's speculation based on available evidence.
Evolutionists routinely disregard evidence that contradicts their presuppostions. That's intellectually dishonest and shows that their theory based on atheism is more important to them than the truth.
As an enemy of intellectual dishonesty, I hope your next comment will include an acknowledgement of my correction of your claim that "Darwin developed his theory because he rejected God", and your implication that he was an agnostic or atheist.
You state that evolutionists routinely disregard contradictory evidence. What evidence do you think evolutionists should be paying more attention to?
19
How is he able to determine that birds, but not airplanes, could be created by gradual natural processes? He doesn't say. It's one of the gnostic mysteries known only by neo-Darwinists.
This is a problem with the whole design concept whether its Dawkins or IDers. There is no test for design. A mountain can be designed by a computer simulation (ever read anything on fractals in mathematics?) or even in real life by a guy with enough dynamite and time on his hands. Airplanes can be designed by non-intelligent processes as well.
What's that you say? Well I call your attention to the last time we talked about evolution back on the Evolution's Publicists post. There I sketched out a hypothetical computer program.
1. It begins with a nonsense phrase of random characters. afdkladja;fjdajda
2. It defines reproduction, basically in the 'child' phrase each letter is copied. So a child of the above phrase would begin with 'afdk'. However there is a twist, the copying will be imperfect and random so the expected letter will be the parent letter but with a normal distribution around it...let's set the standard deviation at 1 letter. So while the first letter will likely be A there's a chance it could be B...a very tiny chance it could be C, D, E, and so on.
3. Define mutation, every now and then an extra letter is added or substracted or a letter changed without regard to the normal probability in #2.
4. Define the environment.
#4 is where it gets interesting. In life the environment feeds energy to some organisms and deprives others of energy. Energy can come directly (such as the sun shining on a plant) or indirectly (such as an animal with a long neck able to eat the plant's stored energy). In our computer simulation energy is in the form of computing power....power to spawning 'child phrases' off of our parent phrase.
For anyone who wants to try this I propose letting each phrase spawn one or two generations before that parent 'dies'. How the generations are spawned, though, is where the action happens. Define some parameter for the environment that favor some types of phrases rather than others. For example, you could give extra credit to phrases that come closest to having English words in them or that come close to some target phrase (like the first sentence of A Farewell to Arms) or both. So let the first phrase spawn 5 children. Then of those 5 give the top 2 phrases 5 children, the middle 2 2 children, the fourth 1 child and the fith none.
If you want you can even simulate some creationist criticisms of evolution such as the fact that mutations are often bad for an organism...here just give any organism with a mutation a penalty in computing its 'score' compared to its brother organisms.
This is a simple model, for example it does not allow a phrase to spawn multiple generations nor does it permit asexual reproduction. I can guarantee anyone who wants to try to program it, though, that it will spawn 'complex' phrases faster than simply doing it randomly (i.e. the scrabble bag approach). You can even simulate the random nature of the environment by choosing a random variable to set as the 'reward'....for example you could use the top 10 search phrases as reported by Yahoo each week etc.
What do you have here? You have a process that 'designs' phrases without the intervention of an intelligent agent. Granted the intelligent agent had to create the simulation and has to pay the electric bill to keep the computer humming but that's a trivially irrelevant point. You could design an airplane like this too. Basically it is 'try something randomly, if it seems good try something randomly again but using the original as a 'base' if it doesn't then toss it out and try something again'.
Such a design process is very time intensive. Humans with only 30-40 good working years and much less patience for bringing products to market are very time poor. Nature, though, with a 13.7 billion year old universe is very time rich.
'Intelligent based design' can be done quickly but is prone to errors, especially as complexity increases. While an airplane may seem complicated it is actually quite simple compared to a bird or even a market. Not surprisingly 'designed markets'....i.e. 'centrally planned economies' have a very poor record. Conservatives should take note that Burke got it right here. For highly complex systems such as a society 'intelligent planning' is likely to be a diaster when compred to time intensive method of selection among variation.
Like most evolution threads on this blog, I expect this to burn for about 300 posts and then come down to just me and Gordon arguing back and forth a week or two later. I found it interesting when I tried to corner Gordon as to where design happens versus evolution. He wants design at the origin, he wants design at the 'Cambrian explosion' (when many new body types appeared quickly....only a few surviving to this day) and design at almost every major new species. What type of designer is being depicted here? Great performers like Johnny Carson, Jackie Gleason, Fred Astire made it 'look natural'...like they weren't even trying to do anything. The designer of ID is a indecisive neurotic suffering intense writers bloc! Forever unable to make up his mind, constantly putting out 'drafts' only to chuck them in the garabage...going thru more error prone 'beta versions' than Microsoft on its worst days. Evolution, though, let's you have a creator who is so elegant that he can toss some atoms into space at the Big Bang and let them fall exactly as he wants. While Dawkins may not believe that, it certainly seems a more elegant theory for the thiestically inclined than ID.
20
In all honesty, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution or science in general. One example:
" Is something too improbable to have occurred by chance? Then simply divide it up into smaller chance events and – voila! – the improbable becomes inevitable."
No, of course not. It simply has a higher probability.
And you have the gall to criticize Dawkins' mathematical ability? Spare me.
posted on 09.19.2005 11:40 AM21
Look at Mike:
No one knows the conditions of the primordial Earth. Even in lab conditions that simulate supposed primordial conditions that would greatly favor the experimenter's goal of artificially creating life, the scientist fails. They can't even stack the deck and succeed.
If tomorrow some scientist discovered bacteria coming out of some combination of chemicals that included zinc the creationist would fall back and demand proof that this exact mixture existed in the primordial earth. They would be right, a cake today indicates that some recipe was used to bake it in the past...yet just because we find a receipe that happens to make cake doesn't mean we found the one that was used to make THAT cake! Not surprisingly there was a time when many God believing people did in fact believe that living things sprung from non-living things every day! Pasteur, for example, tested the theory that maggots and flies sprang from non-living rotting bread.
Darwin developed his theory because he rejected God. Without God, you have to have some way for life to have come about. We are here after all. Even Dawkins said that Darwin's theory allowed atheists to become intellectually fulfilled.
1. False, Darwin did not reject God and then go out to seek a theory that fit his belief.
2. Scientific theories do not 'explain everything' as you demand of Darwinism nor do they have to in order to be valid.
Newton's theory describes events we can watch and test. It does not depend on a theory of origin.
It does, one of his laws is that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Hence when 'testing' this theory against, say, the orbit of the moon we simply gloss over the question of how the moon got its initial velocity....whether it was hurled there by a Greek god or formed from the primordial solar system we don't care....at least as far as Newton's concerned.
The problem I have is that Dawkins version is a caricature of neo-Darwinism (at least I assume that the theory can be structured in a more logical way than he is able to do).
No the problem here is reading too much into popularizers & philsophers of scientific theories. Einstein's theory of relativity spawned a group of speculators who thought it had something to say about moral relativism (it didn't)...or quantum theory said something about objectivity. Even our friend Newton had this work used to spawn deism and the idea of a 'clockwork determined universe' when all his work showed was determinism in idealized forms...even there was quite a few limits to what his theories could do and it wasn't until the 20th century that the field of chaos theory grew to account for it.
It is always dangerous to make philosophical conclusions from limited scientific theories. Dawkins is correct in that evolution is consistent with his athiesm but then again so is Newtonian mechanics. He does not say, nor does he imply, though that either theories proves his athiesm or even lends anymore support to it than the fact that it doesn't outright contradict it.
Are you seriously claiming that biologists do not have a specific criterion for distinguishing non-living organisms from living ones?
It seems Joe has never heard about the debate over whether or not your typical virus is a living thing.
posted on 09.19.2005 11:45 AM22
I like being me. I feel extremely lucky that I am myself and not someone else. What are the odds of a person existing who is exactly like me, at this particular point in time?
The only rational conclusion is that my parents intelligently designed me. According to legend, this took place in the back seat of my dad's car.
I'll talk to my dad this evening and report back with more details. This may be huge. I'm going to blow this evolution scam wide open and claim the Nobel Prize from right under Bill Dembski's nose!
posted on 09.19.2005 12:06 PM23
Of course, science isn't the issue here.
For reasons that are extremely difficult to understand, rightwing religious nuts seem to think that evolution undermines their sense of morality. They think that somehow, a scientific approach to biological history will cause Jeb Bush's son to become a drunkard and his daughter a junkie. Of course, Darwin and his modern day followers -ie, the vast majority of working scientists- has nothing whatsoever to say about my Jeb Bush is such a lousy father and his children are so troubled.
With the fake controversy over evolution, what we're actually seeing is an attempt to sneak a specific set of religious and moral beliefs into public schools. These beliefs are utterly abhorrent to the vast majority of intelligent people in this country.
They demand that public schools accept and teach portions of an intellectually vacuous theology as equal in worth to scientifically rigorous theories. Most Americans know that American security and strength is dependent on scientific and technological innovations. Students don't have time to study the reasons why astrology, "intelligent design," or palm reading fail as science.
These fanatics clamor to legislate restrictions on behavior- such as banning intimate pleasure between consenting adults unless both the government and church officially grants permission. The rest of us, quite rightly, don't care to tell others how to behave. We know from our experience that sex is a joyful experience and have enjoyed several, if not numerous, wonderful relationships before settling down into a marriage or other longterm relationship.
They don't mention it much, but even between married adults, nutcases like Santorum and Scalia wish to go as far as to ban certain sexual pleasures - such as oral sex, even within opposite sex marriages - and any use of contraceptive devices, not simply abortion. Don't believe me? Read closely exactly what Santorum said in his infamous "man on dog" interview. This guy wants to spy into Mr and Mrs Cleaver's bedroom, let alone Barney Franks'.
And they are prepared to lie when reality gets in their way - claiming falsely that condoms are not an effective prophlactic against HIV/AIDS, for example. And the worst of them, like Rudolph and Terry, are violent maniacs who believe they are commanded by God to radically remake America into a theology.
This isn't about science. This is about coercing public schools and legislatures to establish a specific, fringe religion and the bleak worldview and regulations they claim, wrongly, flow from their beliefs.
And these aren't Americans advocating free speech or inquiry. These are theocratic creeps.
posted on 09.19.2005 12:13 PM24
For the record, I understand why some evangelicals are irritated by Dawkins. He isn't particularly friendly to religious types.
But the reaction to Dawkins non-scientific statements about the existence of deities is completely out of proportion to Dawkins' influence.
Dawkins is a nobody, politically speaking. He does not sit at the helm of some "Ministry of Science" with millions of followers and a mountain of cash for peddling influence in Congress or Parliament. He does own any satellites or newspapers or cable television stations.
So he had an article in "New Scientist"? That's nice. I haven't read that magazine in 20 years.
Does President Bush read "New Scientist"? Does President Bush know who Richard Dawkins is? Does anyone in Congress know who Richard Dawkins is?
Compare to creationism peddlers: Jim Dobson and Pat Robertson, two bigtime evangelicals, both of whom happily disseminate Discovery Institute propaganda in addition to other bizarre and bogus propaganda that is far more damaging to evangelical interests than anything that comes out of Richard Dawkins' relatively microscopic mouth.
25
Tristero With the fake controversy over evolution, what we're actually seeing is an attempt to sneak a specific set of religious and moral beliefs into public schools. These beliefs are utterly abhorrent to the vast majority of intelligent people in this country.
If that is true then why do the >majority of Americans (55%) believe that both theories should be taught in school?
And these aren't Americans advocating free speech or inquiry. These are theocratic creeps.
Please try to stay on topic. There are plenty of blogs where lunatic ranting about Jeb Bush’s junkie daughter would be appreciated. This is not one of them. Even the readers here who might otherwise agree with you on the topic at hand have a low tolerance for your sort of nonsense.
26
I think there's lots of obfuscation of this issue from both sides. Dawkins, who I might want to call an evangelical atheist, would like to claim that the vast amounts of evidence supporting evolution clearly indicates that the likelihood of there being a designer is impossible. This is logically false. On the other hand, critics of evolution like to claim that problems with the theory of evolution imply that there must be a designer. This, too, is incorrect. Science doesn't work like that. Correctly understood, evolution is a theory that provides a useful framework for understanding biological structures and diversity. Evolution doesn't have to always be right to be a useful theory; a major part of the process of science is the testing of theories and refining them when they fail. The best theories guide research and further our understanding of the world, but all theories, being simplifications of the world, are in some sense inaccurate.
The real problem is when theories become belief systems, as is the case with people such as Dawkins and evolution. This leads scientists to focus on evidence that supports their interpretations, and avoid evidence that creates problems for them, a state of affairs that is bad for science in its pursuit of truth. When Dawkins makes statements that go so far beyond the evidence, it discredits him and the scientific community in general.
To return to the design issue and how it relates to science, it seems to me that the fundamental question is how does the introduction of the design concept help guide science? Does it lead to predictions that we can then test? I submit that in my present understanding, intelligent design does not do these things (though, I do recognize that some advocates have done some serious work to try to do discredit evolution through the use of sophisiticated assessments of probability). The conclusion that this leads me to is that this present weakness of the design idea as a scientific theory makes it inappropriate for science class. At the same time, I imagine that debating materialism and design would be quite appropriate and informative in a philosophy of science class (which was one of the best undergraduate classes that I took).
posted on 09.19.2005 12:28 PM27
Joe asks
"If [sneaking a specific set of religious beliefs into public schools is abhorrent to the vast majority of intelligent people in this country], then why do the majority of Americans (55%) believe that both [evolution and "intelligent design theory"] should be taught in school?"
Gosh. Consider that a significant portion of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth in spite of being taught the contrary in school. Now consider that a think tank is spending vast sums of money, in concert with various religious organizations, to spread propaganda re the "scientific" validity of "intelligent design theory."
Now put two and two together, Joe, and you have the answer to you question.
28
Justin Case writes
"The real problem is when theories become belief systems, as is the case with people such as Dawkins and evolution."
Huh? Come again? This is incomprehensible nonsense. Evolution is no more a "belief system" of Dawkins than the gravitational theory is a "belief system" for Dawkins. Or you. Or me.
"This leads scientists to focus on evidence that supports their interpretations, and avoid evidence that creates problems for them, a state of affairs that is bad for science in its pursuit of truth."
What "leads" scientists exactly?
News flash, Justin: if there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that life on earth evolved over the past several billion years, scientists will be the first to let you know.
And I mean honest scientists. Not two-bit charlatans peddling Philip Johnson's wacko Christian Taliban philosophy.
posted on 09.19.2005 12:58 PM29
Actually, the process by which "birds, but not airplanes, could be created by gradual natural processes" is well known. It's called "natural selection", and airplanes can't partake of it because they don't reproduce independently.
Yes, there are controversies whether natural selection operates by slow incrementalism or fortunate catastrophe (e.g. an otherwise fatal mutation happens to provide the ability to live in a new or radically changed environment). The ability of bacteria to exchange DNA between species would tend to point to the second process, but the controversy is not closed by any means.
In any case, a lack of perfect understanding of all details of the means does not invalidate the validity of observational results. (That damn "reality base community" rears its ugly head again). We still don't know how gravity works at a distance, but humans aren't floating in the air yet, with the possible exception of Swami Satchidananda. Einstein's understanding of gravity as mass deforming the space-time cotinuum like one of those penny rolling donation spirals doesn't explain the mechanism though it perfectly describes the results. Gravitation is a "theory", too. Are you going to have Senator Coburn repeal it tomorrow?
Also, your argument that "complexity is not inherently related to survival" is lunatic. Complexity allows an organism to survive in more than one environmental niche; it's the biological equivalent of a savings account, something the organism can fall back on when (not if) its environment changes. That's why complexity is INTIMATELY related to survival.
It's like the systematic redundancy and resource reserves a government needs in a time of disaster but are so sorely lacking in our "lean and mean" Conservative era. I'm not surprised that an "evangelical" would post a paean to "simplicity", though. Keeping the sheeple simple ensures your Primacy and keeps the ruby rings for the sheeple to kiss coming in from the "givers", doesn't it your Holiness?
posted on 09.19.2005 12:58 PM30
Joe,
"If that is true then why do the >majority of Americans (55%) believe that both theories should be taught in school?"
What I said was that the vast majority of Americans do not agree with the extreme rightwing moral beliefs advocated by the likes of Santorum, Scalia, and others.
That a deliberate campaign of misinformation, lies, and bad science has led to the majority of the American public, already far more supertitious than any other 1st world nation, to mistake "intelligent design" for science, should surprise no one.
Science, in any event, is not decided by a majority opinion. However, the informed, carefully considered opinion of literally thousands upon thousands of expert scientists on the value of evolution and the worthlessness of "intelligent design" should carry weight in determining the the content of science curricula. None of those scientists have any objection to teaching "intelligent design" in non-science classes. Neither do I, except I don't see any reason to teach "intelligent design" instead of astrology. They are both equally false, despite being believed by millions of people who know nothing of causality, astronomy, biology, or science in general.
(I certainly am not talking about you when I refer to theocratic creeps, never occurred to me you would take offense, and I completely apologize if you thought I was. I was referring to Eric Rudolph, Randolph Terry, and similar well-known figures who have made a career out of publicly calling for an American theocracy. It is not raving but a simple fact: These are hypocritical, violent creeps in my book and, I'm sure, in yours.
(In any event, I won't mention Jeb's junkie daughter again, assuming folks don't start calling me a commie again, which they have, and for which I don't believe anyone was scolded for.)
posted on 09.19.2005 1:08 PM31
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
Nick
If one observed observed a bird population over time and noted changes in the distribution of bill sizes that correlated with changes in the environment (either controlled environmental changes or carefully documented natural changes), then one could conclude that the hypothesis was correct.
What's so metaphysical about that?
How do you account for Lewointin's poverty of imagination?
Matthew Goggins
Darwin believed in God.
As an enemy of intellectual dishonesty, I hope your next comment will include an acknowledgement of my correction of your claim that "Darwin developed his theory because he rejected God", and your implication that he was an agnostic or atheist.
It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist). ~ Ernst Mayr
Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine. ~ Charles Darwin
Last night Dicey and Litchfield were talking about J. Stuart Mill's never expressing his religious convictions, as he was urged to do so by his father. Both agreed strongly that if he had done so, he would never have influenced the present age in the manner in which he has done. His books would not have been text books at Oxford, to take a weaker instance. Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the Deluge far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible, than if he had acted otherwise. ~ Charles Darwin
I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks. ~ Charles Darwin
posted on 09.19.2005 1:17 PM32
Also, your argument that "complexity is not inherently related to survival" is lunatic. Complexity allows an organism to survive in more than one environmental niche; it's the biological equivalent of a savings account, something the organism can fall back on when (not if) its environment changes. That's why complexity is INTIMATELY related to survival.
One has to be careful determing what is or isn't a good survival trait. AS Larry pointed out there are circumstances where simple is probably better and others where complex is better. What does exist, though, is a barrier on the simple side. There is a limit to how simple an organism can get, it can never hit 'zero simplicity' or 'zero complexity' (using any sensible way to measure it) and still remain a living organism. On the other hand there is no clear upper limit on complexity and there is no convincing proof that a natural selection system cannot evolve to higher levels of complexity (I refer to my hypothetical computer program here for anyone that wants to take up the issue). Therefore it is quite sensible for evolution to produce a diverse array of species at various points along the spectrum of complexity.
It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist). ~ Ernst Mayr
A strange statement since Malthus wasn't particularly athiestic. In fact he penned his famous population theory in 1798, just a year after being ordained as an Angelican Parson. Despite his population theory he remained opposed to birth control (for religious reasons I presume). I'm not aware of anything about Malthus that would lead on in particular to embrace athiesm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Views_on_religion cites Darwin's change in faith as happening as a result of his studies on the Beagle....no where did he go off on the Beagle in search of a theory to fit athiesm. To the end, he refused to embrace athiesm although like Thomas Jefferson he did drop orthodox Christianity. At least according to wikipedia the defining turning point in his feelings on religion wasn't so much his scientific work but the death of his daughter Annie.
33
I'm predicting less than thirty posts are left before an intelligent design apologist accuses someone of lacking a foundation on which to justify moral behavior.
posted on 09.19.2005 1:40 PM34
Bevets:
How do you account for Lewointin's poverty of imagination?
I have no interest in accounting for Lewontin's poverty of imagination. I am more interested in your response to my comments, since you are the one who posted the challenge here.
posted on 09.19.2005 1:46 PM35
Goggins, your claim about Darwin's religious beliefs is incorrect. There are numerous writings by Darwin about his departure from his faith. I may be mistaken about his motives (no one can be sure of another's motives) but he did depart from his faith as his life progressed. While he denied being an outright atheist, he did claim to be an agnostic.
In his later private autobiography, Darwin wrote of this time:
"Whilst on board the Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." (Charles Darwin: The Autobiography of Charles Darwin with original omissions restored. New York, Norton, 1969. p.85)
In 1879 a letter came asking if he believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. He replied that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, he had "never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God". He added that "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind."
Here's a short summary from Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Early_life ):
Charles Darwin came from a Nonconformist background, but attended a Church of England school. At university studying Anglican theology to become a clergyman, he was a firm believer convinced by the teleological argument in William Paley's Natural Theology, which offered an argument for the existence of God from design. He joined the Voyage of the Beagle and later recalled that "Whilst on board the Beagle.. I was quite orthodox... But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament... was no more to be trusted than the... beliefs of any barbarian."
On return, while developing his theory of natural selection he came to think that the religious instinct had evolved with society and gradually lost his belief in the Bible. With the death of his daughter Annie, Darwin finally lost all faith in a beneficent God and saw Christianity as futile. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.
In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that he did "not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation", but was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an atheist".
Darwin decided to leave a posthumous memoir for his family, and on Sunday 28 May 1876 he began Recollections of the Development of my mind and character. He found this candid private memoir easy going, covering his childhood, university, life on the Beagle and developing work in science. A section headed "Religious Belief" opened just before his marriage, and frankly discussed his long disagreement with Emma. At first he had been unwilling to give up his faith, and had tried to "invent evidence" supporting the Gospels, but just as his clerical career had died a slow "natural death", so too did his belief in "Christianity as a divine revelation". "Inward convictions and feelings" had arisen from natural selection, as had survival instincts, and could not be relied on. He was quick to show Emma's side of the story and pay tribute to "your mother, so infinitely my superior in every moral quality... my wise adviser and cheerful comforter".
The Autobiography of Charles Darwin was published posthumously, and quotes about Christianity were omitted by Darwin's wife Emma and his son Francis because they were deemed dangerous for Charles Darwin's reputation. Only in 1958 Darwin's granddaughter Nora Barlow published a revised version which contained the omissions. This included statements such as the following:
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, --that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, --that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, --that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, --that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; --by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories." (p.86)
"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct." (p.87)
"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." (p. 87)
"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." (p.87)
"At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favor of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists." (p.91)
"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps as inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." (p.93)
36
Additionally, it would appear Darwin was still quite orthodox when he stepped aboard the Beagle:
"Whilst on board the Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. ...
Again Malthus was important to his work developing evolution but does not seem very relevant to his views on religion. It was the personal loss of his daughter that sparked real problems with his faith:
At the end of June 1850 his bright nine year old daughter Annie who had become a particular favourite and comfort to him fell sick and after a painful illness died on 23 April 1851.During Annie's long illness Darwin had read books by Francis Newman, a Unitarian evolutionist who called for a new post-Christian synthesis and wrote that "the fretfulness of a child is an infinite evil". With Annie's death Darwin lost the last embers of his faith in a beneficent God and saw Christianity as futile.
Indeed, Darwin's views on religion were complicated and changed during his life. However, its interesting to note that he wrote:
When Brodie Innes sent on a sermon by E. B. Pussey, Darwin responded that the Origin had no "relation whatever to Theology", though when he wrote it his own "belief in what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr. Pussey himself." Brodie Innes deplored "unwise and violent" theological attacks on his old friend, for while they had disagreements, "How nicely things would go if other folk were like Darwin and Brodie Innes."
An odd thing to assert if evolution was the key to his finally being able to accept athiesm without regrets! But maybe he was just trying to avoid bad publicity and offending his religious friends and family? Well what happened when someone wrote a book purporting to 'prove' athiesm?
In November 1878 when George Romanes presented his new book refuting theism, A Candid Examination of Theism by "Physicus", Darwin read it with "very great interest", but was unconvinced, pointing out that its arguments did not rule out God creating matter and energy at the beginning of the universe, with a propensity to evolve. If theism were true, "reason might not be the only instrument for ascertaining its truth".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religion
Defenders of science should not fall in to the trap of spin and sound bites. Darwin wasn't an athiest but it's a mistake to pretend he was some type of traditional Christian. He was unconventional but hardly dogmatic on the subject unlike some other notable thinkers of his time. Bevets assertion remains false.
posted on 09.19.2005 1:58 PM37
Eeeeeghads! Well I hope I did a better job condensing the same source at least! Anyway let's keep in mind that bevets asserted that Darwin developed evolution because he stopped believing in God. Chronologically it is clear Darwin's departure from traditional theism came after evolution and the theory was not developed by any observable 'need' to find a way to reconcile a athiestic worldview.
I can predict the next line of attack will be to pretend that it was never aserted that Darwin developed evolution to defend athiesm and that Darwin was simply not religious.
posted on 09.19.2005 2:02 PM38
The next time anyone complains about Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell being taken as spokesmen for all Evangelicals, I'll have to bring up Richard Dawkins being quoted and portrayed as the end-all and be-all for proponents of Evolution.
posted on 09.19.2005 2:06 PM39
Mike
"Darwin developed his theory because he rejected God."
All the hot air expended here is irrelevant to the fact that Mike's claim is bogus.
Darwin developed his theory to explain observations that he and other scientists made about the diversity of life forms living on earth and preserved as fossils.
Darwin's theory was well-received at the time of its publication but his achievements were bolstered and hammered into history when later developments in chemistry, biochemistry, cellular biology, geology, genetics, and molecular biology revealed data unknown to Darwin but entirely consistent with the fundamental aspects of his theory.
People whose weak religions rest entirely on claims written down on scrolls by allegedly "inspired" people 2000 years ago have been crying about Darwin ever since, just as they cried about Galileo.
Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo!!!!!
Can someone tell me how to explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet earth accepts evolution from a common ancestor as the explanation for the diversity of life forms that exist and have existed on earth?
Is it a conspiracy on the part of these scientsts?
Or are they all deluded?
Which is it? Is there some third explanation for this phenomenon I'm not aware of which would explain why creationist apologists spend vast amounts of money to convince public school boards to teach their garbage instead of spending any of that money on scientific research?
Let's hear it.
And while you're at it, let's hear the scientific theory of "intelligent design" and how that theory can be tested.
The world of conservative Christians who are scientifically illiterate is anxiously awaiting for the momentous moment when this "alternate theory" is articulated in a way which allows scientists to verify its claims scientifically.
Let's hear it.
Unless of course, "intelligent design" is merely shorthand for "God did it."
In that case, this whole "controversy" is really just a disgusting campaign on the part of wealthy Christian apologists to smear scientists.
Anyone want to argue that is not the case?
Please, as your Dear Leader once said: "Bring it on."
posted on 09.19.2005 2:13 PM40
Well before we consider Dawkins to be the evolutionist version of Robertson maybe I can ask point blank where exactly does Dawkins say 'science proves my ideas about the lack of God true'? Certainly a man has a right to comment about science and religion both at the same time doesn't he?
posted on 09.19.2005 2:14 PM41
1. Please read books on the scientific method. It has been a highly sucessful methodology for learning about the world.
2. Don't dumb down schhols for your own piece of mind. Keep this crap in churches where it belongs!
3. Most of you sound like idiots parrotting soundbites by your "experts" - yet it seems like none of you have bothered to listen in high school science class.
4. And yes, on this subject, Dawkins is likely the intellectual superior to all of us reading this blog. You should give people who spend their whole lives studying specific science some credit. As for grabbing sentences and then shouting "Ah-hah!" - it just looks lame.
5. Goto 1. Repeat. Repeat.
posted on 09.19.2005 2:46 PM42
To all of you in the reality-based community: We must not fall into the trap set for us by the ID evangelicals. It is up to THEM to refute the Science of Evolution, it is not up to us to have to defend every sentence of every person writing about it. We lose if we allow them to confuse and divert the issue this way.
Yes - correct them when they lie about what an author has said, but we must ask them every time: "Where is your evidence?"
They will bob and weave and point in another direction and shout "Fire", but we must keep hammering that point: "Where is your evidence?"
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
The simple fact is, they have none. Oh, they have a few alternate explanations, and they speculate about what might have happened, and they throw out a few long ago debunked 'contradictions' to evolution, but THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE!
Natural selection, when properly understood and applied, clearly explains not only billions of years of fossil records but today's world of antibiotic-resistant diseases and genetically modified crops. Go to your nearest museum of Natual History. Now THAT's evidence, tons and tons of it.
The many sciences of geology, physics, medicine, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and more, all dovetail with each other and evolution to form a coherent understanding of our world and universe. Where is their evidence to the contrary?
The universe is an incredibly fascinating and wonderful place. I think it is all the more amazing to understand that we are here as the result of billions of years of natural processes than to believe some invisible cloud being (or other 'designer') waved its appendage and said 'Let there be a duck-billed platypus!'
No, ID is not Science. ID is creationism in sheep's clothing. We waste our time trying to convince the true believers. We must concentrate our energies on educating our children and the general population that has forgotten about the Scientific Method and Critical Thinking.
If we don't, the Dark Ages will look like a picnic. Then again, the churches ruled the Dark Ages, didn't they?
posted on 09.19.2005 2:52 PM43
Larry,
Darwin well received? check again.
I think you need to do some research on Galileo, too. Try reading: Galileo in Rome, by William R. Shea and Mariano Artigas, Galileo's Mistake, by Wade Rowland, Galileo: Heretic, by Pietro Redondi, and Against Method, by Paul Feyerabend.
The "history" of Galileo and the Church that most of us learned in school, and that is conveyed in many popular science books, is largely a myth created in order to discredit, most specifically, the Catholic Church and, more generally, the religious approach in all its manifestations.
All those fields of science have done much to DISCREDIT Darwin. Especially the fossil record.
The majority of scientists accept evolution? What survey or poll are you refering to?
Let's hear how the theory of evolution can be tested. Show me an experiment where an fish can become a bird. Or monkey a man.
Evolution fails the same test for falsifiability.
Unless you want to redefine evolution. which seems to be a popular tactic with your crowd.
44
Again, I keep seeing the same problems come up in all these evolution debates. It always tends to range far far beyond any relevant facts.
What’s supposed to be argued is the truth or falsehood of what processes we observe from the available evidence. Whether Darwin was a Christian or not has no bearing on that. Whether evolution has any impact on religion, Christian or otherwise, has no bearing on that. Whether evolution has anything to say on politics, sociology, economics, astronomy, bird watching, or stamp collections all have no bearing on the question of whether the theory is true or false. The vast majority of those trained to analyze and interpret the evidence have been pretty well convinced about the basics of evolution.
Now, after establishing what is objectively true and false, it’s perfectly reasonable to then analyze how that impacts on other areas of life, which is what Dawkins proceeds to do. I disagree with his conclusions. Personally, I look at evolution and think, “Wow! Isn’t it cool how God created the world to work? What does that tell me about the nature of God that I hadn’t considered before?”, but that’s just me. By that argument, I could claim that evolution (and every other field of knowledge) helps make me a more intellectually fulfilled Christian.
But all of that comes after establishing the truth or falsehood of the science, which seems pretty well established at this time. The meaning assigned to those facts later has no bearing on whether they are true or false.
And before the political thing goes too far, there are plenty of us Christians who are also politically conservative and still believe the evidence for evolution. It is true that the ID and YEC crowd tends to be on the right wing, but that doesn’t mean they make up the majority of even Christian right wingers.
45
The Dark Ages....again with that tired mischaracterization.
I'm amazed that the lack of knowledge of history thrown about by the supporters of evolution. Or are you again discarding inconvenient facts?
Percy's Pop....those are some pretty wild assertions you make about evolution.
How is a genetically modified crop an example of natural selection or evolution? Those modifications are purposefully selected and made by man. man selects and modifies.
antibiotic resistant diseases. not so. basic genetics can explain the inherent variability with the species that allows some of its members to resist antibiotics.
ID uses the same science and evidence to support its contentions that evolutionists use. You really should look to the scientists in this area if you want to learn about it and not the politicians and Pat Robertson types. Lots of peer reviewed articles and books on this.
posted on 09.19.2005 3:09 PM46
Bevets, Mike, and Boonton,
Thank you very much for the corrections and clarifications. I hereby retract my unqualified statement that Darwin was neither an atheist nor an agnostic, in light of the evidence you all have produced of a more nuanced reality.
Although I believe in evolution and materialism, I am not as disturbed by ID theory and creationism as some people on this thread. My attitude is, let the challengers go after evolution, and let the best theories win.
Just keep ID theory out of biology class, if you please! Only established scientific theories should have pride of place in a science classroom.
posted on 09.19.2005 3:18 PM47
I think that Joe was on target in his assessment that Mr. Dawkins was one musket short a minuteman. Observe the 'evolution' of his despair from the year 1982 to 1997.
He begins with a perfectly honest and logical statement followed by the ubiquitous, dishonest and illogical refutation of it. Why? Because to him the theistic implications of the former necessitate the nonscientific implications of the latter.
"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent designer. . ."
"It is organized complexity we are trying to explain, so it is footling to invoke in explanation a being sufficiently organized and complex to create it. " (New Scientist vol 94 pp. 130 1982)
Is it really "footling" to postulate that something with organized complexity begat something else with organized complexity, or is it more scientific to presume that total chaos was responsible? One may require faith, but the other, absolute credulity.
"In the context of the fight against creationism, gradualism is more or less synonymous with evolution itself. If you throw out gradualism, you throw out the very thing that makes evolution more plausible than creation." (Nature vol 316 pp.683
1985)
Perhaps it was he who was who was asleep in high school science class when punctuated equilibria was taught as the scientific alternative to "gradualism." And now that this major edifice of evolutionary theory has been refuted, will Dawkins embrace the most "plausible" alternative?
"Darwin's own bulldog, Huxley, as Eldredge reminds us again, warned him against his insistent gradualism, but Darwin had good reason. His theory was largely aimed at replacing creationism as an explanation of how living complexity could arise out of simplicity." (Ibid)
There you have it. His reason for embracing gradualism was the same as Darwin's, and neither of them had anything to do with observational science. Darwin was warned that gradualism was scientifically untenable, and 150 years later this has firmly been established. Like Dawkins, he supposedly had "good reason" for doing so, and that "good reason" was "replacing creationism." Punctuated equilibria was insufficient because theistic evolutionists like Hugh Ross and many others would come along and adorn it in theological garb.
"We find many of them (invertebrates) in advanced state the very first time they appear. It is as though they were first planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (The Blind Watchmaker pp.229 1987 )
It is not just "many" of the vertebrates, it is all of them, Mr. Dawkins. It is not just "as though" they had no evolutionary history. Unless the rocks are lying to us, they obviously hadn't.
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." ( Scientific American vol 273 pp.85 1995)
The universe if anything is a model of order and complexity, which is the true mark of design. Anyone who could deny something as self evident as that could just as easily deny the obvious existence of good and evil. This thread alone provides abundant evidence of both -- with or without the a guest appearance of the Darksyde. Bwa ha ha.
"Faith is one of the world's great evils comparable to smallpox but harder to eradicate."
(The Humanist vol 57 pp.26 1997)
That does it, Dawkins, you are not invited to our church potluck!
But seriously folks . . . isn't this the same man who denied the existence of good and evil in the above quote?
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
The words "substance" and "evidence" would suggest that the biblioskeptics misunderstand its usage in the Bible. Faith is only as valid or invalid as the object of our faith. Furthermore, his pejoritive use of the word, faith, even in a general sense,
demonstates the militancy of his position. A child has faith that his mother will come for him at preschool. The evolutionist has faith in the collective wisdom of scientists. Both may be misplaced faith. The mom may be Courtney Love and the scientist may be Dawkins, but is this really worse than a disease?
48
"The majority of scientists accept evolution? What survey or poll are you refering to?"
The one where you call up 200 scientists at UC Berkeley, Stanford, UW-Madison, Harvard, and MIT -- five of the world's leading centres of scientific research -- and ask them if they think life on earth evolved or was every life form that ever existed created by a mysterious alien being.
Seriously, my friend, put your MONEY and TIME where your big fat empty mouth is. Okay?
Right now you're just a teeny tiny fundamentalist hypocrite with kool-aid breath reciting a script.
Let's hear your alternate scientific theory for how life on earth evolved.
If you don't have one, then how about shutting up?
Or does your religion require you to smear scientists and their work?
posted on 09.19.2005 3:28 PM49
Oh jeebus, Terence is back with his quote mining garbage and creationist web-site plundering.
Hey Terence -- how do we test the claims of "intelligent design" peddlers?
Why don't the ID peddlers make any specific predictions which would allow scientists to test the "theory" that "mysterious alien beings" designed all the life forms that ever lived on earth?
How do you explain the fact that when you visit www.pubmed.org you find thousands of papers written by tens of thousands of scientists which are consistent with the "theory" that life on earth evolved but ZERO articles that show evidence for "mysterious alien beings" meddling with DNA?
How do you explain that Terence? Are the scientists engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to attack your religion?
Or are the world's scientists collectively deluded except for handful of religious nuts at the Discovery Institute who take direction from a lying retired lawyer and a billionaire Christian Reconstructionist who spent a decade plowing money into the ministry of a truly bigoted wacko but now claims to be "reformed"?
Which is it Terence?
Let's hear it, my boy. In your own words.
50
Let's hear how the theory of evolution can be tested. Show me an experiment where an fish can become a bird. Or monkey a man. Evolution fails the same test for falsifiability. Unless you want to redefine evolution. which seems to be a popular tactic with your crowd.
yet oddly it is the creationist crowd that wants to redefine evolution here. Joe, for example, seems obsessed with the idea that evolution is equilivant to abiogensis (aka 'the origin of life'). As for testing evolution, there's numerous tests that can be done. I've given you one test regarding the ability of a non-intelligent system to create complexity. Historical aspects of evolution can be falisifiable.
For example, finding evidence that humans lived 200M years ago would certainly throw a serious monkey bone into chronologies based on evolution. Historical theories are often not easily tested in a labatory. This says nothing about their quality. For example, one very valid historical theory states that there was no contact between the Americas and Europe until Columbus sailed in 1492. This theory would be falisifed if, say, a group of boats from the Roman Empire were uncovered in the Hudson Bay or a lost writing of Plato was discovered describing a visit from American Indians from Florida.
posted on 09.19.2005 3:37 PM51
Terence Perhaps it was he who was who was asleep in high school science class when punctuated equilibria was taught as the scientific alternative to "gradualism." And now that this major edifice of evolutionary theory has been refuted, will Dawkins embrace the most "plausible" alternative?
No, he won't. Instead he claims that PE is simply a speeded up form of "gradulism":
The fact is that, in the fullest and most serious sense, Eldredge and Gould are really just as gradualist as Darwin or any of his followers. It is just that they would compress all the gradual change into brief bursts, rather than having it go on all the time; and they emphasise that most of the gradual change goes on in geographical areas away from the areas where most fossils are dug up. [The Blind Watchmaker (p. 241)]
So the gradual changes occur in brief bursts and occurs in areas completely different from where the fossils are found. And this is considered