the evangelical outpost: Overheard (v. 9)

October 23, 2006

Overheard (v. 9)

All traits in existence across the entire animal and vegetable kingdoms get the same seven word explanation: Whatever needs an explanation "arose by accident and was selected for." How did the elephant get its trunk? It ABAAWSF. How did ants appear? They ABAAWSF. How did the leopard get its spots? ABAAWSF. Etcetera, ad infinitum.

-- Tom Bethell summing up the "faith" of neo-Darwinists.

°°°°°°

Being hostile to virginity is the ultimate misogyny. It means sneering at the innocence of children, and laughing at women who want sex to mean something more than just a hookup.

-- Wendy Shalit, quoted in Rachel Kramer Bussel's Village Voice column, "Like a Virgin: The Case Against Having Sex." (HT: The Dawn Patrol)

°°°°°°

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

-- Soren Kierkegaard

°°°°°°

Writing blog posts is much easier than writing books as Tim Challies is starting to discover. Since I have done both, I would compare writing a post as being just a little harder than eating a bowl of cereal, while writing a book - which I have several - is the closest thing to giving birth. Just a word of experience for all you bloggers that think blogging and book writing are in the same cosmic hemispheres.

-- Andy Jackson

°°°°°°

Truncheons are for louts. The great masters of social manipulation use language. They know, furthermore, that the establishment of a flexible and subtle language for the ruling classes is only half of what’s needed. The other half is the perpetuation of an ineffective and minimal language among the subjects. Ordinarily, the second half is assured by man’s natural propensity to bother himself as little as possible, but history occasionally requires that the rulers take some special pains to preserve the ignorance of their subjects.

A fluent command of English cannot exist as an isolated skill, a clever stunt. A person who speaks and writes his native tongue clearly and precisely does so because of many other abilities, and those other abilities themselves grow stronger through the fluent manipulation of language. The simple matter of being logical is a function of language. A million high school graduates capable of fluent English would be a million Americans capable of logical thought. What would we do with them[…] ? You think they’re going to buy those lottery tickets and lamps in the shape of Porky Pig?

-- Richard Mitchell, in Less than Words Can Say. (HT: Middlebrow)

Permalink | email: Joe Carter | email this link | trackback |

trackbacks and bookmarks

bookmark this post:

send a trackback for this entry:
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3152

comments

Joel Haas writes:

1

What book of Kierkegaard's is that quote from?

posted on 10.23.2006 12:06 AM

Joe Carter writes:

2

I've only heard the quote secondhand but I'm told it can be found in "Provocations: The Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard."

posted on 10.23.2006 12:33 AM

tom writes:

3

Here's the bibliographic info on the Kierkegaard quote:

Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard (New York: Orbis Books, 2003) p. 201

It's available at Amazon, by the way, as are most of Kierkegaard's wonderful works.

posted on 10.23.2006 10:10 AM

Kevin T. Keith writes:

4

All traits in existence across the entire animal and vegetable kingdoms get the same seven word explanation: Whatever needs an explanation "arose by accident and was selected for."

Aside from the fact that this is wrong, why is it a problem?

Random appearance of traits occurs by many mechanisms, including mutation (one of the least important), sexual assortment (the most important), molecular-level transcription errors and chromosome-level disjunction errors in DNA, genetic transfer by transposons, genetic transfer by viral or other vector, and others. But not all appearance of traits is random. Much occurs by non-random means including pre-adaptation, duplication of genes, vestigial traits, and others. The evolution of existing traits occurs by many mechanisms, too (a hallmark of fundamentalist pseudo-scientists is that they equate evolution theory with "Darwinism" and adaptation with "natural selection"). "Selection" encompasses both selection for survival ("natural selection") and reproductive success ("sexual selection"). In addition, there are many non-selective evolutionary mechanisms, including allopatric speciation (local separation of mating colonies by any of many means) combined with founder's effect and genetic drift, speciation by chromosomal non-disjunction, genetic bottlenecks and inbreeding caused by population decline, and possibly "punctuated equilibrium" (depending on what you think that is).

So, what Bethell might have said if he knew what he was talking about is: "All traits in existence across the entire animal and vegetable kingdoms get the same explanation: They arose by one or more of many mechanisms of genetic diversity and were concentrated in the population by one or more of many mechanisms of population-level change in gene frequencies." Which, in fact, is more or less what you'd expect . . . if you know what you are talking about.

But aside from his factual ignorance, what is disconcerting about Bethell is that he seems to think there is something strange in the fact that the same natural phenomenon operates by the same natural mechanisms in all cases. Again, this is pretty much what real scientists expect . . . when they know what they are talking about. It has been well said that "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". Bethell, however, seems to think it is a bad thing that biology does make sense in light of evolution. In criticizing the theory that the retention of traits is consistently and naturally influenced by how they affect the organism's relation to its environement, he implies that biological traits persist for non-systematic reasons that have nothing to do with how biological entities relate to their environments.

What would it be like if all of science operated by the same principles Bethell's religion (I presume) forces upon him in regard of biology?

Physics: "Gravity occasionally pulls things down, but only a little bit and not enough to result in any distinct outcomes. God decides where each planet should be according to what pleases him. The fact that they all obey a universal force equation is a coincidence God put in place to test our faith."

Chemistry: "Chemical reactions take place if God wants them to. Any chemical can react with any other chemical if God chooses, but he just happens to choose to make them do so in predictable ways at exact mathematical ratios which are meaningless. The periodic table is a myth resulting from man's sinful desire to dictate 'laws' to God."

Engineering: "Every bridge, tower, and aircraft is a miracle testifying to God's grace in exerting his infinite power in holding up things that otherwise would collapse in defiance of gravity, which doesn't exist. Engineering designs and calculations are liturgical processes of intercession with God to ask his blessing upon the puny and unavailing works of man. Bridges and towers collapse because unbelievers walked upon them. Really fat unbelievers, but still."

For Bethell, either all of science is a sequence of unpredictable miracles that just happen to occur the same way over and over each time, or, alternatively, only biology is a sequence of miracles that just happen to occur over and over, in parallel with an overarching mechanical process that appears to tie them in with the rest of science but is really just a coincidence. For actual scientists, however, the entire natural world operates by way of broad laws that can be applied consistently to diverse phenomena, and the fact that one can adduce a consistent explanatory mechanism for repeated phenomena is evidence that that explanation is likely to be correct.

The choice to be made, I suppose, is whether we think science actually works at all. For Bethell, apparently, the fact that it does work is evidence that it's false.

posted on 10.23.2006 10:31 AM

Boonton writes:

5

We have probably exhausted evolution several times over but Joe's chief problem seems to be with the word 'random' which gives him theological qualms.

Briefly, though, there is no philsophical problem with attributing randomness as a cause to natural events while at the same time believing God willed things to happen as they did.

To use the example I gave imagine your mother winning the lottery and yelling 'Thank God'. No serious person objects to math textbooks describing the lottery as a random function and using the tools of probability to analyze it. Yet at the same time we probably wouldn't tell our mom that she was foolish for thanking God for winning the lottery when it was really just 'random'.

The difficultiy is resolved when one remembers the definition of God as a beign with infinite knowledge. Being such he can create a universe knowing what the 'random' results would be. So the lottery winner will be known by God long before there even is a lottery...yet at the same time the best and only real tools that work for us (remember we do not have infinite knowledge) to describe lottery results are the tools of probability (aka randomness).

posted on 10.23.2006 11:53 AM

tom writes:

6

a hallmark of fundamentalist pseudo-scientists is that they equate evolution theory with "Darwinism" and adaptation with "natural selection"

This is not a hallmark of "pseudo-scientists," unless you want to define the defenders of teaching Darwinism in school as "pseudo-scientists" (indeed, some deserve the title). Just read any number of articles decrying the so-called dumbing down of science teaching, attacks on Kansas, and so forth, and you'll see them equating adaption within species with both "evolution" and "Darwinism." No one--I repeat, no one--doubts or questions a species' ability to adapt to its environment. Yet you'll read these hysterical (in the literal meaning of the word) arguments that our kids will be scientifically illiterate because they won't be taught this. No, what people object to is the equating of micro-evolution (adaptation within species) to macro-evolution, one species changing into another.

Also, if I may be so bold to put words into Joe's mouth, the objection is not just to the word "random," but another frequently paired with it: "purposeless."

And to quibble with Boonton's word choices, God does not merely know how the coin toss or lottery results will turn out because he has foreknowledge but because he set in motion the laws of physics that govern the result. The result of the lottery is, in theory, knowable: if you compute all the physical factors involved, including the friction of the barrel on the celluloid surface of the numbered ping-pong balls, the "bouncability" (to coin a technical physics term) of the balls, the humidity of the air, etc. etc., you can know which balls will fall into the tube. Same goes for a coin-toss or any other event we term "random." But because we can't know all the factors, never mind we don't have time to calculate them, we use the word "random" to describe the event, and using the mathematical laws of probability is legitimate, since it's the closest we can get. But in truth, the result is not random in the true meaning of the word. (This, of course, opens the dense theological debate as to whether anything in the universe is "random," with implications for free will and other things.)

posted on 10.23.2006 1:13 PM

giggling writes:

7

Props to Boonton and tom for clarifying that the Christian concern about "randomness" with respect to evolution depends precisely upon what one means by "random," including its implications.

posted on 10.23.2006 1:38 PM

Boonton writes:

8

Yet you'll read these hysterical (in the literal meaning of the word) arguments that our kids will be scientifically illiterate because they won't be taught this. No, what people object to is the equating of micro-evolution (adaptation within species) to macro-evolution, one species changing into another.

This begs the question what is this boundary between micro and macro? Why would there be a barrier between the two allowing evolution on the micro-scale but prohibiting it on the macro scale? If such a boundary exists then shouldn't we be able to discover it? In other words to be able to say a wolf may become a dog but not anything like a hoarse?

Also, if I may be so bold to put words into Joe's mouth, the objection is not just to the word "random," but another frequently paired with it: "purposeless."

Here is where I think you may have a valid point. On the 'macro scale' if you will there's no way for any scientific theory to say something had a purpose or not. If a rock falls on you tomorrow and kills you the theory of gravity only tells us that the rock was pulled down by the force of the earth's gravity until it fatally impacted your head. That doesn't tell us if God made gravity so that 10+billion years later he could get a laugh by having you knocked on the head.

On the other hand purpose does have a meaning within evolution. It does appear purposeless in the sense that lottery results are purposeless. There appear to be no laws in evolution that drive the system towards human like animals (although I don't think everyone agrees with that) but again like the lottery that doesn't address any metaphysical purposes.

Tom's also off a bit in his discussion of randomness. Even if we knew all the relevant forces we could still not calculate many things (like a coin toss) because the simple act of rounding off numbers will introduce errors into our calculations. In reality the stuff we can calculate is probably a minority of stuff that happens in the universe. Also some of the stuff I read seems to imply that quantum physics involves some type of fundamentally random processes...not simply lack of information or calculating power on our part.

This, of course, opens the dense theological debate as to whether anything in the universe is "random," with implications for free will and other things

Also whether God could, if he wanted, create true randomness so not even he would know the outcome of something. It does seem kind of limiting to say that God couldn't even play a game of dice if he wanted too. This leads us into questions like "could God make a stone so heavy he couldn't pick it up" which are interesting but don't really relate to evolution.

posted on 10.23.2006 4:13 PM

tom writes:

9

This begs the question what is this boundary between micro and macro? Why would there be a barrier between the two allowing evolution on the micro-scale but prohibiting it on the macro scale?

Because there's zero evidence of it, yet people point to micro-evolution as proof of macro-evolution. Indeed, there's a lot of evidence saying it's improbable (that word again!). We have experimentation with literally millions of generations of bacteria, and while they have adapted to local conditions, become resistant to various drugs, etc., they remain the same species of bacteria.

If macro-evolution is true, we are perhaps a few thousand generations removed from australeopithicus (sp?), and yet look at the emmense differences between it and homo sapiens. Yet we have millions of generations of bacteria (to name but one example) with no similar genetic or morphological changes.

posted on 10.23.2006 4:44 PM

Doc writes:

10

Ah, the lovely evo-devo controversy. I wouldn't even care what myths the atheists believed if it wasn't so irritating to be forced at gunpoint to help pay to have it taught to somebody else's kids (not my own; we homeschool. I wouldn't dream of trusting my kids' precious minds to some government indoctrination station).

I have an M.D. and a bachelor's in biology. I've done the usual spare time Sunday-supplement level reading about 'evolution'. I'm not a PhD in geology, 'evolutionary biology', or 'evolutionary molecular science', or any other of the relevant fields, and I suspect no one else posting here is, either.

I have it on reasonably good authority, however, that there are people with PhD's in the relevant fields who seriously question, and even deride completely, the entire molecules-to-man hypothesis. They may be outnumbered by the PhD's who believe in evo, but...

A plain face text reading of the Bible would seem to contradict the 'theory' of evolution. Therefore, in order to believe that an alternative reading is the proper interpretation, I will require overwhelming evidence from the book of Nature. Oh, but there is such evidence, 'science' says; why, evolution is a 'fact'.

Tell you what: you find me 10 scientists who maintain that the standard, neoDarwinist, molecules-to-man hypothesis is accurate, who also have the following characteristics:

1. They are Biblical inerrantists
2. They are Reformed in their soteriology
3. They have PhD's in one of the relevant fields

THEN I might be interested in reading their work, and seeing why they're so sure that the plain-face text of Genesis is inaccurate, and an alternative reading is required. Anyone else who makes that claim is already short of the mark in their Biblical knowledge, so I have little respect for their 'scholarship'. So, short of that level of support, I reserve the right to disbelieve it. It certainly makes no difference to the practice of medicine, and anyone who claims that it does doesn't know what they're talking about.

posted on 10.23.2006 8:44 PM

Jim Ellison writes:

11

As Mark Twain is supposed to have said: "It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me. It's the parts that I do."

posted on 10.23.2006 9:30 PM

Boonton writes:

12

Let me be more clear, the reason the 'micro but not macro' argument fails to sway many informed people is that it seems macro is simply defined as something that takes too long to observe in labatory conditions. In regards to bacteria I seriously doubt there's a good definition of species that could be objectively applied to tell us how we could know if millions of generations in a test tube has given rise to a new species or simply a variation on an old one.

1. No one ever said that evolution had to be linear...that a thousand generations will mean one hundred times less change than a million generations. It's quote possible to have long periods of relative stability but change happen dramatically in a shorter time frame (shorter here being thousands of generations....not 25 minutes as in an X-men movie).

2. Exactly how do you measure the amount of difference between modern humans and australeopithicus versus the amount of difference between two types of bacteria?

posted on 10.24.2006 7:58 AM

Boonton writes:

13

Doc's post is an interesting variation on the old strategy of argument from authority:

First he bandies about his credentials:

I have an M.D. and a bachelor's in biology. I've done the usual spare time Sunday-supplement level reading about 'evolution'....

Then he basically tells us he is ignorant of what evolution really says:

THEN I might be interested in reading their work, and seeing why they're so sure that the plain-face text of Genesis is inaccurate, and an alternative reading is required.

{In other words, he isn't going to bother reading the work of any scientist in support of evolution unless they are vetted beforehand as Biblical inerrantists, reformed in their soteriology and have PhD's in relevant fields....curious because he basically brags about how he lacks relevant PhDs}

Perhaps we should call this bizaar invention an argument from authoritative ignorance.

posted on 10.24.2006 8:03 AM

tom writes:

14

No one ever said that evolution had to be linear...that a thousand generations will mean one hundred times less change than a million generations. It's quote possible to have long periods of relative stability but change happen dramatically in a shorter time frame

This explanation is a perfect illustration of a just-so story. Simply change the rules of the "universe" in which the story is set to account for anomalous data. Also, it's not scientific. It's neither provable nor falsifiable, therefore it is nothing but speculation. Read carefully the works of so-called evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary this-and-thats and you'll see zero science but a lot of speculation.

posted on 10.24.2006 9:38 AM

Jordan writes:

15

I have posted some further reflections on the Kierkegaard quote here: "Faithfulness in Biblical Interpretation."

posted on 10.24.2006 11:08 AM

Boonton writes:

16

Errr, the theory of evolution does not have much to say about rates of change. It isn't a 'just so' story to point that fact out. You are the one claiming, or implying, that evolution holds that rates of change must be constant. There is nothing in the theory to say that must be so. Therefore since the theory doesn't say rates of change are constant observing that rates of change are not constant in a lab does nothing to 'refute evolution' despite your claims.

As is typical I notice instead of addressing the responses made to your arguments you race along to other arguments. Notice how Tom entirely ducked the problem critics of evolution have of presenting a solid definition of what they mean by species or the boundary between 'micro' and 'macro'? Likewise he also ducks telling us how he is able to measure 'differences' between australeopithicus.vs.homo sapians and compare that to the 'differences' in types of bacteria.

Instead he would race onto the claims of evolutionary psychologists but what is interesting is he will not note that the criticisms he has of them for being too speculative and having little if any evidence to support their stories are often raised by the evolutionary establishment itself!

posted on 10.24.2006 11:43 AM

tom writes:

17

Notice how Tom entirely ducked the problem critics of evolution have of presenting a solid definition of what they mean by species or the boundary between 'micro' and 'macro'? Likewise he also ducks telling us how he is able to measure 'differences' between australeopithicus.vs.homo sapians and compare that to the 'differences' in types of bacteria.

I'm not ducking anything. Using the normal rules of taxonomic classification, we have zero evidence of one species turning into another--period. A lot of evidence on adaption within a species extrapolated to imply adaptation into a new species, but no evidence. Remember, australeopithicus is considered a different species from homo sapiens after a few thousand generations. Bacteria-reistant TB baccili are still the same species as non-resistant TB, even after millions of generations.

As for rates of change, I'm sorry to imply that they should be constant, and you're right that the theory does not require it. But based on the assumptions of Dawinism, for something to go millions of generations with no change into something different calls into question the entire idea that we have arrived at our present bio-diversity precisely because of such changes. No, it's not a QED proof, but it does challenge Darwinian assumptions.

posted on 10.24.2006 12:44 PM

Boonton writes:

18

I'm not ducking anything. Using the normal rules of taxonomic classification,...

Taxonomic classification is like the Dewey Decimal system in a library. It's a tool for us to organize and keep track of things but that doesn't itself tell us about the nature of those things. If I observed that one pair of subjects was twice as far from each other than another pair in the library system that doesn't make the first pair of subjects "twice as different" as the first pair.

On the contrary, if something faces little or no selection pressure it would hardly be surprising to see it go for many generations with little or no change. In fact it confirms Darwinian assumptions. It would be a challenge to find a species that was successful in its evironmental niche yet showed dramatic change over long years that had nothing to do with selection pressure.

posted on 10.24.2006 1:14 PM

tom writes:

19

Taxonomic classification is like the Dewey Decimal system in a library. It's a tool for us to organize and keep track of things but that doesn't itself tell us about the nature of those things.

Huh!? This is just plain wrong. Taxonomy is based precisely on the principle of knowing the basic nature of things, whether it be morphological or genetic. You can't simply redefine things to suit your argument.

if something faces little or no selection pressure it would hardly be surprising to see it go for many generations with little or no change.

Huh again!? The TB baccilus, to name just one type, has undergone tremendous strain as a species as it is treated with various types of anti-biotics trying to wipe it out, never mind the fact that it kills its host. Yet aside from adapting to local conditions, it remains exactly the same species!

Another example on a larger scale is the Coelacanth, which was thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago until it was rediscovered about 75 years ago virtually unchanged from its fossil ancestors. Existing in a broad area from East Africa to Indonesia, the fish has certainly faced tremendous "selection pressure," yet here it is, virtually unchanged. The same goes for crocodiles, turtles and many other animals.

posted on 10.24.2006 4:16 PM

Boonton writes:

20

Huh!? This is just plain wrong. Taxonomy is based precisely on the principle of knowing the basic nature of things, whether it be morphological or genetic. You can't simply redefine things to suit your argument.

Is it? Ok, well taxonomy has a place for dogs and wolves but how does it set a place for them before knowing their 'basic nature'? Whatever that is. You can make a list of things we know about dogs and a list of things about wolves, you can note similarities and highlight differences but when have you collected enough facts to know the 'basic nature' of both? Do we even know their 'basic nature' today?

Notice your phrase there, 'local condition'. Yea in the few cubic centermeters that an anti-biotic happens to be present TB baccilus adapts to 'local conditions' but for the other 99.99% of available space there is no anti-biotic hence no selection pressure.

Perhaps to use a 'micro-evolution' example...the wolves that were captured and selectively breed by humans ended up becoming poodles but those who were left in the undisturbed environment did not change all that much.

posted on 10.24.2006 8:37 PM

Nick writes:

21

Tom:
Another example on a larger scale is the Coelacanth, which was thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago until it was rediscovered about 75 years ago virtually unchanged from its fossil ancestors. Existing in a broad area from East Africa to Indonesia, the fish has certainly faced tremendous "selection pressure," yet here it is, virtually unchanged/

Tom,

This comment is somewhat ironic, given your previous lecturing on taxonomy. "Coelacanth" includes fish from at least three different families and 16 different genera in the order Coelacanthiformes. The modern coelacanths consist of two species in the genus Latimeria which is not known from fossils. Modern coelacanths are deep water ocean fish, which implies significant physiological differences from ancient coelacanths, many of which were found in shallow water.

So, the claim that coelacanths are "virtually unchanged" over 75 million years has several problems. You first have to determine which of many different fossil coelacanths represents "the coelacanth" and then explain why modern coelacanths are classified as a different genus (or even family) if they are unchanged from the ancient fish.

Modern coelacanths are exciting because they are the only living representatives of an order that was thought extinct. Only in that sense can they be called "living fossils," and that term should not be taken to mean that they are unchanged.

Incidentally, when you say that taxonomy is "based precisely on the principle of knowing the basic nature of things, whether it be morphological or genetic" I think you are referring to systematics. Taxonomy is simply the practice of naming things. Modern biological taxonomy is usually based on systematics, but they are not the same thing.

posted on 10.25.2006 8:11 AM

Nick writes:

22

The same goes for crocodiles, turtles and many other animals.

Basically same response here as for coelacanths. Compare a mugger crocodile, a gharial, a fossil Metriorhynchus (with flippers and fish-like tail) and a fossil Sphenosuchian (gracile, upright, and terrestrial). For turtles, compare a leatherback, your local box turtles, and a snapping turtle.

posted on 10.25.2006 9:39 AM

Pharmacy cheap writes: