The Law of Evolution: Silencing Dissension by Redefining Science
January 2nd, 2008 in Web Design Culture
by: Matthew Griffin
Clive Thompson contributed an article entitled A War of Words to the November 2007 issue of Wired Magazine. The tag line on the article was "Science will triumph only when theory becomes law". The gist of the article was that the theory of evolution has become so overwhelmingly confirmed by scientific evidence that it should now be referred to as the "law of evolution". This move, in his opinion, will finally suppress all the dissidents by placing them in a position where they will "sound insane" for questioning a proven scientific law. I take issue with Clive's proposal, and I could write a whole book about why, but for now I will try to be brief and hit the high points.
We call scientific laws "laws" because they hold up against repeated testing in the laboratory using the scientific method. We can document their effects and predict results with a high level of accuracy. We don't use the word "law" when referring to historical events—that's exactly what Clive is proposing.
"Evolution is super solid," says Clive. "We even base the vaccine industry on it." Here, Clive reaches into the goody bag of micro-evolutionary examples to disguise the embarrassing lack of evidence for macro-evolution. The argument has never been about whether or not generational changes occur within species—this is micro-evolution. Rather, the debate centers around the claim that changes within species are unidirectional—once they have taken place, they never revert back—and that these changes are capable of producing every variation of species on the earth, and life itself. The evidence is decidedly against this theory—the theory of macro-evolution. Experiments attempting to recreate macro-evolution in the lab have been utter failures. All changes within species tend to gravitate back toward their original state, and the fossil record is in such distinct contradiction to the theory that scientists were forced to develop the quantum leap theory of punctuated equilibrium to compensate.
So what gives? Why is Clive willing to resort to such verbal sleight-of-hand? What if the origin of species can't be explained by Darwin's mechanism? Big deal, right? Gravity won't cease to function if the theory of macro-evolutionary origins turns out to be wrong. That's why it's important to understand that macro-evolution is primarily a question of philosophy. Naturalistic philosophy dictates that all life must be the product of some blind natural process. This is not a scientific claim. It's a philosophical (even religious) one, and as such can't be tested or reproduced in a lab. Before Charles Darwin, naturalists had no proposed mechanism capable of producing life or accounting for the variety of species. Darwin gave them that mechanism and now they will protect it at all costs. This is what prompted leading atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins to assert that, "Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory... we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." Why? Because without evolution, the naturalist's belief system falls apart.
So let's look at the fundamental flaw of materialistic naturalism as a philosophy. A naturalist understands nature as a giant impersonal machine with gears and levers just waiting to be discovered. But in this worldview, there is no place for human personality and morality. He must regard them as fantasies. When he goes home at night to his wife and kids, he contradicts himself with every goodnight kiss and "I love you." In short, his philosophy doesn't match reality—he can't live it.
On the other hand classical Christianity offers a full-orbed philosophy of nature and morality. As a Christian, I understand that the gears and levers of nature are the products of precise engineering. When I go home, I can love my wife and children, understanding that these sentiments are the imprint of a personal God.
I wrote an email to both Clive and Wired and Clive was nice enough to reply, but when I responded with an offer to buy him a copy of Darwin's Black Box by microbiologist Michael Behe, the conversation went cold. I guess Clive has already decided what his law is.
- 41 Comments
- 2921 Views
Comments
Posted By: Ian Rennie on 01/02/08
actually, probably what happened was that when you offered to buy him a copy of "Darwin's Black Box" he realized you had no understanding of science at all. That book is a discredited piece of hackwork. All its examples of "irreducible complexity" have been discredited. By the way, your statement that "We call scientific laws "laws" because they hold up against repeated testing in the laboratory using the scientific method." is wrong. Laws are simple observations, usually expressed through equations. There is no gradation from theory to law. Clive Thompson was wrong to suggest there is, but you are more wrong in your refutation. There actually is an already existing word for things that "hold up against repeated testing in the laboratory using the scientific method." That word is "theory". Oh, and you're also wrong about macroevolution. We have seen speciation in lab conditions. We have seen speciation in the wild. Despite your protestations, evolution (and I'm removing the entirely artificial divide between "micro" and "macro" here because they're the same thing) happens and has been observed. As far as your comments about materialistic naturalism as a philosophy: you're sort of right. It wouldn't be a great philosophy, which is why it isn't used as a philosophy. You're misunderstanding the purpose of science. Science tells us what is, not what ought to be.
Posted By: on 01/02/08
Thanks for the comment, Ian. I think my article addresses most of the issues you raised so I won't repeat them. I would like to point out, though, that the study of what ought to be is actually called ethics. Philosophy is the study of the principles of reality. Our science has to match our philosophy or we're essentially living a contradiction.
Posted By: Matteo on 01/02/08
Oh, yes. Darwin's Black Box. Utterly discredited. I suppose if Darwinists keep echoing the phrase "utterly discredited" to each other, then that will become the truth. In the last ten years I've heard this phrase ad nauseum. Not once have I seen anything that remotely leaves "Darwin's Black Box" "utterly discredited", despite looking where the Darwinists have pointed me. But I know the refutation must be out there somewhere. I mean why else would all Darwinists believe it exists? Perhaps the devastating refutation of Behe that every intelligent person, by definition, knows is out there somewhere, shares the same status as invisible pink unicorns, the teapot in orbit around Saturn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Darwinism is simply becoming the ultimate Cargo Cult, with plenty of Kool-Aid for all. One more thing. Darwinists generally want others to be impressed with their intellects. Yet if all of the evidence and reasoning in favor of Darwinism is so monumentally cut-and-dried, such that only a moron could doubt, then that ipso facto means that all that is required to be a Darwinist is to have an intellect a mere single step up on the intellectual ladder from "moron", which is manifestly inconsistent with claims of intellectual superiority. Now, if it really does take a superior mind to accept the truth of Darwinism, then I would think that things are not anywhere near as obvious and clear-cut as these jokers are always claiming. Either there are more valid interpretations of the evidence than these guys will admit are possible, or I'm being continually lectured by folks who I have no cause to believe have any special intellectual horsepower to tell me how to reason, given that they think this is all so damned simple and clear as day. Either option works for me.
Posted By: on 01/02/08
Thanks, Matteo.
Posted By: Ian Rennie on 01/02/08
"Thanks for the comment, Ian. I think my article addresses most of the issues you raised so I won't repeat them." It does? Where, exactly?
Posted By: Ian Rennie on 01/02/08
all right, Matteo, point me to one claim that Darwin's Black Box makes that actually holds water. The supposed irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum? Debunked. The supposed irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade? Debunked. The supposed irreducible complexity of the immune system? Debunked. What's worse is that, as we all saw at the Kitzmiller trial, Behe no longer even cares whether his ideas hold water. He openly admits to not having kept up with the science on the very areas he uses as icons of intelligent design.
Posted By: Ian Rennie on 01/02/08
"Our science has to match our philosophy or we're essentially living a contradiction." This isn't really true, you know. Science and philosophy should be as unrelated as science and religion or science and politics. You keep talking about "naturalism" as a philosophy, but naturalism as science uses it is not a philosophy but a method. The difference between ideological naturalism and methodological naturalism is stark and fairly obvious: one is a system of behavior that determines how one treats the world. The other is a system of scrutiny that only determines how you look at evidence. Competent scientists do not draw social or behavioral lessons from science. Their science does not and should not advise their morality. That's what ethics and philosophy are for. It is entirely possible to be a methodological naturalist and a spiritual christian. Ken Miller is only one of the more recent examples, of this, a deeply spiritual person who nonetheless is able to practice science according to the scientific method. There is no contradiction here.
Posted By: Bug on 01/02/08
I find it very hard to deny evolution as a process, but as an atheist (which is a belief in the non-existence of a god. Emphasis on belief) I have to acknowledge that the "engine" of evolution may not be natural selection, but a full sighted watch maker. However, to state that evolution implies no free-will is naive at best, and your argument is a classic philosophical argument on freewill and the right to punish. Evolution or non-belief in god does not exclude the existence of other metaphysical planes. We might consider, for example, the brain as quantum scaffolding for what might classically be considered a soul, capable of influencing the physical world. Of course, I think the only important thing we should do is consider each other's opinions import and if supported by reasoned argument, give them proper credence. All to often I see creationist vs evolution argument where I would be ashamed to be associated with either protagonist. I respect your beliefs, and would fight for your right to hold them. However, I do not believe Clive was proposing he awoke a different person simply because he had lost skin cells over night (if we are really just mechanical machines, then surely to change just the physical is enough to change the mental?). You must accept that you could be wrong (without ever needing to accept that you are), and that there could be mechanisms beyond our current understanding that deliver both free-will and natural selection, just as I must accept that the engine of selection is God.
Posted By: on 01/02/08
Well said, Bug. We should all be constantly testing our worldview to see if we are being intellectually honest. If our goal is truth, then there should be no problem with allowing others to scrutinize our beliefs. Whatever conclusion we come to, though, should be a complete solution for life. We shouldn't have to take a blind leap of faith in science or ethics. That's why I love the Classical Christian system. It allows room for the scientific method and also for real objective morality and emotion--it fits reality. If I'm wrong, I hope I find out.
Posted By: Matteo on 01/02/08
Ian: "Debunked. Debunked. Debunked." Perhaps if you repeat the word enough, then Behe really will be debunked. If you're referring, for example to anything Kenneth Miller has to say on the topic, i.e. "cooption", please don't waste my time. Otherwise please point me to the decisive debunkings that Behe has not already ably answered in one forum or another. I'll decide for myself whether something has been "debunked" or not. The huffings and puffings of Darwinist true believers hold little sway for me. Give me some actual evidence that is not widely open to interpretation from both sides, and don't assume that the interpretation that does not agree with yours can only be due to ignorance, foolishness, mendacity, or intellectual obtuseness. As I've said above, pushing those "compliments" merely establishes that an intellect a rung above "moronic" is sufficient to behold the glory of the blind watchmaker thesis. As it turns out, the musings of those with an intellect on that level are of no interest to me. I'm not accusing you of having displayed that attitude, but I do ask you to spare me from any Darwinist "standard operating procedure" along those lines. So, if you can politely point me to where Behe has been decisively and irrefutably debunked, I'd be glad to have a look, especially on the off chance that it is something I haven't already encountered before. And please don't expect me to sit here and argue back and forth about it in these comment boxes. I cannot imagine a greater waste of time. Just point me to the debunkings, please, and I'll take it from there.
Posted By: Ian Rennie on 01/03/08
"as an atheist (which is a belief in the non-existence of a god. Emphasis on belief)": that's not what being an atheist is. If you actually were one instead of playing one on a creationist website you'd know. THEISM is belief in a god. Thus ATHEISM is LACK OF belief in a god. Absence of belief is not belief in absence.
Posted By: Ian Rennie on 01/03/08
All right, Behe's three claims wre that the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade, and the immune system, were all irreducibly complex. In other words, there existed no way for them to have evolved. Nick Matzke's review of the literature showing the evolution of the bacterial flagellum can be found here: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html . Russell Doolittle's article on the evolution of blood clotting can be found here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/13/7527 . Nick Matzke's annotated bibliography of the evolution of the immune system can be found here: http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/immune_evo_annotated_bib.html . If you can point me to a claim made by Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box that has not been directly addressed and found wanting by the scientific community I'd love to hear what it is.
Posted By: on 01/03/08
Bug, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your point about free will and didn't address it. When I talk about the ability to love your wife and kids, I'm not referring to free will. The point I'm making is that an evolutionary view of the origin of life forces you to see feelings like love as a part of evolution itself. They aren't personal feelings but rather illusions--temporary stepping stones in a blind process. So the atheist evolutionist takes a leap of faith when he or she continues to function as if personal feelings are real. As funny as it may sound coming from a theist, it's that leap of faith that bothers me and ultimately points me to a view of origins that fits both the unity of the laws of the universe and the diversity of personal feeling. Hope I made it a little clearer this time.
Posted By: Matteo on 01/03/08
Ian, thank you for the references. In my own perusal of Matzke's paper, I find the tendency to assume that because a particular modification of pre-existing genetically coded nano-machinery would in some way be advantageous, then, ipso facto, we can assume that its arrival would be unsurprising. Without any sort of probability calculations or calculations based on selection coefficients and population genetics, or even any truly detailed identification of all of the supposed intermediate structures, this is simply begging the question. Perhaps Matzke is on to something, perhaps not. While I respect his intelligence and diligence, it is very difficult for me to see that what amounts to yet-to-be-tested speculation amounts to any sort of "debunking". To say that something could be true is not to establish that something is, in fact, true. To fail to establish that something is true, or at least probably true (which would require some mathematical assessment of probability, and not merely a confident assertion that the probabilities are sufficient), is to fail to "debunk" a competing explanation. In short: the question remains open and reasonable people can disagree. The premature heralding of the death of a competing idea does not enhance credibility, and this is something I see constantly in the Darwinist camp. The new version of Michael Ruse's exclamation that "Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" seems to be "Behe has been debunked, debunked, DEBUNKED!" Although the use of "rhetorical all-caps" can often be intellectually compelling, it seems to me that the ID/blind watchmaker contest is still on. Dembski had what looks to me like a cogent response to the Matzke paper here: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.11.Matzke_Response.htm
Posted By: Ian Rennie on 01/03/08
"The point I'm making is that an evolutionary view of the origin of life forces you to see feelings like love as a part of evolution itself." In what way? Accepting common descent has no impact on the emotions I feel whatsoever. Why would it? My knowledge of the workings of biology has no effect on how I feel. One of the big problems creationist thinkers run into is an over-inclination to confuse what is known about how the world works with how the world should work or how the world should be behave. Knowing that the capacity for emotion is an evolved capacity doesn't make my emotions less real. If anything it increases my appreciation for what I can see in myself and in the world, that nature can produce such wonderous things, and produce a creature with the capacity for wonder. The garden can be beautiful without there being fairies at the bottom of it.
Posted By: Ian Rennie on 01/03/08
The reason I say Behe has been debunked is because the specific claims he made were of such a nature that any plausible explanation renders them null. The problem with the argument of irreducible complexity is that it is dangerously close to an argument from incredulity. What Behe has essentially said about the flagellum, the immune system, and the blood clotting cascade is that they are too complex to have a natural explanation. This is very close to him saying "I cannot believe how there could be a natural explanation", which is the argument from incredulity. To make matters worse, when he talks about the immune system, he says "We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.". The problem is that at the time he wrote this, explanations of the evolution of the immune system already existed, and had done so in the scientific literature since at least the early 1970s. Work on evolutionary immunology had been carried out since the nineteenth century. From this it seems more like Behe had simply not read the work that existed on the immune system or presumed it to not answer his question, a perception made more likely by his behavior at the Dover trial when he tried to dismiss years of research into the immune system with a handwave. When someone states that an explanation has not been given, and it is shown that an explanation does exist, then unless something can be shown to be drastically wrong with the explanation, the point is lost.
Posted By: Matteo on 01/03/08
Ian, IMHO "Any plausible explanation rendering null" is a very low standard of evidence, especially when it is that very plausibility which must be established, and not just assumed. If this is what you mean by "debunked" then your definition differs substantially from mine. To me, "debunked" means "rendered almost certainly false", not "well, he must be wrong because I might be right". However, if what you have said really is the true standard of proof in the field of evolutionary biology, then that clarifies things for me. It's certainly not a field I'd go into, if that's the way the game is to be played. I'd take (and did take) mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, or some other hard science or discipline over this. Perhaps there is a good reason why the only cogent criticism seems to come from outside the field. As far as the immune system goes, I've read enough back and forth on that topic to conclude that the decisive debunking of Behe on that point is substantially of the same nature. In any case, I find declarations of victory on either side to be grossly premature, but I know which way I'm leaning. I do thank you for clarifying for me the precise nature of "debunked". I'll keep it in mind the next time I see it used. <new paragraph> Behe's argument is not "these things are way too complex to have a natural explanation," it is more "these things are complex in a very particular way that has been almost universally glossed over. The work necessary to decisively confirm the Darwinian scenario as it pertains to the nano-systems that have been discovered in the cell has not been done, and there are reasons to suspect that such a confirmation is unlikely. There is another logically possible explanation that should be considered." As far as brandishing the phrase "argument from incredulity", well, so what? Why else doubt a theory other than incredulity? Aren't *you* incredulous about the idea of a designer? Why does anyone consider the phrase an effective rhetorical club, other than because of being some kind of fan of Richard Dawkins, who coined it? Why the tired cliches of "debunked", "incredulity", etc? Don't you guys have anything else in your playbook?
Posted By: Ron on 01/03/08
Ian-- Haven't you noticed something about this so-called controversy between evolution and ID? In nearly every single case, people who have a problem with evolution and/or support ID are Christian fundamentalists. Just look at this website as yet another example: The author doesn't like evolution and supports ID, and he's--wait for it--a Christian. Only the fundies are pushing for ID; outside of conservative Christian circles support for ID drops to zero. There are reasons for this: these folks have an agenda, and that agenda is to Christianize society. Google the Wedge document and you'll see their REAL reason for pushing ID. The question is: Should we as a society rewrite the science curricula so that religious extremists aren't offended or not? To me at least, the answer is clear. To Matteo and Matthew Griffin: Evolution isn't the only thing being taught in science class that Jesus wouldn't approve of. Why, did you know that godless science teachers are teaching that the earth actually goes around the sun? Even though the book of Joshua clearly tells us that it's the sun that's in motion. When are you guys going to start petitioning your local school boards about the need to teach both sides of that controversy?
Posted By: on 01/03/08
Ron, first, I'm not a fundamentalist. I know it's fun to sling that word at anyone who holds to Christianity but you're not using it correctly. I understand your point about agendas but it assumes that one side has an agenda and the other is objective. This is not the case. In fact it's not even possible. As finite beings we lack the the perspective to be truly objective. Before he developed the theory of evolution, Darwin was a naturalist with an agenda. He needed a mechanism that would allow his philosophy to fit reality so he found it. Haeckel was an evolutionist with an agenda. He drew false diagrams of embryos to further the cause of naturalistic evolution. The diagrams are still used in text books today. Agendas are everywhere.
Posted By: Matteo on 01/03/08
It never takes long before someone like Ron starts throwing around clever barbs about fundamentalists and the Earth going around the sun. In point of fact, my reasons for caring about this controversy are twofold. Number one: I think that Darwinism is quite probably bad science. Rejecting bad science and supporting good science is an end in itself, requiring no theological agenda. Number two: this bad science is being used to further atheist agendas. I've got no problem with atheists pushing whatever agenda they want, but I do not want them using unsubstantiated science as a tool to do it. <new paragraph> Also, if we are going to look at metaphysical/theological motives as being determinitive, then there is a very telling asymmetry. If Darwinism were, in fact, good science, I would have no problem at all accepting it into my own metaphysical belief system. I once (before 1996) had a very strong belief in the correctness of Darwinism. My core metaphysical beliefs changed not one whit when I came to see it as probably false. They would survive unchanged if I came to see it once again as true. The truth or falsity of Darwinism simply has no bearing for me. Ironically this point is driven home every time (and it happens often) a Darwinist points to various theistic evolutionists (like Ken Miller) and says, "see, they have no problem with Darwinism, so why do you?" <new paragraph> Now, let's look at the other side of this asymmetry. Seldom does any internet discussion in the pro-Darwinist camp not very rapidly coalesce into open discussions of atheism and disparagement of theism (this sort of thing is made manifest in your own snarky comments about fundamentalists and heliocentrism in this thread). I therefore conclude that a great many of the participants are strongly motivated by their atheism in how they view the science, much more strongly motivated than I am in my (yes) theism in how I view the science. In fact, they simply must be more strongly motivated in that a victory for ID arguments effectively spells the end of a confident atheism (not that the science itself says that design, to exist, must be of supernatural origin. However most people would have a tough time drawing any other conclusion should design be the best explanation), while the victory of Darwinistic arguments is not at all devastating to theism (and I find it amusing that so many internet atheists think it would be).<new paragraph>These are all considerations should one want to examine and critique metaphysical/theological motives. The sword certainly cuts both ways (but unequally). However, such motives are really not all that germane to the scientific arguments. It's curious to me that Darwinists are the ones who usually bring them up, when they are definitely in the weaker position with regard to them.
Posted By: Nathan Prophet on 01/03/08
Matthew, as a Christian, I gather from your statements on scientific "theory," "law," "evolution," "Behe," and so forth, that you are in desperate need of a basic course in the philosophy of science with much time spent on the scientific method. You appear to have little understanding of science. Regarding your "observation" on a "personal God," that is faith-based belief. To my knowledge, the existence of a "personal God" has yet to be substantiated. Keep trying, though, and keep learning! Meanwhile, please stay away from Behe and his ilk, and help to shut down The Creation Museum, The Great Hall of Ignorance.
Posted By: Nathan Prophet on 01/03/08
After scanning the entries on this topic, Ian seems to make to most sense to me, but it appears that you all are playing "name games," trying to put "science," "philosophy," "religion," etc, into semantic boxes and then tape the boxes shut. "It ain't like that" out here in reality land. And another observation: The Theory of Evolution (TOE) has been substantiated as well as or even beyond scientific theories that are readily accepted (e.g., Theories of Special and General Relativity, Quantum Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Gases, etc.) Why is this? Because TOE challenges the literal meaning of Genesis (and other creation myths). Some people just cannot get past the fact that the Bible is not the literal word of God. They have convinced themselves of this "truth" and there is nothing that will change their mind; they are in an intellectual prison of their own making. My own brother, a Bible literalist, said that if the Bible said there is no such thing as trees and I took him what (most) everyone agrees is a tree, he said the tree does not exist. He further says, that God "could have" made the universe seem older and also "could have" placed fossils around to test the faith of "his people." Egads! Help! Scream! Is this "Alice in Wonderland" or what?
Posted By: Nathan Prophet on 01/03/08
Matteo, if "Darwinism" as you call it is "probably bad science," why don't you submit evidence through respected peer reviewed scientific journals (e.g., Nature, Science) and make your case? I believe that the scientific community should be open to any and all serious research that bears on any aspect of nature; however, there must be rigor and not just rhetoric. There must be facts and not just fantasies and faith. I am a scientist and a Christian (no puns about "Christian scientists" please). My Christian-based beliefs are based on my personal experiences with my conception of Christ that I believe through faith are true and valid - but, I realize my experiences could be other than what I believe they are. Let us not confuse understanding the natural world through science and understanding the spiritual world (if it exists) through means other than science. It seems to me that the pursuit of truth with an open, unbiased attitude is all that can be expected of us, and that is the journey I am taking. BTW: As has been stated, in science, there is no progression from theory to law. Scientific theories consist of facts and laws that explain and predict natural phenomena.
Posted By: on 01/03/08
Nathan, I respect your position as a theistic evolutionist. I admit that any interpretation of the Bible has the possibility of being wrong. I think Matteo said it best, though, when he explained that macro evolution does not rule out theism while design most definitely rules out atheism. The atheist evolutionist has much to lose if it's proven that a evolution is incapable of producing life. This is why telling Matteo to "submit evidence through respected peer-reviewed scientific journals" is a ridiculous demand. In a system run by atheist evolutionists--where professors are denied tenure for attempting to demonstrate the holes in the evolutionary theory and writers like Clive Thompson would rather redefine words than face scrutiny of the theory of macro evolution--what can be done?
Posted By: Nathan Prophet on 01/03/08
Re: "love" "common descent" "illusion" etc. Switch all that to "natural selection." The monogamous male-female family is a result of Homo sapiens' evolution. Thus far, through adaptation to our environment, it has evolved to be the (current) optimal arrangement for survival of the species. There are all kinds of special cases and anomalies (homosexual couples, polygamy, no children, etc), but we are talking "generally" here. "Love" and "commitment" and similar attributes help bind the family together through "hard times," thus increasing its chances of survival by being "fit." Hopefully, over a very long period of time, but in time, random mutations will produce a different genetic structure that will result in adaptation to our changing environment such that our species' chance of survival will out pace the forces that threaten its existence. Unfortunately, there is nothing supernatural to prevent the extinction of the Homo sapiens species. Thousands, perhaps millions, of species of life have gone extinct and they continue going extinct today and tomorrow and forevermore.
Posted By: Matteo on 01/03/08
Nathan, please stuff your "desperate need" and "little understanding of science" rhetoric. It does nothing whatsoever to advance discussion and simply reinforces my already negative impressions of Darwinian reasoning. As far as ID arguments getting a fair hearing in peer reviewed journals, please. I get a little tired of the standard Darwinist "I'm going to pee on your back and tell you it's rain", aspect of that canard. Look at what Richard Sternberg, and Guillermo Gonzales have gotten for their troubles. Look at the hatred and enmity commonly expressed toward Michael Behe and William Dembski, who, I reiterate, have not been debunked, but merely rebutted, which seems to be a distinction lost on Darwinists. <new paragraph> At any rate, I find that your posts simply ignore what I've already said in this thread (especially concerning my religion-based need for Darwinism to be false) and therefore warrant no further attention from me. And thanks for the little pat on the head: "Keep trying and keep learning." Will you give me a cookie if I do? How far should I "stay away from Behe and his ilk"? Should I get a restraining order?
Posted By: Ron on 01/04/08
Matthew: You: "Ron, first, I'm not a fundamentalist. I know it's fun to sling that word at anyone who holds to Christianity but you're not using it correctly." Why Matthew, I'm terribly sorry. Let me try again-- You're a conservative Christian that doen't like evolution. What's not to understand? You and about 150 million other conservative Christians (evangelicals, fundamentalists, and whatever cubbyhole your doctrinal beliefs fit in) don't get evolution. Or stem cell. Or global warming. Or the age of the earth. Hey, no problem. We'll just stop all science in its tracks until you guys catch up. --------------------------------------- You: "Haeckel was an evolutionist with an agenda. He drew false diagrams of embryos to further the cause of naturalistic evolution. The diagrams are still used in text books today." Really? You've actually gone down to your local high school and looked at the textbooks they use and found these drawings? What's the title of the textbook and who are the authors? Or is that just something you read in a Chick tract? In case you missed it, I don't think your accusation about Haekel's drawings is true. What's the name of the school district in your area? Let's ask them and see if that's a true statement or not.
Posted By: Ron on 01/04/08
Matteo: You: "In point of fact, my reasons for caring about this controversy are twofold. Number one: I think that Darwinism is quite probably bad science." Do you now? 'Darwinism', huh? Well, I'm not a scientist myself, so I'm in no position to second guess those people who have actually done the work and earned a degree in biology, just like I don't second guess airline pilots or brain surgeons or astrophysicists. I'm likewise sure you wouldn't be so presumptuous, so since you've just dismissed 'Darwinism' as bad science you must be a biologist. So my questions to you are: Where do you do your research? What breakthroughs have you made in biology that incorporate principles exclusive to 'Beheism'? Which diseases have you cured using irreducible complexity or other principles discovered by 'Dembski-ology'? And finally, perhaps you can answer a question for me. I asked the Discovery Institute and it stumped them. I contacted the Discovery Institute some time back and asked them a simple question. According to the DI, the definition of intelligent design is: �The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.� The example they usually provide is the bacterial flagellum. So I provided them with the current proposed evolutionary explanation for how the bacterial flagellum evolved, and predictably they replied with a laundry list of objections to it. I replied with �OK, you have a problem with the evolutionary explanation. But at least thet have an explanation. You claim that ID can provide a superior explanation, so what is it? What is your stepwise explanation for how the bacterial flagellum originated, why it hasn�t taken on a different appearance, why do some bacteria have them while others don�t, etc? You claim to have a superior explanation. What is it?� I had to ask them 3 or 4 times before they would reply. And their so-called �superior explanation� was: �Well, if the flagellum really WAS designed, wouldn�t you want to know?� That�s it. That�s their �superior explanation.� ID has no explanatory power at all. But I'm sure you're about to correct that. Be sure to fwd a copy of your answer to the Disco Institute.
Posted By: Ron on 01/04/08
Matteo: Disregard everything from the dotted line onwards on this reply. Matthew: Can you edit the above reply to delete the extraneous material--from the dotted line onward? Sorry about that. It wouldn't accept several attempts to post my reply, and then posted it looking like this.
Posted By: on 01/04/08
No problem, Ron. Done.
Posted By: Ron on 01/05/08
Matthew-- Many thanks for your consideration and courtesy.
Posted By: Matteo on 01/05/08
Ron, I'm not a biologist. So what? Are you a Tarot card reader or voodoo practitioner? If not, do you have any standing to complain against foolishness in those fields? It's not my fault if evolutionary biology has gone off the rails due to lack of expertise in areas that impinge on their fantasy stories, such things as information theory, probability, systems analysis, and the various engineering design disciplines. Any thing purporting to call itself "science" ought to be open to auditing from other fields. How else are they to be kept honest? Or should the whole field be some sort of gnostic priesthood which no outsiders (or even insiders) can criticize, even while such priests tell us what we are allowed to conclude about the nature of reality? Sorry. I'm having none of it. As far as the standard complaint about the use of 'Darwinism'. Man, I get sick of hearing that one. If the term is good enough for Richard Dawkins, Allen Orr, Lynn Margulis, Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, and Thomas Huxley, it's good enough for me. See URL: http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2006/08/darwinismdarwinist-now-term-of.html I find it telling that blind-watchmaker proponents are starting to treat the word 'Darwinist' the same way leftists do the word 'liberal', as if it were something to be ashamed of. Not too long ago folks were proud to call themselves Darwinists. I remember when I was. Maybe it's gradually becoming a wee bit disreputable or something. That some people prefer the wrong explanation or the weakly supported explanation to a simple "I don't know", is their problem, not mine. At any rate, I fail to see how the vehement assertion of this preference is somehow supposed to sway me.
Posted By: on 01/05/08
Ron, I'm not sure if our school district uses Haeckel's embryo diagrams but I know my wife's biology textbook at Stephen F. Austin State University did. By using this example, I only want to prove that agendas are inescapable. Scientists are humans with emotional attachments that influence them just as much as anyone else. Naturally, naturalism tends to be the philosophy of the scientist (no pun intended). After all, they've made the study of the physical world their life's goal. When you're fascinated with the processes of nature, deifying them is not such a far reach. Wikipedia has an article about the embryo illustrations that I think is very fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawings
Posted By: Ron on 01/05/08
Matteo-- You: "Ron, I'm not a biologist. So what?" Yeah, so what? I'm not a physicist either, but I just know deep down inside that special relativity is all a load. What do people like Stephen Hawking know? My opinion is just as valid as theirs. Right? Is that how it works? "Are you a Tarot card reader or voodoo practitioner? If not, do you have any standing to complain against foolishness in those fields?" Voodoo isn't a field, Matteo. "It's not my fault if evolutionary biology has gone off the rails..." Let's see, who do I give greater credence to? The National Academy of Science or you and the 700 Club? " Any thing purporting to call itself "science" ought to be open to auditing from other fields. How else are they to be kept honest?" From a position statement by the Amer. Anthropological Assn: "Evolution is the only currently acceptable scientific theory for the development of life on earth, and is supported by an enormous body of evidence from a wide variety of disciplines, including, but not limited to, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics." So you--who admit to not being a biologist--claim to understand evolutionary theory better than professional anthropologists do? Are you an anthropologist? Perhaps you're a chemist. From the American Chemical Society: "Evolutionary theory is not a hypothesis, but is the scientifically accepted explanation for the origin of species, and explains significant observations in chemistry, biology, geology, and other disciplines. Because of the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, it has been recognized and endorsed as a key component of science education by all major scientific societies including the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). The ACS joins these prestigious organizations in recognizing the critical importance of the scientific principles embodied in evolutionary theory." Do you claim to have a better grasp of evolutionary theory than the American Chemical Society does? " Or should the whole field be some sort of gnostic priesthood which no outsiders (or even insiders) can criticize, even while such priests tell us what we are allowed to conclude about the nature of reality? Sorry. I'm having none of it." Besides--Why get your science from mere scientists when you can get it from real priests instead, eh? "If the term is good enough for Richard Dawkins...and Thomas Huxley, it's good enough for me." Those people may have used the term Darwinism, but so have a lot of creationist pamphlets and Chick tracts, too. I wonder which one you picked up the term from? " At any rate, I fail to see how the vehement assertion of this preference is somehow supposed to sway me." Then stay unswayed. But please keep your creationism out of the public schools and off the public dime--at least until you creationists start doing some actual science. I know I'm not a scientist, but I think the way it's supposed to go is: First, do some science. THEN print some textbooks. You don't get to have your creation science taught in schools before you actually create some science.
Posted By: Matteo on 01/05/08
Ron. Whatever. You seem a bit too angry to be conversing with. You are spewing every condescending, content-free Darwinist cliche in the book. It's not my problem if you see red when folks express a reasonable alternative viewpoint. Your opinion has been noted.
Posted By: Ron on 01/05/08
Matteo-- I've offended you. My apologies. I just see no reason to coddle you creationists. Don't like evolution? Swell. Go homeschool your kids.
Posted By: Ron on 01/05/08
Matthew-- My main point is simply this: ANY subject, regardless of what it is, should be taught in the public schools in a manner consistent with the consensus of expert opinion on that subject; that's all supporters of evolution--you know, 'Darwinists'--are asking for, and I think that's perfectly reasonable. And the simple fact is that the actual experts in the relevant fields have concluded that evolution is the central theme of biology. Intelligent design--or whatever they're calling creationism this month--doesn't get to be taught in the schools before they do any actual science. If we have to lower the bar for ID THAT much, then something's wrong. Doesn't it strike you as strange that the religious right touts ID as a "reasonable alternative" to evolution, but when you ask them to provide the "better explanation" they claim to have, all they can do is stammer?
Posted By: Matteo on 01/05/08
Ron, that's better. We'll have to respectfully disagree about the "all they can do is stammer" part, and I am in agreement with you about what should be taught in the public schools. I am not interested in the political public school argument, but I am interested in the scientific argument. As far as IDist's doing "actual science", surely you are not making the error of assuming that 'Darwinists' own all the facts of science and have the sole right of interpretation? In my opinion it is possible that ID is a better interpretation of all the scientific/experimental facts that already exist. One need not be a 'Darwinist' or use 'Darwinism' to extract a gene sequence, untease the structure of cellular nanomachinery, or simulate protein folding, for instance. Facts are facts, and they are owned by nobody. ID could fail to do a single experiment at this point, and could still (in some Platonic realm free of human philosophical bias) be the better explanation of the facts. <new paragraph> A couple of rhetorical points. I realize I may have incensed you by making reference to voodoo and Tarot reading. My point was simply to illustrate that the idea of the invalidity of assessment of a 'field' by outsiders does not stand as a general proposition. I could just as well have said something more along the lines of, "Ron, you're apparently not a Christian. So what gives you standing to criticize the claims of Christianity? Only Christians are qualified to do this" which, of course, is absurd, and would illustrate the weakness of the general principle, without, I trust, carrying an insulting connotation. I thank you for stating your overall position much more civilly in your recent post. I'd point out, as another rhetorical point, that in a previous post you made the assertion that non-biologists cannot be regarded as having standing to assess evolutionary claims, and then in a later post you built a rhetorical attack based on the assessments of non-biologists. I have not failed to notice the inconsistency, and would ask you to consider whether you are standing on a solid principle or merely reaching for the nearest convenient rhetorical club. In any case you have clarified your position in your most recent post.<new paragraph>Finally, please note that, at least in my assessment, we have just had a more productive exchange owing to the fact that your last post was *not* filled with boilerplate anti-theist invective. As I said in an earlier post, "Seldom does any internet discussion in the pro-Darwinist camp not very rapidly coalesce into open discussions of atheism and disparagement of theism." I was disappointed to see you beginning to illustrate this very point. Again, I thank you for standing down from this tactic in your previous post, and again, I apologize for, in all probability, having crossed into "sarcasm territory" myself. <new paragraph> Oops. After writing the above, I've just noticed that your conciliatory post was not addressed to me at all, and that your last post to me, was, in fact, filled with sarcasm. Nonetheless, I'll sport you this one and stand by what I've said above.
Posted By: Ron on 01/06/08
Matteo--Your post tickled me. I've almost done that more than once.--Actually, my main bone of contention is with those who want to either misrepresent evolution in class ('teach the controversy' when there isn't one) or introduce ID as a scientific alternative before it's done anything except put out videos.--There is no dispute among most biologists, chemists or other scientists in related disciplines as to whether or not to give ID any credence. They've gone on record many times.--You point out an incongruity re: just who can speak with any kind of authority about evolution/ID. Evolution as an idea impacts numerous disciplines in the sciences. Practicing or teaching scientists in those disciplines speak with the most authority; they're highly trained and use evolution or the results of evolution in their daily jobs. Who speaks with more insight and knowledge about the cosmos--Stephen Hawking or Pat Robertson? Not all opinions on scientific issues are of equal merit; that's just how it is. It seems to me that you can discern something interesting by looking at who supports evolutionary theory v. those who oppose it. The fact is that every professional scientific society with an opinion on the subject (and there are many) supports evolution. Opposition to evolution appears to be almost completely restricted to Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals. This website is an explicitly Christian site and apparently has a problem with evolution. Just about the only website out there that supports ID but isn't explicitly Christian is the Disco Inst's, for legal reasons. I suspect there are interesting reasons for this, and they've never been stated plainer than in the Wedge document. The Discovery Inst. has been accused many times of being more marketing org than think tank and the Wedge doc. lends a lot of weight to that accusation.--Finally, if you want to get further into detail on this subject, you should go to Pharyngula, ERV or the Panda's Thumb blogs. They're easy to find, except for ERV which is at endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/. For the alternate (pro-ID) view, go to Telic Thoughts or Dembski's blog Uncommon Descent.
Posted By: on 01/06/08
I agree that the scientific establishment collectively supports macro evolution. But to say that "ALL" the experts support it is a gross exaggeration. In reality, all the experts with a microphone support it (the majority of them atheists). There are plenty of geologists and biologists that believe the evidence points elsewhere. If they are in the minority, then they are in good company. History is full of examples of the majority consensus being wrong.
Posted By: Ron on 01/07/08
Matt: Well, if there really are "plenty of geologists and biologists that believe the evidence points elsewhere", then the National Academy of Science is actively lying to the American public, and that seems like a rash accusation to me. In their newly-released booklet "Science, Evolution and Creationism" they say and I quote: "Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a process. The concept has withstood extensive testing by tens of thousands of specialists in biology, medicine, anthropology, geology, chemistry, and other fields. Discoveries in different fields have reinforced one another, and evidence for evolution has continued to accumulate for 150 years." Face it, Matthew: Only evangelicals & their ilk still have a problem w/evolution. Outside evangelical circles evolution-bashing and/or promotion of creationism almost completely disappears. That's no mere trifle--it's very significant.**In short, in our society, only evangelicals can't seem to 'get' evolution. Everybody else--even more mainstream believers--have made their peace with the notion. Of course, it's also true that born-agains comprise over half the population...gulp..