“Darwinism”

_{Barry Arrington

November 9, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I am not satisfied with our definition of “Darwinism” in the glossary over to the right of our home page. The definition is, I think, accurate as far as it goes, but it is incomplete and somewhat vague. In this thread I invite friend and foe alike to provide a brief definition of “Darwinism.” The best entry or a synthesis of the best entries will obtain pride of place as permanent fixture in the UD glossary. Thank you.

Comments

Doesn't anyone in this thread have the ability to correct glossary entries?Muramasa_{November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PST}

Ah, Steve In many cases they don't believe they have souls potentially subject to such a fate. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PST}

kairosfocus cited the New World Encyclopedia (NWE) entry on "Darwinism." The NWE also has helpful entries on "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism."Jonathan Wells_{November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PST}

kairosfocus, OK. You have convinced me. Let your revisions define the UD response. I will have plenty of other occasions to say that Darwinists' attitude about the relationship of evidence to their model can be fairly characterized as, "Fit, damn you, fit."StephenB_{November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PST}

The non-negotiable core -- in fact, the *only* non-negotiable point -- of 'modern evolutionary theory' (aka "Darwinism" or evolutionism) is "God didn’t do it!" Or, if one insists upon putting it less “theologically,” it is: “There is no design in the world.” That is both its “conclusion” and its (generally unspoken) assumption from which all its other content follows. “Darwinism” is UIND (un-intelligent non-design), and like the wind, it blows hither and thither without regard for anything but its one driving force.Ilion_{November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PST}

F/N: SB GP [and others], I suggest adjusting WAC 14 as follows: ________________ >> 14] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like “Darwinism.” “Darwinism” is a derogatory term used by creationists, intelligent design supporters, and other opponents of evolutionary theory that has no real meaning except as a rhetorical device to discredit evolutionary biologists. ANS: Design thinkers sometimes use the term “Darwinism” for the sake of brevity, but we are obviously aware that it is not the original nineteenth century historical version of Darwin’s thought which is at stake here. Nor is the suggested appeal to "no true scientist" appropriate. As the New World Encyclopedia article on "Darwinism" remarks:
Darwinism and other -isms It is felt by some that the term “Darwinism” is sometimes used by creationists as a somewhat derogatory term for “evolutionary biology,” in that casting of evolution as an “ism”—a doctrine or belief—strengthens calls for “equal time” for other beliefs, such as creationism or intelligent design. However, top evolutionary scientists, such as Gould and Mayr, have used the term repeatedly, without any derogatory connotations. [NWE, art. "Darwinism," Oct. 23, 2005, acc. Nov. 11, 2010.]
We see here a now very familiar, unfortunate rhetorical tactic. Whenever a term wanders out of the world of journals and textbooks into popular usage, and is picked up by critics of evolutionary materialism, proponents of Darwinism tend to deride those who use it, on the claim that such terms are not used by "true scientists." If "no true scotsman" is a fallacy, so too is "no true scientist." And, all the moreso because any number of Design thinkers, old and young earth creationists, as well as other critics of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (aka "[Neo-]Darwinism") more generally, do have relevant, earned academic qualifications and credentials. The real issue is the balance of the case on the merits, not who uses what terms. The main object of ID criticism of "Darwinism" is usually classical neo-darwinism, aka “the modern synthesis,” which tries to explain biological information in the main in terms of the dynamic: RV + NS --> DWM (Random [or, "chance"] genetic Variation plus Natural Selection acting together yield descent with modification. this has been observed at micro-level, and has been extrapolated -- without direct observational support -- to the macro-level of body-plans. Unfortunately, on the strength of the former, the latter is too often presented as an empirical "fact," often using the comparison that it is as certain as gravity and the orbiting of planets around the sun. The proper comparison, though, is not the observed orbiting of planets or falling of unsupported apples, but he far more speculative and tentative models of Solar System origins.) ID proponents acknowledge that Darwinian mechanisms operate within a limited scope (changes in beak sizes among finches as a result of environmental pressures; development of resistance to antibiotics by certain bacteria). But they dispute that the mechanism responsible for these micro-evolutionary changes is also responsible for macro-evolutionary changes. In other words, ID proponents agree that Darwinian processes can change the size of finch beaks across generations, but they dispute that those processes are solely responsible for the existence of finches, birds or dinosaurs, or land-animals in the first place. At the macro-evolutionary level, ID proponents point out that Darwinism is too often often rooted in an evolutionary materialist metaphysical presupposition imposed on science and posing as a scientific theory; as Richard Lewontin notoriously admitted in his infamous 1997 NYRB article, "Billions and Billions of Demons":
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Grounded in materialistic ideology, such Darwinism holds that purposeless, mindless, physical mechanisms, manifested as small genetic changes, can drive the evolutionary process to produce all observed complexity and biodiversity on earth. As such, it interprets all evidence in light of its own materialistic ideology and rules out, in principle -- indeed "a priori," any possibility that any part of the evolutionary process could have been designed. Like the mythical bandit Procrustes, who reshaped the bodies of his unfortunate visitors to fit his iron bed, Darwinism reshapes biological evidence to fit its iron clad world view. Design thinkers are also perfectly aware that many new forms of evolutionary thought exist, but unfortunately they are typically warped by the same a prioris. The same NWE article on Darwinism is therefore correct to further observe:
There are some scientists who feel that the importance accorded to genes in natural selection may be overstated. According to Jonathan Wells [NB: a design thinker and critic of Darwinism], genetic expression in developing embryos is impacted by morphology as well, such as membranes and cytoskeletal structure. DNA is seen as providing the means for coding of the proteins, but not necessarily the development of the embryo, the instructions of which must reside elsewhere. It is possible that the importance of sexual reproduction and genetic recombination in introducing variability also may be understated.
UD's resident Darwinist and critic, the respected Allen MacNeill, adds:
separate but related set of interconnected theories explaining the origin and modification of the phenotypic characteristics of living organisms, consisting (at a bare minumum) of the mechanisms of natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, and neutral molecular evolution in deep geological time, grounded (at least in part) in theoretical mathematical models of population genetics, depending on multiple sources of heritable phenotypic variation, and supported by inference from multiple sources of empirical evidence, including field and laboratory research in the fields of biochemistry, cell biology, comparative physiology, developmental biology, ecology, ethology, genetics, neurobiology, and physiological ecology. [Comment,"Darwinism" UD discussion thread, 11/10/2010, 10:51 pm.]
It is important to understand, however, that while ID arguments are often targeted to classical neo-darwinism, they are perfectly valid for all forms of explanatory theories of biological information which "a priori" do not admit the possible intervention of a design process. In other words, according to ID theory, no observed unintelligent causal mechanism ever proposed for the generation of information — whether based on chance, necessity, a combination of the two, or any other blindly mechanical form of “cause” — is credibly capable of generating the CSI in biological information on the scope of our observed universe; which is often estimated to comprise about 10^80 atoms and to have existed for some 13.7 billions of years. (This, of course, can in principle be easily empirically falsified by simply producing a case where on reliable observation, such forces of undirected chance plus necessity have credibly generated CSI. But, while there are literally billions of cases of intelligent causation of such CSI [think: Internet], there are notoriously, no credible cases of chance and necessity alone generating CSI. Thus, the confident stance by design thinkers on the matter.)>> _________________ Ma Deucey enough? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PST}

Darwinian . . .kairosfocus_{November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PST}

Aha, the underlying issue surfaces! Mr MacNeill, FYKI (as in " . . . kind . . ." [and yes, I am deliberately coining the abbreviation to make the point that even an invented term can be quite legitimate]), while the term "Newtonism" is not used in physics ["Newtonian Dynamics" most assuredly is . . . ], over the years -- and fairly recently -- Darwinism has been used without any hint of negative name-calling at popular and semi-popular levels by proponents of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis aka Neo-Darwinian Theory. NWE's article has an interesting little section:
Darwinism and other -isms It is felt by some that the term "Darwinism" is sometimes used by creationists as a somewhat derogatory term for "evolutionary biology," in that casting of evolution as an "ism"—a doctrine or belief—strengthens calls for "equal time" for other beliefs, such as creationism or intelligent design. However, top evolutionary scientists, such as Gould and Mayr, have used the term repeatedly, without any derogatory connotations.
This is all beginning to sound like 1984's newspeak. Any time critics of the theory use terms that have moved from the journal pages to the popular domain, there is an objection that "real" scientists -- a la "No true Scotsman" -- don't use that term. That was not so for Macro-evolution, and it is not so for Darwinism. Similarly,neither the basic wording nor concepts now commonly used by design thinkers, Complex Specified Information nor Functionally Specific, Complex Information originated among those despised Design thinkers. Similarly, it is a matter of well-warranted historical fact that Darwininian evolutionary mechanisms were held to apply to human populations described as "races," with no less a figure than Mr Darwin himself in the first rank of the charge, as may be seen form not only his correspondence but also from various editions of his Descent of Man published in his lifetime; cf. Chs 5 - 7. That has to be faced on its merits of fact, not distracted from by using no true scotsman tactics. Language, is an in-common good, if it is at all to be useful. In the glossary, it is therefore clear that we need:
1: a concise definition that sets the matter objectively and with reasonable clarity: (i) roots in Darwin and Russell, (ii) dynamics as developed, (iii) trends of an evolving definition. 2: Some history of ideas reference that allows us to see roots, current state and trends. 3: A brief implicitly corrective remark on the usage in this blog, in the teeth of the no true scotsman tactic. 4: Point to the NWE article as a source for more details, using a link.
I suspect, the broader debate should best be tackled by updating the WACs 14 and/or 15. It may even be useful to also link these in the glossary item. If the Darwinistas -- and this is most definitely a fighting term to describe the more radical advocates, and for that an excellent coinage by Mrs O'Leary -- want to fight on no true scotsman, they need to meet some Ma Deuce 50-cal cross-fire from the flanks. Out there, the ghost of John Moses Browning is grinning! GEM of TKI PS: Mr MacNeill, you have my sympathy on the grading challenge. my own thought on it is that I will grade as a necessary part of the job, but you cannot pay me to grade alone. PPS: It is indeed A R Wallace! Pardon a slip of memory.kairosfocus_{November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PST}

---Allen: "StephenB has it just about right." [referring to my proposed new entry for the FAQ] ...“Darwinism” is a derogatory term used by creationists, intelligent design supporters, and other opponents of evolutionary theory that has no real meaning except as a rhetorical device to discredit evolutionary biologists..." I am glad that you agree that these are the kinds of charges that are leveled against us. That is why we need to put them in the form of a question and then answer them.StephenB_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PST}

Allen, Come on. Just go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here's the Darwinism entry. It also covers some of the debate about teleology in 'Darwinism'. I agree there's confusion about what various people mean by the term, but "Darwinism" is not some term cooked up by creationists and the like.nullasalus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PST}

for more on the relationship between evolutionary biology and teleology, see: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2010/03/evolution-information-and-teleology-in.html which first appeared here (in somewhat modified form) as a comment, lo these many moons ago...Allen_MacNeill_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PST}

StephenB has it just about right:
“Darwinism” is a derogatory term used by creationists, intelligent design supporters, and other opponents of evolutionary theory that has no real meaning except as a rhetorical device to discredit evolutionary biologists.
Allen_MacNeill_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PST}

PS: My thought is that a glossary should be as neutral balanced and objective as possible, using a “dictionary tone,” or it undermines its own credibility.
Agreed. A little fact checking, such as who co-presented the theory, would not go amiss either.PaulT_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PST}

According to Wikipedia, Richard Wallace (August 26, 1894 - November 3, 1951) was an American film director. In 1926, Wallace began directing feature-length films. He began working in the editing department at Mack Sennett Studios in the early 1930s. He later moved on to rival Hal Roach Studios where he began directing two-reel films, some of which he collaborated with Stan Laurel. Several of Wallace's memorable films include three Shirley Temple films, "A Night to Remember" (1943) with Loretta Young, and "The Little Minister" (1934) with Katharine Hepburn. He was a founding member of the Directors Guild of America. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wallace_%28director%29 ]Allen_MacNeill_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PST}

Who the heck is Richard Wallace? Was he related to Alfred Russel Wallace?Muramasa_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PST}

--Upright Biped: "It seems to me that StephenB has already successfully done this exercise on this website.. I do remember stretching out on this subject a bit, but I don't remember where or when.StephenB_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PST}

--KF: "PS: My thought is that a glossary should be as neutral balanced and objective as possible, using a “dictionary tone,” or it undermines its own credibility." Good point. Perhaps that is the best argument for taking it out of the glossary and converting it into another frequently raised question, as in: ...ID proponents purposely use "Darwinism" as a derogatory term because they know it has no real meaning except as a rhetorical device to discredit evolutionary biologists... ---Barry Arrington; "OK, GEM of TKI, you convinced me to take out the inflamatory stuff. Darn." It's all in how you set it up. As long as we are doing dictionary definitions, we are bound to keep things on the cerebral side. There is, however, another way: Let the question constitute a slow fat pitch over the middle of the plate and let the answer knock it out of the park.StephenB_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PST}

Sorry to come in to this discussion so late (again, grading papers, going to faculty meetings, spending time with my wife and kids, etc.) Personally, I don't use the term "Darwinism" at all, any more than I would use the term "Newtonism" when referring to classical physical mechanics, "Einsteinism" to refer to relativity theory, "Bohr/Feinman/Heisenberg/Schroedingerism" to refer to quantum mechanics, or "Mendeleevianism" to refer to chemistry. What I and my colleagues at Cornell do is probably best described as "evolutionary biology", and includes (at a bare minimum) the following: 1) the formulation and testing of a set of interconnected theories explaining the origin of biological diversity, consisting of descent with modification from common ancestors over deep geological time, describable via cladistic analysis, and supported by inference from multiple sources of empirical evidence, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, developmental biology, genomics, historical geology, and paleontology; and 2) the formulation and testing of a separate but related set of interconnected theories explaining the origin and modification of the phenotypic characteristics of living organisms, consisting (at a bare minumum) of the mechanisms of natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, and neutral molecular evolution in deep geological time, grounded (at least in part) in theoretical mathematical models of population genetics, depending on multiple sources of heritable phenotypic variation, and supported by inference from multiple sources of empirical evidence, including field and laboratory research in the fields of biochemistry, cell biology, comparative physiology, developmental biology, ecology, ethology, genetics, neurobiology, and physiological ecology. Note that these two definitions of the principle domains of evolutionary biology correspond roughly to what is commonly referred to as "macroevolutionary theory" and "microevolutionary theory" (in that order) and do not explicitly mention: • theories of the origin of life from non-living materials, which are properly the purview of astrophysics, chemistry, and geology, not biology; • the concept of "adaptation", which has had a checkered past in evolutionary biology and is facing increasing challenges within the field; and • teleology, which is generally never mentioned, except for those evolutionary biologists who have thought about it (which, in my experience, is relatively few), who generally assume that resort to teleological explanations in evolutionary biology are unnecessary. Not wrong, just unnecessary (not to mention unproductive as an empirical research hypothesis). As philosophical concepts, both adaptation and teleology have a very long history, stretching back at least to Plato and Aristotle. However, recent developments in evolutionary theory, including (but not limited to) theories of epigenetics, exaptation, genetic drift/draft, neutral and nearly neutral molecular "drift" in deep evolutionary time, and punctuated equilibrium, have increasingly rendered the concept of "adaptation" as a marginal diversion rather than a central topic in evolutionary biology. And teleology, rather than being considered "wrong" (when it is considered at all, which is seldom) is now increasingly being incorporated into new theories of "evolved agency", especially in evolutionary psychology (my own field). I am currently working on a treatise on this latter subject, which I hope to finish before departing this veil of tears and laughter for that undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns.Allen_MacNeill_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PST}

It seems to me that StephenB has already successfully done this exercise on this website - quite masterful as I remember it. There were two distinct versions of the term; one as a descriptor and the other as a practical matter. Something along the lines of a strong and weak version. Perhaps someone remembers it and can locate it.Upright BiPed_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PST}

OK, GEM of TKI, you convinced me to take out the inflamatory stuff. Darn.Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PST}

Heya all, I'm glad to see the attempts to pin down a definition of Darwinism continue - as I said, I consider this of great importance. It also looks like there's a lot of differing views on how to best sum up Darwinism! Instead of giving more possible definitions, I'll throw in my two cents on what should go into this. * I don't think 'essay versus definition' is important. Maybe it's not possible to concisely sum up Darwinism in a way that's helpful here. It's not like you run risk of running out of paper to print on here. And it's not like you want a mere accurate definition, but the definition as seen by ID proponents who oppose Darwinism. * It looks like one of the biggest problems here is that 'Darwinism' is so elastic. There's the theory of evolution as Darwin envisioned it, then the modern synthesis, then evo-devo, then... etc. But what seems most important is this: What are the key claims of Darwinism that every ID proponent in the Big Tent must reject by virtue of their being in that tent? * I'd say you should also consider adding various common claims associated with 'Darwinism' that ID proponents do NOT need to reject. Though this is already covered somewhat in the FAQ (Common descent, etc.) I'll add, my personal hope is that people can see exactly what ID proponents say Darwinism says that's objectionable. I think that if this is made clear, a number of TEs, and even other onlookers, may say "Oh! Well, I disagree with that claim too. If that's what you mean by Darwinism, I'm no Darwinist." Even if they don't accept the case for ID, they may realize that accepting Darwinism as stated is also plagued with problems.nullasalus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PST}

Barry, Your second proposal is not a definition, but an essay! Short and sweet is what people want. After all, it's a "definitions" page, not an encyclopedic reference page.jasondulle_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PST}

Darwinism: The belief that GOD is absurd, but blind, random chance has GOD-like abilities. OR Darwinism: MAGIC! OR Darwinism: The condition by which the afflicted is totally oblivious to the blatantly obvious.Blue_Savannah_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PST}

Personally I like the more creative definitions arising from the natural selection of random variations in the negative teleological implications undeniably inherent in the obviously purely materialistic uni/multiverse. So - Darwinism: Poof - you have a Rabbit. (Of course you silly) (In one or more of the other universes it's literally a Wabbit. It it what it it over there.alan_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PST}

PS: My thought is that a glossary should be as neutral balanced and objective as possible, using a "dictionary tone," or it undermines its own credibility.kairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PST}

F/ N: WACs 14, 15: ______________ >> 14] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like “Darwinism” IDists sometimes use the term “Darwinism” for the sake of brevity, but we are obviously aware that it is not the original nineteenth century historical version of Darwin’s thought which is at stake here. The main object of ID criticism is usually classical neo-darwinism, aka “the modern synthesis,” which tries to explain biological information in the main in terms of RV + NS (Random Variation plus Natural Selection). We are also perfectly aware that many new forms of evolutionary thought exist . It is important to understand that, while ID arguments are often targeted to classical neo-darwinism, they are perfectly valid for all forms of explanatory theories of biological information which do not admit the intervention of a design process. In other words, according to ID theory, no unintelligent causal mechanism ever proposed for the generation of information — whether based on chance, necessity, a combination of the two, or any other mechanical form of “cause” — is credibly capable of generating the CSI in biological information on the scope of our observed universe; which is often estimated to comprise about 10^80 atoms and to have existed for some 13.7 billions of years. 15] Nothing is Wrong with the Modern Synthesis! (And, by the way, what kind of “Darwinism” is ID dealing with? Why?) The “Modern Synthesis” is the classical form of Neo-Darwinism, which assigns to random variation (RV) of genes and natural selection (NS) of the varied competing sub-populations the main role in driving biological evolution at micro- and macro- (body-plan origination) levels. While many modern biologists, like Dawkins, still more or less adhere to such a paradigm, others would be ready to declare that the modern synthesis is “history.” Some of the most serious alternatives to the classical Neo-Darwinian paradigm have been: the theory of neutral evolution, due mainly to Kimura, which focuses on the role of neutral mutations and genetic drift; and the theory of punctuated equilibrium by Eldredge and Gould, which favors a scenario of stasis and relatively rapid change in evolution, in contrast to the traditional gradualism. These points of view, even if they have been in some way “integrated” into classical Neo-Darwinism, represent really alternative interpretations; sometimes, radically different from the tradition. More recently, classical Neo-Darwinism has faced even more radical attempts at review, focusing mainly on the search for new sources of variation, and often re-dimensioning the role of natural selection: we can cite here the contributions of Lynn Margulis (endosymbiontic theory), of Sean Carroll (Evolutionary developmental biology or evo-devo), and many others, while Allen MacNeill (a sometime, and often helpful, contributor at UD) has compiled a famous and very long list of “engines of variation” which includes possible phenotype-genotype interactions and many other classes of supposed alternative mechanisms. In general great attention has been given recently to adaptational mechanisms (even in the form of neo-Lamarckism) and to epigenetic inheritance. One of the results of such heterogeneity of contemporary evolutionary thought has been that ID is often accused of dealing with one form and not with another, be it classical Neo-Darwinism or the most recent examples of what we may call: Neo-Neo-Darwinism. The truth is much simpler: as a causal theory about the origin of biological information, ID is both a criticism and an alternative to all theories which try to explain biological information by purelyunguided mechanisms. In the final sense, any list of “engines of variation” that “permits” only unguided mechanisms exclude design, and is thus based, at the basic causal level, on necessity or chance or some mixture of the two. This is bias, not proper science, as, before the facts can speak, it excludes another known “engine of variation” for contingent objects: design. So, we may directly see that, the counter-arguments and alternatives provided by the ID approach apply equally to classical Neo-Darwinian theory and all of these alternatives. The reason why ID criticism is usually more specifically directed to classical Neo-Darwinism is that, in the end, RV + NS remains the most widely used, most detailed causal model of unguided evolution. It is difficult to analyze in detail alternative models which have never been detailed to the point that they can be really critically evaluated, and so the design theory commentary on these newer models often remains at a very generic level. But, we must underscore: ID arguments are equally valid for all cases: all forms of “random variation” are just that: random, and so must obey the laws of statistics, and all forms of “necessity” – including Natural Selection (as it is usually presented) – must be expressed in a credible and consistent logico-mathematical model. Unless and until new causal principles are discovered, it has been immemorial since the days of Plato in his The Laws, Book X, that design is the only known alternative/complement to chance and necessity. And so, the only truly valid scientific approach is one that accepts at the outset the possibility of design as well as chance and necessity, and then seeks reliable signs that can differentiate the role played by each for the key aspects of life-forms. >> ____________ Maybe we want to put some of the fresh stuff under these, and do a bit of expansion of eh current definition then point to NWE and the WACs, making a disclaimer that the use commonly seen at UD is innocent and reasonable?kairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST}

Mr Arrington Perhaps you could help us by clarifying what you want the updated definition to do. Is it to help newbies? Answer to objectors? A response to critics? I think that a fairly brief dictionary style definition with links to where you can get more will be enough for those looking for information. But, my thought here is that we need to give a bit of history of ideas context, so the reason for the definition and usage will be clear. If the dictionary type stuff out there is really bad, maybe something that is a bit more elaborate will help, as has already been suggested. If this is really a rebuttal to critics, maybe we need to summarise their question and give an new Weak Argument Corrective? Actually, correctives 14 and 15 are on darwinism. Do we need to update these? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST}

OK, how about this: When ID proponents on this site use the term “Darwinism,” they are referring to Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis or Neo-Darwinian evolution (“NDE”), the basic tenants of which are described in the New World Encyclopedia as follows: BEGIN QUOTE: At the heart of the modern synthesis is the view that evolution is gradual and can be explained by small genetic changes in populations over time, due to the impact of natural selection on the phenotypic variation among individuals in the populations (Mayr 1982; Futuyama 1986). According to the modern synthesis as originally established, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (it is now known to be caused sometimes by mistakes in DNA replication and via genetic recombination—the crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). This genetic variation leads to phenotypic changes among members of a population. Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of natural selection. Speciation, the creation of new species, is a gradual process that generally occurs when populations become more and more diversified as a result of having been isolated, such as via geographic barriers, and eventually the populations develop mechanisms of reproductive isolation. Over time, these small changes will lead to major changes in design or the creation of new taxa. A major conclusion of the modern synthesis is that the concept of populations can explain evolutionary changes in a way that is consistent with the observations of naturalists and the known genetic mechanisms (Mayr 1982). Though agreement is not universal on the parameters of the modern synthesis, many descriptions hold as basic (1) the primacy of natural selection as the creative agent of evolutionary change; (2) gradualism (accumulation of small genetic changes); and (3) the extrapolation of microevolutionary processes (changes within species) to macroevolutionary trends (changes about the species level, such as the origin of new designs and broad patterns in history). Evolutionary change is a shift of the frequency of genes in a population, and macroevolutionary trends come from gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. Note, for example, the words of two of the leading figures in evolutionary theory, Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould. "The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species." (Mayr 1963) "The core of this synthetic theory restates the two most characteristic assertions of Darwin himself: first, that evolution is a two-stage process (random variation as raw material, natural selection as a directing force); secondly, that evolutionary change is generally slow, steady, gradual, and continuous. . . Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes to the most profound structural transitions in life." (Gould 1980) END QUOTE ID proponents acknowledge that Darwinian mechanisms operate within a limited scope (changes in beak sizes among finches as a result of environmental pressures; development of resistance to antibiotics by certain bacteria). But they dispute that the mechanism responsible for these micro-evolutionary changes is also responsible for macro-evolutionary changes. In other words, ID proponents agree that Darwinian processes can change the size of finch beaks across generations, but they dispute that those processes are solely responsible for the existence of finches in the first place. At the macro-evolutionary level, ID proponents Darwinism is a metaphysical presupposition posing as a scientific theory. Grounded in materialistic ideology, it holds that purposeless, mindless, physical mechanisms, manifested as small genetic changes, can drive the evolutionary process to produce all observed complexity and biodiversity on earth. As such, it interprets all evidence in light of its own materialistic ideology and rules out, in principle, any possibility that any part of the evolutionary process could have been designed. Like the mythical bandit Procrustes, who reshaped the bodies of his unfortunate visitors to fit his iron bed, Darwinism reshapes biological evidence to fit its iron clad world view, saying in effect, “fit, damn you, fit.”Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PST}

F/N: A caution from Mrs O'Leary, over in the Al Mohler thread:
Definition of Darwinism: Not strictly possible because every Darwinist has his own, and for political reasons, Darwinists tack swiftly between one and another. But the key characteristic is the belief in the awesome powers of natural selection acting on random mutation to produce all forms of life – and, for most Darwinists, mind and for some, even universes. Darwinism undergirds and explains everything.
That gets at a key point in all of this, I think. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PST}

Barry, The New World Encyclopedia page does not offer a definition, but an explanation. It is too long. You need something succinct, and it is best to have a definition on your own page since you never know when New World may update their page, and change the definition in a way you would not agree with. I also agree that the entry should be called “neo-Darwinism.” Perhaps you could have it as “Darwinism (neo-Darwinism)”. Here is the definition I propose: "A naturalistic theory regarding the origin of species according to which all living organisms diversified from a common ancestor in the distant past via natural selection acting on random genetic variation over long periods of time.”jasondulle_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply