Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is the evolution debate becoming “much more civil and thoughtful”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Fred Reed, an “evolution skeptic” at UNZ:

Recently I wrote a column about the theory of Intelligent Design, which holds that that life, both in its origins and its changes over time, are the result of design instead of chance. Several hundred comments and emails arrived, more than I could read. This was not surprising as there seems to be considerable public interest in the question, while a virulent political correctness prevents discussion in most forums. In particular the major media prevent mention of Intelligent Design except in derogatory terms.

Interesting to me at any rate was that the tone of response was much more civil and thoughtful than it was say, a decade ago.

That may partly be because so many conundrums of evolution are now being discussed in the science literature that being a troll bawling up a storm somewhere isn’t a credential anymore. (See links below.)

To judge by my mail, I suspect that many people, thanks to popular television, think of mutations as major changes that just happen, such perhaps as the rhino’s horn appearing all at once . In fact mutations are changes in the nucleotide sequence of DNA that may produce a new protein. The mathematical likelihood of getting multiple mutations that just happen to engender a complex result is essentially zero. The mathematics is clear but not easily explained to a television audience, no matter how intelligent.

In many years of writing columns, I have learned that the tenacity of attachment to emotionally important ideas is nearly infinite. This is as true of evolutionists as it is of Christians, the politically ardent, or the rabidly patriotic. Things that do not fit the belief are just ignored, forbidden, or explained away by wishful thinking. More.

But eventually, we need a serious discussion.

Hat tip: Ken Francis

See also: Replication failures of Darwinian sexual selection openly discussed at The Scientist. It’s as if evolutionary biologists are beginning to take some of the problems of Darwinism seriously enough to discuss them openly, as failures in research. In this case, the failure of claims for sexual selection (females drive evolution by choosing the fittest mates) is openly publicized. This is neck and neck with the Nature review of The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life, one wonders, are the staff at The Scientist competing with the staff at Nature to be first out of Darwin’s collapsing house of cards?

and

At Nature: New evolution book represents a “radical” new perspective. Including things you didn’t know about Archaea discoverer, Carl Woese. It’s true. Woese, the first to recognize the kingdom of life, the Archaea, was not a Darwinist and thought there is a deity. Prediction: Soon only cranks will be Darwinists.

Comments
So Bob runs away instead of trying to clarify his equivocations. TypicalET
August 8, 2018
August
08
Aug
8
08
2018
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
In 2015 Eric Andersen wrote this post which made the same point that I am making above.
Zachriel @8:
“Darwin presented two primary lines of evidence; natural selection as the mechanism of adaptation, and common descent as the history of life’s divergence from shared ancestors. Both lines are required to make sense of the evidence.”
No, natural selection is not a “mechanism of adaptation.” Darwin simply assumed that the adaptations would naturally arise (he never offered a mechanism and didn’t — in fairness probably couldn’t in his day — know what the “mechanism” of adaptation was). Natural selection was simply the way of getting rid of the unfit, the poor adaptations, the failed variations. There was never a mechanism posited. With some early appreciation for genetics, Neo-Darwinism came along and proposed that the mechanism Darwin had needed was random mutations in DNA. Thus, Darwin’s theory had found the long-needed mechanism and was now fully supported by purely natural explanations. Or at least that was the thought. Unfortunately, random mutations do not have the ability to generate the variation needed to produce all of nature’s varieties. No natural “mechanism” has ever been found that is adequate to the task. And this is precisely on the primary points of evolutionary critics: the needed variations, the great creative power of the evolutionary mechanism has never been shown; it is just assumed. Yes, Darwin proposed common descent. But this is an indirect inference that again lacks a mechanism or adequate evidentiary support. There are myriad issues with common descent, at least the naturalistic version of it. Nevertheless, many evolution critics are willing to even go so far as to accept common descent because it still doesn’t explain the source of the adaptations, it still doesn’t explain the source of biological novelty, it still doesn’t do away with the need for a designing intelligence. Such individuals might agree with you that common descent is required to make sense of the evidence. But even common descent does not mean we are dealing with RM+NS or some other purely natural process. To really make sense of the evidence, you need to be willing to take off the naturalistic blinders and consider that life may appear designed because it is designed. Until one is willing to consider that possibility, they will always be forced to make unsupported assumptions and intellectually-unsound leaps of faith to cram the evidence into their worldview. [emphasis added]
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/how-to-trick-yourself-the-darwinian-thought-process/#comment-583530 By the way several prominent ID’ists (Denton and Behe, for example) accept common descent. But even if you accept CD that doesn’t prove or even imply that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is the cause of evolutionary change.john_a_designer
August 8, 2018
August
08
Aug
8
08
2018
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins tried to argue that biology was “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Notice that to explain away design he has to concede that there is the appearance or intuition of design. But is it merely just all appearance-- just an illusion? Notice the logic Dawkins wants us to accept. He wants us to implicitly accept his premise that that living things only have the appearance of being designed. But how do we know that premise is true? Is it self-evidently true? I think not. Why can’t it be true that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they really have been designed for a purpose? Is that logically impossible? Metaphysically impossible? Scientifically impossible? If one cannot answer those questions then design cannot be eliminated from consideration or the discussion. I have said this here before, the burden of proof is on those who believe that some mindless, purposeless process can “create” a planned and purposeful (teleological) self-replicating system capable of evolving further though purposeless mindless process (at least until it “creates” something purposeful, because, according to Dawkins, living things appear to be purposeful.) Frankly, this is something our regular interlocutors consistently and persistently fail to do.john_a_designer
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Set aside the local pastor writing the op-ed (see timothya @32). And set aside Ken Ham, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Bill Nye, Duane Gish, etc…all of whom argue on the basis of religion. Even set aside ID leaders like Meyer and Dembski. We’ve got a post yesterday highlighting a journal article advocating panspermia from pro-evolution (non-ID, non-creationist) scientists who say that the current neo-Darwinian paradigm can’t explain the Cambrian explosion, or the origin of life, or the complexity of octopi (or any of a wide-range of complex animals). The authors make the case against any known neo-Darwinian process being capable of evolving the Octopus. For them, frozen Octopi eggs flying in on comets 270 MYA is a more plausible, parsimonious explanation than evolution. Almost comically, the authors retreat to safe ground and assure the readers that they are firmly part of the evolutionist tribe, even as they saw off the branch they are sitting on. Yeah, I’d say there’s cracks in the dam.cmow
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @74: Much as I respect the contributors to the Dissent from Darwin list, I don't think their number (maybe 1,000) is sufficient to demonstrate that evolutionary biology is suffering a crisis of confidence. There are probably 20,000 or more Ph.D.-holding biologists in the USA, about 95% of whom accept macroevolution as established fact, and probably about 80% of whom are confident that neo-Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism touched up with a bit of drift and a bit of horizontal gene transfer etc., supplies a sufficient mechanism for evolution. I wouldn't call such numbers indicative of a crisis of confidence among scientists regarding evolution, though they might indicate growing doubts among some biologists, especially those who specialize in evolutionary mechanisms, about the adequacy of the Modern Synthesis. I'd say there was a crisis of confidence in "evolution" (as opposed to "Darwinian theory of evolutionary mechanism") if, say, 20% of biologists now doubted that macroevolution even happened -- but that's not where we are at today. What the Dissent from Darwin list shows is that doubt about Darwinian mechanisms (which is really all that it covers, not evolution itself) is now no longer the province of a few fundamentalists with shaky or no academic qualifications, but is to be found in many accomplished scientists whose credentials are not in doubt, many of whom are not only not fundamentalists but not even Christian or conventionally religious at all. That is a new development. It's a promising development, but to call it a "crisis of confidence" is journalistic hyperbole. If you want a metaphor for the meaning of the Dissent from Darwin list, I'd say it's more like an increasing number of small cracks in the Darwinian dam, which might eventually lead to cracks in the larger dam of macroevolution itself. But the first step is to dethrone Darwin and neo-Darwinism. Until that is done, virtually no biologist would even consider going further to question evolution itself. And even after it is done, the materialistic majority of working biologists will rush into damage control mode to try to find some other mechanism of evolution that is equally as aimless and unguided as the neo-Darwinian one, in order to maintain their materialistic world-view. So it's going to be a long time yet before it will be possible for a working scientist to openly doubt the occurrence of macroevolution, and not be punished (by complete loss of scientific career) for doing so, no matter how many superb peer-reviewed papers he/she produces on biological subjects other than evolution. But the day is already here when younger and mid-career biologists are freely sassing neo-Darwinism, which in 1970 would have been almost unthinkable for anyone but a very few highly-placed biologists who were in an academic position from which they could not be fired. So there has been progress of a sort.eddieunmuzzled
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Bob (and weave) O'Hara tries to mislead people once again and claims,,,
Evolution does not need to be used in everything, but that doesn’t mean it can be forgotten about or rejected.
Contrary to what Bob and other Darwinian atheists may believe, Darwinian evolution, and the presuppositions therein, are completely useless, even harmful, for the practice of science and medicine.
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).
As Phillip Skell stated in an article entitled, 'Why Do We Invoke Darwin?', "in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss." and "Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
Jerry Coyne himself agrees with Skell's overall sentiment that Darwinian presuppositions are practically useless:
“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).)
Michael Egnor notes that "Medical science is remarkably successful,,, all without Darwin."
Against "Darwinian Medicine" – Dr. Michael Egnor - August 9, 2016 Excerpt: Darwinist Randolph Nesse has been peddling "Darwinian Medicine" for years.,,, He argues for integration of Darwinian science into medical school curricula,,, The very admission that Darwinism has had no role in medical science is a telling argument not for its inclusion, but for its irrelevance. Medical science is remarkably successful. Antibiotics, cybernetics, cancer chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants, hip replacements, heart transplants, and a host of near-miraculous advances have greatly extended our lifespan and improved the quality of our lives -- all without Darwin. Whether or not Darwinian hypotheses can be teased out of some medical advances, it is simply a fact that doctors and medical researchers pay no attention to Darwinian speculations in their work, and their work has been astonishingly successful. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/against_darwini103058.html
As the following leading Doctor admitted, his career was "at no point aided by an understanding of Darwinian evolution" and in fact "a lack of understanding of design in physiology may hinder their (a young doctor's) performance."
Why Understanding Intelligent Design Helps Us to Understand Physiology - Philip Anderson - March 23, 2017 Excerpt: The progress of my career from wide-eyed and nervous first year medical student to head of an anesthesiology department and examiner for the Colleges of Medicine of South Africa was at no point aided by an understanding of Darwinian evolution, even though I was taught it and was first in my university class in biology. And my understanding of Darwinian evolution has not in any way benefited the manner in which I treat patients. Quite the opposite! Every year, when I give the annual opening address at our hospital when welcoming new graduates and senior medical officers, I point out that it is only when you understand the human body as the pinnacle of design that you can truly care for patients. Studying the Darwinian theory of evolution at medical school may align the beliefs of medical students with those of their colleagues in the biology department, but it in no way benefits them as physicians or helps them practice medicine. On the contrary, as the candidate I was helping illustrates, a lack of understanding of design in physiology may hinder their performance. A student happy to embrace design will have one less mental hurdle to overcome. https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/why-understanding-intelligent-design-helps-us-to-understand-physiology/
In fact, in so far as Darwinian thinking has informed medical opinions, it has led to much medical malpractice:
Evolution’s “vestigial organ” argument debunked Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). “Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/
Moreover, testing medicines on animals is largely a huge failure precisely because of the false evolutionary assumption of common ancestry:
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? – Mouse Models Excerpt: A recent scientific paper showed that all 150 drugs tested at the cost of billions of dollars in human trials of sepsis failed because the drugs had been developed using mice. Unfortunately, what looks like sepsis in mice turned out to be very different than what sepsis is in humans. Coverage of this study by Gina Kolata in the New York Times incited a heated response from within the biomedical research community. AZRA RAZA – Professor of medicine and director of the MDS Centre, Columbia University, New York http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-edge-org Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint Excerpt: The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances.,,, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous.,,, Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science.aspx Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack – Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide – 2005 Excerpt: we have many characteristics that are uniquely human. Table 1 lists some of the definite and possible phenotypic traits that appear to differentiate us from chimpanzees and other “great apes”2. For the most part, we do not know which genetic features interact with the environment to generate these differences between the “phenomes”3 of our two species. The chimpanzee has also long been seen as a model for human diseases because of its close evolutionary relationship. This is indeed the case for a few disorders. Nevertheless, it is a striking paradox that chimpanzees are in fact not good models for many major human diseases/conditions (see Table 2) (Varki 2000; Olson and Varki 2003). http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
And let's not forget Darwinian presuppostions misleading researchers in molecular biology, for years and years, with its false prediction of junk DNA. As Ewan Birney himself stated "This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."
Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome" - Casey Luskin - September 5, 2012 Excerpt: The Discover Magazine article further explains that the rest of the 20% of the genome is likely to have function as well: "And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."" We will have more to say about this blockbuster paper from ENCODE researchers in coming days, but for now, let's simply observe that it provides a stunning vindication of the prediction of intelligent design that the genome will turn out to have mass functionality for so-called "junk" DNA. ENCODE researchers use words like "surprising" or "unprecedented." They talk about of how "human DNA is a lot more active than we expected." But under an intelligent design paradigm, none of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what ID predicted. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html
Bob (and weave) also tried to claim that Intelligent Design was useless to biology. Yet biology is infused with teleology, (end directed goals, i.e. design thinking). In fact, "the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology". Moreover, it is impossible to describe the complexities of molecular biology "in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness".
The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
To reiterate, Darwinian evolution, and the presuppositions therein, are completely useless, even harmful, to the practice of science and medicine.bornagain77
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Mike Gene, author of "The Design Matrix" had an essay about Intelligent Design that opened with:
"What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena. For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins – with a question":
Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?
"The first thing to note about the question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it."
Science 101- try to determine how whatever it is you are investigating came to be the way it is What is Intelligent Design?:
Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece. The most famous version of the design argument can be found in the work of theologian William Paley, who in 1802 proposed his "watchmaker" thesis.
Well before any Creationist movement of the 1960sET
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Amblyrhynchus:
The ID movement was, depending on who you asked, about teaching creationism in schools or replacing evolutionary biology as a science.
Those people are wrong on both counts. ID is an argument against blind watchmaker evolution- the untestable idea that life's diversity arose via blind and mindless processes, like natural selection and drift, starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. And ID is not Creationism. Creationism- YEC, OEC and Progressive- are all subsets of ID but ID is more than the subsets of Creationism.ET
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
And they are welcome to believe that.Amblyrhynchus
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Some people believe that they should be able to teach ID in schools without any penalty.Silver Asiatic
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
sure, your personal beliefs are your own.Amblyrhynchus
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
A
So, you could be a really great population ecologist who believed in phlogiston or ID or young each creationism.
Yes, you can do great work in biology and reject Darwin at the same time.
But, more to the point, all scientists (and all people) are welcome to believe whatever they want.
Do you, personally, "welcome" any and all beliefs a person may have?Silver Asiatic
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
I understood this as “evolution is one important aspect but there are areas of biology that do not require an acceptance of it.” In other words, evolution is not a “theory of biology” as a whole since it does not explain some parts of biology. Correct? Or does evolution give the foundation and meaning to all biology?
You are getting progressively stranger as this thread wears on. You may want to step back? In response to this latest tack.... physics and chemistry are both fundamental to all of biology. Most (but not all) ecologists won't have to call of the prinicpals of physics or O. chem in their work. So, you could be a really great population ecologist who believed in phlogiston or ID or young each creationism. That doesn't do much to undermine the importance of physics or evolutionary biology, it just means it's possible to do good research in some areas with out calling on the tools and principals of those sciences. But, more to the point, all scientists (and all people) are welcome to believe whatever they want. The ID movement was, depending on who you asked, about teaching creationism in schools or replacing evolutionary biology as a science. It has failed on both counts. That neither ID nor evolutionary biology are of vital importance to some fields of biology doesn't change that in any way.Amblyrhynchus
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Bob O'H
Evolution does not need to be used in everything, but that doesn’t mean it can be forgotten about or rejected. Probability theory isn’t used in everything either, but anyone suggesting it can thus be forgotten or dismissed would be viewed as eccentric (to say the least).
If evolution is not required in that field of biology then it can be dismissed or forgotten about with no negative impact to that science. Astrology is not required for the study of mathematics. So, astrology can be dismissed or forgotten about by anyone studying or teaching math with no negative consequences. The same is true for evolution and some parts of biology.
This is absurd – if evolution is irrelevant for a subject, then so is biological ID: they both try to explain the same phenomena.
That's fine. Some biologists want to believe in evolution. Others may want to accept ID. This would have no impact on the quality of their science.
So why would you teach one irrelevant subject because another is irrelevant?
If you're saying that biologists who work in certain aspects of ecology should not be required to know anything about evolution, then yes. There should be no requirement for those biologists to accept Darwin. Darwin would be totally irrelevant to that aspect of biology - adding nothing. As for ID, some may want to know about Intelligent Design and they could freely adhere to that theory and be equally qualified in those same areas of biology. In other words, there should be no opposition to IDists who work in those areas of biology. Their acceptance of ID has nothing to do with their biological qualifications.Silver Asiatic
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Bob O'H:
Evolution does not need to be used in everything, but that doesn’t mean it can be forgotten about or rejected.
How are you defining "evolution", Bob? And ID isn't limited to biology. That's its beauty. It is supported by several scientific venues.ET
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Yes, some parts do and therefore some parts do not need evolution – evolution can be dismissed (forgotten about, ignored, disregarded, rejected, etc). It is not an theory that all biological research requires. I think that’s what you were saying, right?
Err, not quite. Evolution does not need to be used in everything, but that doesn't mean it can be forgotten about or rejected. Probability theory isn't used in everything either, but anyone suggesting it can thus be forgotten or dismissed would be viewed as eccentric (to say the least).
Well, I mean for those scientists who believe ID or Creationism is true, then they could teach those ideas on the development of the biological world and it would have no impact for better or worse on that field of study.
This is absurd - if evolution is irrelevant for a subject, then so is biological ID: they both try to explain the same phenomena. So why would you teach one irrelevant subject because another is irrelevant?Bob O'H
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Bob O'H
I explicitly pointed out that some parts of ecology DO use evolutionary biology.
Yes, some parts do and therefore some parts do not need evolution - evolution can be dismissed (forgotten about, ignored, disregarded, rejected, etc). It is not an theory that all biological research requires. I think that's what you were saying, right? You said "Evolution is one important aspect, but (for example) a lot of ecology doesn’t invoke evolution ..." I understood this as "evolution is one important aspect but there are areas of biology that do not require an acceptance of it." In other words, evolution is not a "theory of biology" as a whole since it does not explain some parts of biology. Correct? Or does evolution give the foundation and meaning to all biology?
Why would we teach students theories that are widely rejected by the scientific community?
Well, I mean for those scientists who believe ID or Creationism is true, then they could teach those ideas on the development of the biological world and it would have no impact for better or worse on that field of study. In those "some areas of ecology" where evolution plays no role, then those students who accept Intelligent Design or Creationism could be just as effective in their field of biology as anyone who learned Darwinian theory. Darwin, creationism, ID or any other idea on origin of species would be irrelevant to that field of biology. Correct?Silver Asiatic
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Earth to Bob O'H- The question is what does the blind watchmaker have to do with evolution? When you say "evolutionary biology" are you referring to "blind watchmaker evolution" or some other "evolution"?ET
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
SA @ 72 - Eh? Your logic escapes me. It doesn't help that you twist my worlds - I didn't way that evolution can be dismissed. I explicitly pointed out that some parts of ecology DO use evolutionary biology. The same is true for other areas of biology: evolutionary biology impinges on them, but a lot of the time it is not necessary to consider, because different questions are being asked. Your suggestion is akin suggesting that because relativity is not used in a lot of physics, we can teach those students the theory of aether instead. Why would we teach students theories that are widely rejected by the scientific community?Bob O'H
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
There are many weaknesses with evolutionism, ie the alleged theory of evolution. Here are just a few: 1- It makes untestable claims 2- It doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes 3- There aren't any predictions borne from its proposed mechanisms 4- There isn't a scientific theory of evolutionET
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
eddieunmuzzled
It expresses doubts about the adequacy of the (neo-)Darwinian theory, not about the confidence of evolutionary biologists.
The crisis of confidence was with regards to the theory. But you're thinking it was about their own self-confidence? Ok, yes, if Bob was thinking that the topic is discussing the personal self-confidence of biologists then yes, the Dissent from Darwin list doesn't touch upon that. But when a group of academics and professionals dissent against the dominant scientific and philosophical idea in the world today (which evolution is, and it must be evaluated by more than just biologists) - then it's a sign of a crisis of confidence for the theory. That has nothing to do with whether a person feels confident in his or her own personal qualities or character or mode of life.Silver Asiatic
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
jdk
She then goes on to explain that critics of evolution search the literature for anomalies (matters of detail subject to some uncertainty and further investigation) and then use those to claim that the whole notion of evolution as descent by modification and common ancestry is invalid, which is, as she says, “not how science is done.”
I think Einstein was quite concerned with mathematical detail when trying to prove his theory. Looking for areas where a theory does not line up with reality is "how science is done". Evolution, however, seems to want to be protected from that ordinary sort of questioning. ID also, does not claim that the whole notion of evolution is invalid.Silver Asiatic
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Bob O
a lot of ecology doesn’t invoke evolution, because ecologists are often looking at short time scales and at aspects of biology where intra-specific variation can be ignored. Thus a lot of ecological theory doesn’t depend on evolutionary biology (although other ecological theory does use evolutionary biology).
If evolutionary theory can be dismissed in those areas of biology then Intelligent Design or Creationism could be taught to students pursuing those fields.Silver Asiatic
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
jdk
Mercer says, “You are saying there are no weaknesses in evolution.” Genie replies, “Not in the sense that the term weaknesses is used in this rarified environment.” Notice, she does not say “yes”.
So she thinks there are weaknesses in evolutionary theory then, right?Silver Asiatic
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Bob O'Hara: You wrote: "I made that comment in response to the Dissent from Darwin list being used as evidence for the claim that evolutionary biology has experienced a crisis of confidence. In that specific context I think it’s only reasonable to look at evolutionary biologists." All right; I agree that the Dissent from Darwin list is not about whether or not evolutionary biologists are confident. It expresses doubts about the adequacy of the (neo-)Darwinian theory, not about the confidence of evolutionary biologists. So against your opponent, you win on that point. Still, I raised some serious questions about the way these debates generally go. If you have followed these debates, you will know that many people have said things along the lines of what I described. So I'm looking for your view on whether those statements are justified. 1. For example, I have read many times in different places, "Behe is not qualified to comment on evolution because he is a biochemist, not a biologist." Do you think the reasoning there is sound? Do you think that the subject of evolution "belongs" to biologists and that biochemists have nothing to say about it? If that reasoning is solid, then Larry Moran is not qualified to comment on evolution, either, but he comments on it at length, and seems to regard himself as one of the world's experts on the subject. Is it in your view right to say that biochemists aren't competent to debate evolution, but then make an exception for Moran -- or for anyone? 2. I've known many scientists, and an almost universal characteristic of theirs is a careful avoidance of "speaking out of their field." This goes so far that sometimes even a chemist won't comment on the work of another chemist ("That's not my branch of chemistry"), and I know of one case where a trained astrophysicist and department chair wouldn't comment on some of Hawking's work because it wasn't in his "area" of astrophysics. Even parts of astrophysics were out of the astrophysicist's field! But in the blogosphere, in popular books, and on the university and mass media debating circuit, where the subject is evolution, suddenly *every* biologist (whether with any serious training in evolutionary theory or not) is an expert on evolution; in fact, scores of computer programmers, physicists, astronomers, and others also regard themselves as experts on evolution, and pontificate on it, lashing out at anyone who questions their understanding of it. Can you account for why the caution and modesty normally found among scientists in everyday scientific practice gets thrown out the window when the subject is evolution? For why every scientist and his mother-in-law feels competent to set the world straight on evolution? Would you say that a little more professional restraint is in order?eddieunmuzzled
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
eddieunmuzzled @ 66 - I made that comment in response to the Dissent from Darwin list being used as evidence for the claim that evolutionary biology has experienced a crisis of confidence. In that specific context I think it's only reasonable to look at evolutionary biologists.Bob O'H
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
SA @ 63 - thank you for acknowledging you were wrong. Next time please check your facts. To be frank, I have no idea what a single theory of biology would even look like: there are simply so many different aspects to it. Evolution is one important aspect, but (for example) a lot of ecology doesn't invoke evolution, because ecologists are often looking at short time scales and at aspects of biology where intra-specific variation can be ignored. Thus a lot of ecological theory doesn't depend on evolutionary biology (although other ecological theory does use evolutionary biology).Bob O'H
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
SA @ 62 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeS4hdVm318&t=133s “You’re saying … there are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution?” E.S. “(Yes, I am)”
Thank you for that link, it's interesting, but if anything it undermines your claim. Now can you provide one where Genie Scott says that there are no weaknesses in evolution, please.
Evolutionary theory has nothing to contribute and can be rejected or ignored in the study of all those kinds of biology? Or is rather that evolution the foundation and necessary component in in those fields of study
Neither. The reality is somewhere in between, and where it is varies depending on the subject.Bob O'H
August 7, 2018
August
08
Aug
7
07
2018
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
Bob O'Hara: "The Dissent from Darwin list in [sic] well known: few are biologists (let alone evolutionary biologists)." What is that supposed to mean? That only the specialists known as "evolutionary biologists" are qualified to talk about evolution? If that's the case, then some of the leading loudmouths in the public debate about evolution, for example, Ken Miller, cell biologist, Kathryn Applegate, cell biologist, Deb Haarsma, astronomer, Karl Giberson, physicist, Eugenie Scott, anthropologist, Sam Harris, psychologist, Christopher Hitchens, political/social commentator, Bill Nye, popular science educator sans Ph.D. in anything, Steven Weinberg, cosmologist, P.Z. Myers, some sort of biologist (but not an evolutionary biologist), Elizabeth Liddle, cellist, architect, and neuroscientist, Daniel Dennett, philosopher, and many others aren't qualified to talk about evolution. Yet all these people do talk about evolution, with great confidence, often swaggering confidence; and you've never scorned their aid and assistance, have you? Or even if you allow anyone called "biologist" at the table, that still leaves out Larry Moran (biochemist, not biologist; many anti-ID folks used to argue that Michael Behe had no right to talk about evolution because he's only a biochemist, not a biologist), and several other biochemists, including Denis Alexander, the big British propagandist for Darwinism, and it still leaves out the aforementioned exclusions. Even if you widen the definition of "biologist" to include biochemists like Moran and anthropologists like Eugenie Scott, you would still be leaving out Dennett, Harris, Weinberg, a huge number of BioLogos and ASA scientists who are pro-Darwin, etc. So if you are going to exclude the scores of scientists on the Dissent from Darwin list who aren't "biologists" in whatever sense you mean the term, you are going to have to scratch off Dennett, Harris, Weinberg, and some of the other culture-war leaders on your side. Are you prepared to be consistent to that extent? How about the pro-Darwinian, anti-ID people who control all the articles about evolution and ID on Wikipedia? None of them will even give their real names, so it's impossible to verify their qualifications, but it's clear that none of them have graduate-level training in any branch of biology, let alone a specialty such as evolutionary biology. Their thought is entirely derivative; they merely repeat tropes from Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, Jerry Coyne, etc., without any scientific understanding of their own. Are you prepared to grant that the Wikipedia editors have no business in the public debates over evolution, on the grounds that they aren't evolutionary biologists or even biologists, and are too cowardly to reveal their names and qualifications? You seem to be advocating a "gatekeeper" approach, whereby one needs a certain union card in order to deserve a hearing. That would be fine if you applied it consistently, but I don't think you are doing that. Either the criterion is formal training and/or publications in evolutionary theory (which cuts out a whole mess of the best-known popular advocates for Darwinism), or the criterion is knowledge of evolutionary theory, however acquired, even if one is formally in another field (which allows not only the aforementioned people but lots of other people you won't like so much). If you go for the "formal training" option, then you have to deal with the fact that many critics of Darwinian theory have more than ample formal training in evolutionary biology, including James Shapiro, Richard Sternberg, Gunter Wagner, and even (at some points) Stephen Jay Gould, who mocked the tendency of Darwinians to invent "just-so" selectionist stories. Do these anti-Darwinian evolutionary theorists deserve a place at the table, in your view? Or is it only those with formal training who also pay obeisance to neo-Darwinism who count? If you go for the "knowledge of evolutionary theory, however acquired, even if one is a philosopher of science or astronomer or physicist or geographer or something else" option, then you can't include philosopher Dan Dennett without also including philosopher of biology Paul Nelson, whose knowledge on the technical biological side dwarfs Dennett's (and Miller's, and Eugenie Scott's, and many others who claim great knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms but don't read the current technical literature, which Nelson does voraciously). Lots of people on the Dissent from Darwin list have knowledge of evolutionary theory, even if they aren't "evolutionary biologists" or even "biologists". Other scientists, historians of science, philosophers of science, often know quite a bit about evolutionary theory. As much as Dan Dennett or Sam Harris or even Ken Miller do. (Miller's understanding of evolutionary theory is theoretically circa about 1975.) So how about offering some consistent criteria about who is qualified to have an opinion on evolution, ID, etc.?eddieunmuzzled
August 6, 2018
August
08
Aug
6
06
2018
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
I am very glad that SA found a video of Genie's response at the Texas Board meeting. I am, however, a bit appalled (although unfortunately not surprised) at how badly Genie's answer was misrepresented in the posts above. Genie did NOT say, "There are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory”. When asked if there were weaknesses by Texas Board member Mercer in the context of a discussion about putting a statement about "strengths and weaknesses" into state high school science standards, the conversation went as follows: Mercer says, "You are saying there are no weaknesses in evolution." Genie replies, "Not in the sense that the term weaknesses is used in this rarified environment." Notice, she does not say "yes". She then goes on to explain that critics of evolution search the literature for anomalies (matters of detail subject to some uncertainty and further investigation) and then use those to claim that the whole notion of evolution as descent by modification and common ancestry is invalid, which is, as she says, "not how science is done." To claim that Genie said "There are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory” is intellectually dishonest.jdk
August 6, 2018
August
08
Aug
6
06
2018
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply