Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Merely a Theory

Categories
Darwinism
Evolution
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Evolutionists continue to be much exercised about evolution being treated as “merely a theory,” arguing that to identify it as such is as disreputable as treating gravity or the second law as “merely a theory.” But consider, as a close colleague recently reminded me:

The late Ernst Mayr, a Harvard professor called “the Dean of American Evolutionists ” wrote in his 1976 book Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays:

“When I lectured in the mid-1950’s to a small audience in Copenhagen, the great physicist Niels Bohr stated in the discussion that he could not conceive how accidental mutations could account for the immense diversity of the organic world and its remarkable adaptations. As far as he was concerned, the period of 3 billion years since life had originated was too short by several orders of magnitude to achieve all of this.” (Quoted from page 53; the book is online at Google Books.)

Stanislaw Ulam, with Edward Teller the inventor of the thermonuclear bomb (the Teller-Ulam mechanism) wrote in his paper given at the Wistar Conference on Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution in 1966:

“[Darwinism] seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent.” (Ulam’s remark on page 21 of the Wistar conference Proceedings.)

In other words, Bohr and Ulam both believed that Darwinism was a false theory. If Darwinism is false, then it cannot be a fact. It can only be a theory.

Do evolutionists think that Bohr and Ulam were anti-science crackpots? Did they doubt the validity of the law of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics? Were they ignorant of these laws?

Comments
Great find! The arguement for Darwin continues to be less and less logical. Abiogenesis aside, the sheer probability of it all is jaw-dropping!christianguy
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PST
Biology is explained by chemistry. Chemistry is explained by physics. Physics is explained by law and statistical mechanics. If a physicist tells a biologist that something doesn’t make sense in the light of physical law and statistical mechanics you’d better pay attention to it rather than ignorantly accuse the physicist of speaking outside his field of expertise. You said it, brother. What ever happened to that physicist that used to comment around here? Hebble or Heddel?poachy
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PST
Golden Standard Reply: "They're not biologists." Of course, we all know this is not the only criterion demanded by darwisciples. It is only the first step in gaining entry into the most exclusive "cult-like" club the world has ever known. In order to question Darwin, you must, in addition to having a biology degree: "be a graduate of a prestigious university" At least this was one of the complaints I remember reading when the Discovery Institute started the dissenters list. With a coveted degree in hand, the next step is to "publish in refereed journals" But as we found out with a Cuban astronomer-type dude, this is not enough.... "articles must have enough scientific rigor to be classed as quality scientific papers" And, just to make sure young punks "know-it-alls" are weeded out, "publications must be of a sufficiently reasonable quantity to be deemed worthy of having a respectable effect on academia" But who are we kidding? Have we forgotten that the very first step, indeed, the most important and decisive factor is not to question Darwin at all, because that would disqualify you from the get go? If such is the case, then none of the above really matters as any Richard Sternberg would emphatically let you know, ergo the Golden Standard Reply is really rather vacuous.JPCollado
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST
Gib at 17 It appears you do not appreciate the incredibly astronomically low probabilities involved. These are far beyond taking * ALL the time since the big bang times * ALL the particles in the universe times * the Maximum rate of combining all particles, (inverse Plank time) * further reduced many times to consider multiple options. (See Dembski for technical and mathematical descriptions.)
"Abiogenesis isn’t about the first cell. It’s about the first “life”, which is simpler than a cell."
Charitably I call that quibbling over definitions of "cell" and "life." It pales in comparison to the probabilities involved. Other than microevolution = any mutation or change, Evolution writ large is not credible in having the creative power to form the tightly matched biological complexity we are now just beginning to see.DLH
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PST
chuck your GPS, phone, automatic guidance systems, and the automatic door at the supermarket are all demonstrable results of physics The demonstrable results of employing what the physicists tell the engineers what to expect in the way of precise, predictable behavior of matter and energy is more apt. By the way, it's a bit amusing that you'd point out to Professor Dembski what Karl Popper wrote. Dembski holds a PhD in the philosophy of science. He's not just studied Popper, he's in Popper's peer group if you don't exclude the fact that Dembski also holds a PhD in statistical probability along with a master's in divinity which arguably elevates him beyond Popper's peer group. It's like Doctor Doctor Reverend Dembski although I'm never sure which order that should go in. :) This is why I also find it amusing when practioners of science pretend to tell Dembski what science is and is not. They are in fact speaking outside their field of expertise. DaveScot
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PST
Mapou, Oh, I agree. Yet, while I am impressed by Popper and Kuhn - Feyarabend goes too far, removing the essence of what makes science special as an enterprise. The predictions of physicists are so exact as to be truly awe-inspiring. And the same cannot be said of Darwinism. Really, physics is head and shoulders above biology. Dismissing physics goes too far; you know, there's a thing called repeatable experimentation: your GPS, phone, automatic guidance systems, and the automatic door at the supermarket are all demonstrable results of physics.chuckhumphry
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PST
The laws of gravity are wrong! There are incompatibilities between relativity and quantum mechanics. Perhaps physicists will be more happy for a ID based solution.wq1
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PST
porkchop Obviously you have no understanding of the hierarchy in science. Biology is explained by chemistry. Chemistry is explained by physics. Physics is explained by law and statistical mechanics. If a physicist tells a biologist that something doesn't make sense in the light of physical law and statistical mechanics you'd better pay attention to it rather than ignorantly accuse the physicist of speaking outside his field of expertise. This is why engineers are more likely than anyone else to scoff at creative evolution by pure chance and necessity. We (speaking for myself and the other engineer/authors on UD) are employers of law and mechanics for purposeful, practical ends. We don't need to see a designer to recognize a design. Design is what we do for a living so who would know more about it? Not a biologist, that's for certain. Any biologist who claims it a fact, or even likely, that the origin and diversity of life is pure chance and necessity is so contradicting physical law and statistical mechanics that, if they weren't so arrogantly wrong, it would be a pathetic display of either ignorance or gullibility to to group-think among their peers. DaveScot
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PST
chuckhumphry: But are there scientists like Dr. Dembski that combat the teachings of Einstein, Bohr, Planck, or Schrödinger? Bias and crackpottery (Darwinism is unmitigated crackpottery, in my opinion) in science is not limited to biology. Any physicist who dares say anything against the teachings of Einstein and relativity is immediately ostracized and would subsequently have a hard time getting published and being funded. Both Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyarabend were right about science. The so-called scientific method that supposedly filters out nonsense and politics out of science is a myth perpetuated by scientists themselves. It takes frequent periodic revolutions to unseat inadequate and erroneous scientific paradigms and the most Kuhnian scientific revolutions are yet to come. It's human nature to be biased.Mapou
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PST
DonaldM, But are there scientists like Dr. Dembski that combat the teachings of Einstein, Bohr, Planck, or Schrödinger? Darwinists clearly make the forced analogy to a real scientific discipline: physicists have the peer-reviewed journals and revolutionary papers.chuckhumphry
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PST
Has anyone heard a physicist say that such and such a theory of physics is as well established as evolution?DonaldM
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PST
Do evolutionists think that Bohr and Ulam were anti-science crackpots? Not crackpots, but are they good at the oddsmaking business? The chances of any one human developing in the womb can--at the most--be placed at about 500 MILLION to 1. Yet here I am. I should stare in the mirror every day and wonder how that happened, and so should all the other long shots. Now of course in those odds it is likely that among 500 million sperm cells another one would have hit the mark and someone other than you would be around that looked like you but was not in fact you. So naturally this is not a matter of "no humans at all"--just you. Combine this with the reality that in modern times many pregnancies are lost even today and others are actively prevented from fruition and you even lower that odds of conception to a fraction of ancient times routines. The advantage is that once born you are more likely to live past age 2 than in those ancient times and live in a more comfortable planet. The real secret here is not the extrapolation of what SETI is seeking to "prove" the ease at which life might evolve, using the notion that since earth and sun are rather ordinary chunks with some spicey minerals and lots of liquid and that our style sun is now known to be common (as are extra-solar planets, which were not known until the 1980s or so) but rather the alleged long odds of abiogenesis. The Cosmos is a big place. If you could pave a road to Proxima Centauri and get enough out of Exxon to drive you there, it would take 48 million years one way at 60 mi per hour leisure. Beyond this lie objects and destinations that would tax the most advanced civilization to even visit at the speed of light. There is almost no question, after discovering Gliese (which probably has some liquid water) that stars and accompanying planets that fall within the range of lisghtly cool to the touch to a warm cup of coffee have all the elements necessary to form life. The question is: How common is this?S Wakefield Tolbert
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PST
DLH @ 14, Your response exactly indicates why people speaking outside their field can get things so wrong. While their maths might be right, their assumptions and conclusions might not be. Assuming Stanislaw Ulam's maths are right for now, what he's shown is that if you go back 4 billion years, and start again, that the chances of humans evolving again are extremely low. That's not news to anyone. Shuffle a deck of cards. Lay all 52 out. The sequence that you got is extremely improbable. But you were going to get something.... Abiogenesis isn't about the first cell. It's about the first "life", which is simpler than a cell. We don't know how probable it is, and anyway, the earth had lots of time, and lots of space for it to happen. And it only had to happen ONCE.Gib
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST
PannenbergOmega, you did understand me correctly and the Berlinski article hits the nail on the head!Stephen Morris
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PST
Gib at 6
Well, this is just an argument from authority, . . .Niels Bohr, Stanislaw Ulam, were great scientists. But they were not biologists.
I believe you have overlooked the fact that they are speaking from their exceptional authority in the probability of numerous successive reactions. See:
“[Darwinism] seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent.”
If you run even back of the envelope math, even a few thousand successive reactions with a probability of 0.5 quickly exceeds Dembski's Universal Probability Bound of say 1 in 10^120. If nothing else "Evolution" founders on the astronomically low probability of abiogenesis - of the occurrence of the first self reproducing cell that is essential for "natural selection". Applying population dynamics probabilities to subsequent "macroevlution" quickly shows that near neutral harmful mutations accumulate much faster than the exceedingly rare "beneficial" mutations. See John C. Sanford, # Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, 2006, Elim Publications. Elim, NY. 208 pages. ISBN 1599190028. Bohr and Ulam's not being biologists does not invalidate their argument based on their expertise in mathematics and physics which still applies.DLH
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PST
Dr. Dembski, You might be interested in some of the work of Karl Popper. His early work provides a heavy philosophical reason to reject evolutionary "theory":
Quite apart from evolutionary philosophies, the trouble about evolutionary theory is its tautological, or almost tautological, character: the difficulty is that Darwinism and natural selection, though extremely important, explain evolution by ‘the survival of the fittest’ (a term due to Herbert Spencer). Yet there does not seem to be much difference, if any, between the assertion ‘those that survive are the fittest’ and the tautology ‘those that survive are those that survive’. For we have, I am afraid, no other criterion of fitness than actual survival, so that we conclude from the fact that some organisms have survived that they were the fittest, or those best adapted to the conditions of life.
Popper, K.R.: 1972, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Clarendon Press, Oxford. p. 241-242chuckhumphry
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST
Darwinists never seem to come to grips with the power of combinatorial explosion. This is a mystery to me, because it's a very easy concept to grasp. In order to demonstrate the power of combinatorics, when I was a kid my dad asked me if I'd rather he give me a million dollars all at once, or give me a penny today, two pennies tomorrow, four pennies the day after, eight pennies the day after that, etc., for a month. Of course, 2^30 pennies is more than 10 million dollars, so I'd ask for the doubling pennies. Another example is the game of chess, which has a branching factor of 35 (that is, a statistical average of 35 possible moves on each player's turn during a typical game). There are 10^120 possible chess positions and 10^80 possible legal positions reachable over the board in actual play. This is why games like chess last for centuries without being played out. A single 100-amino-acid protein represents 20^100, or 10^130, and there are only an estimated 10^80 elementary particles in the known universe. But this is just the beginning, because most functional proteins must interact with other proteins, which function within higher-level machinery in the cell, which interact with each other, etc. Michael Denton calls it "wheels of complexity within wheels of complexity." The blind-watchmaker thesis is pure nonsense on its face. The numbers become so huge so quickly that no amount of fancy footwork will allow you to dance your way out of an obvious fatal flaw. Belief in blind-watchmaker Darwinism really is blind faith in the beyond-miraculous. I've linked to my essay on writing computer programs by random mutation and natural selection before, but here it is again for those who might not have seen it.GilDodgen
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PST
Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated for those who choose to ignore it.
Just so the obvious is stated again, the reason Bill even mentions those questions is because Darwinists have become enamored with personally attacking by equating those who doubt Darwinism with those who doubt gravity. You answer no, so why are ID proponents maligned for doing the same?Patrick
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PST
StephenMorris, if I understand you correctly, I agree. What research in the laboratory and in observation of the natural world have shown is that Darwinism is either wrong or not the whole story. If you will permit me to share this with you, check out this article by David Berlinski. http://www.discovery.org/a/2447 Berlinski does an excellent job of dividing the facts, from Darwinist hype.PannenbergOmega
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PST
For a recent detailed survey on beliefs see: Evolution, Religion and Free Will The most eminent evolutionary scientists have surprising views on how religion relates to evolution, Gregory W. Graffin, William B. Provine, The American Scientist July-August 2007. Graffin & Provine found 72% of evolutionists self identified as atheists while 0.7% self identified as theists. From this I infer that most evolutionists a priori presume that intelligent causation is not possible. Since we exist, they then infer evolution must be a fact. This is a logical fallacy of begging the question or circular reasoning based on too narrow assumptions that exclude some of the logical options. PS Or the logical fallacy of the false dilemma taken to the extreme that there is no alternative.DLH
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PST
Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated for those who choose to ignore it. :)the wonderer
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PST
"Do evolutionists think that Bohr and Ulam were anti-science crackpots? Did they doubt the validity of the law of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics? Were they ignorant of these laws?" No.the wonderer
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PST
Well, this is just an argument from authority, but let's discuss the authorities anyway. Niels Bohr, Stanislaw Ulam, were great scientists. But they were not biologists. There are probably a few great biologists who would have similar comments regarding quantum theory. Someone is only an authority inside their own field(s). Even then, authorities can be wrong. What they say about other fields is often interesting, but not pursuasive on anything.Gib
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST
I've said it before and I'll say it again: When an event is beyond improbable, the only other option available is design. I never knew that Bohr and Ulam were both anti-Darwinists. Excellent post, Dr. William Dembski. On this website you learn something new every day.chuckhumphry
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PST
A key factor is that evolutionists use a "definition" of "evolution" so broad as to encompass both any change or mutations ("microevolution" such as in pathogens) and formation of a species or genus ("macroevolution" e.g. humans from bacteria). Distinguishing between "microevolution" of any change, that is widely acknowledged versus "atelic macroevolution" of species formation without intelligent intervention (which is not widely accepted except among materialists) will go along way towards political and scientific resolution of such "facts" vs "theories". PS About 95% of biologists in The National Academy of Scientists are self selected to hold to atelic macroevolution - exclusively by non-intelligent natural causes. e.g. Graffin and Provine summarize:
Edward J. Larson, professor of law and the history of science at the University of Georgia, and science journalist Larry Witham, both theists, polled National Academy of Sciences members in 1998 and provided further confirmation of Leuba's conjecture. Using Leuba's definitions of God and immortality for direct comparison, they found lower percentages of believers. Only 10 percent of NAS scientists believed in God or immortality, with those figures dropping to 5 percent among biologists.
.DLH
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PST
In view of its lack of predictive power and consequent untestability, surely it would be more accurate to describe Darwinism as "not even a theory" but, at best, a hypothesis. Typically in science, a hypothesis becomes a theory once it has become well-enough developed to make a prediction which can be tested by experiment. If it fails that test then it is relegated even further, from "hypothesis" to "error". In fact there seems plenty of evidence by now to relegate Darwinism to the latter category.Stephen Morris
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PST
If I'm reading this right, no where did Bohr or Ulam themselves make the claim that evolution was "merely a theory". They only expressed doubt as to whether it is true or not. You unnamed colleague is the only who put these words in their mouths. If asked, it seems that they would classify evolution as an unconfirmed hypothesis rather than a theory. But this seems beside the point. If two biologists expressed doubt about some theory of physics based on personal incredulity, would it be proper for physicists to take them seriously?mathstudent
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PST
"Niels Bohr stated in the discussion that he could not conceive how accidental mutations could account for the immense diversity of the organic world and its remarkable adaptations." If Darwinism is a blind, purposeless process, how could anyone say with confidence that it could bring about the elegantly ordered world we live in?PannenbergOmega
February 21, 2008
February
02
Feb
21
21
2008
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply