Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Remy Chauvin Slams Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[From a colleague:] There is a wonderful critique of Darwinism by the French zoologist Remy Chauvin. It is called Le darwinisme, ou La fin d’un mythe [Darwinism, or The end of a myth] (Editions du Rocher, 1997). It is even better, especially for polemical purposes, than the book by Chandebois, previously discussed on this blog. It includes close discussion of many specific cases, with calm and crushing objections (Kettlewell’s moths do not land on the trunks in nature, but under the leaves; Batesian “mimics” also occur among species, both of which are perfectly palatable to predators; etc., etc.). He also gives many statements of Darwinian reasoning that are so logically faulty and empirically vacuous that they would never be publishable in any other area of science. The overall tone is extremely serious and sober, and Chauvin is obviously extremely well informed. He leaves Darwinism in smoking ruins. Best of all, he cannot be accused of partisanship. Far from being a “creationist,” he rather takes the attitude of “a plague on both their houses.” He insists that we have no idea how evolution occurs, and simple scientific honesty compels us to say so.

In this book by Remy Chauvin, there is an amusing anecdote, recounted by the author on the authority of an unnamed friend. Here is a rough and ready translation (pp. 8-9): “[Chauvin’s friend] mentioned to [Dawkins’s wife] that he had observed that whenever anyone wished to speak about evolution with her husband, he would ask them a question: ‘Do you believe in God?’ And if they said yes, then he turned his back on that person. ‘Madame,’ my friend remarked, ‘your husband seems to be very afraid of God.’ ‘Certainly not, Monsieur,’ she replied, ‘but God ought to be very afraid of my husband.’ My friend’s jaw dropped . . .”

Comments
I ain’t no porcupine, Take off your kid gloves Are you ready for the thing called love? …primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast. …the gods could not suffer their insolence to be unrestrained. Zeus… …said: "Methinks I have a plan which will humble their pride and improve their manners; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg." He spoke and cut men in two, like a sorb-apple which is halved for pickling, or as you might divide an egg with a hair; and as he cut them one after another, he bade Apollo give the face and the half of the neck a turn in order that the man might contemplate the section of himself: he would thus learn a lesson of humility. Apollo was also bidden to heal their wounds and compose their forms. So he gave a turn to the face and pulled the skin from the sides all over that which in our language is called the belly, like the purses which draw in, and he made one mouth at the centre, which he fastened in a knot (the same which is called the navel) After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they were on the point of dying from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman as we call them, being the sections of entire men or women, and clung to that. They were being destroyed, when Zeus in pity of them invented a new plan: he turned the parts of generation round to the front, for this had not been always their position and they sowed the seed no longer as hitherto like grasshoppers in the ground, but in one another; and after the transposition the male generated in the female in order that by the mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue… Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the indenture of a man, and he is always looking for his other half… Wherefore let us exhort all men to piety, that we may avoid evil, and obtain the good, of which Love is to us the lord and minister; and let no one oppose him-he is the enemy of the gods who oppose him. For if we are friends of the God and at peace with him we shall find our own true loves, which rarely happens in this world at present.pmob1
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Adrian Walker asks: "But does the fact that love is associated with brain states or even dependent on them in some sense—a fact I concede, by the way—mean that love IS those brain states?" Hi Adrian, You're right that until we completely understand the nature of consciousness, we can't absolutely rule out an immaterial component within it. However, I believe that Occam's Razor suggests we not invoke such a component without a good reason. Perhaps such a reason will emerge, but I tend to doubt it. My doubt is based on the fact that there seems to be very little for an immaterial component to do. Neuroscience shows us that all of the following are utterly dependent on the brain: 1. Will 2. Emotions 3. Morality 4. Memory 5. Consciousness itself 6. Perception 7. Cognition ...and more. If all of these things depend on the brain, then at most the hypothetical immaterial component merely assists with them, and cannot independently perform any of these functions unless joined to a body. Many people find that problematic, because they would like to believe in a full-fledged soul which retains its full personhood after death and continues to carry out most, if not all, of the functions I listed which are inextricably associated with personhood in our minds (for good reason). For more on this, see the discussion starting around comment #8 at https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/564 Regards, Keith S.keiths
December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
For the sake of discussion... Let's accept as a premise that dualism is reality. Who is to say in this functionality "split" between matter and mind that it's not the physical brain that calculates a portion of this thing we call love? So an animal could know love in a fashion yet not to the degree of creatures endowed with full consciousness/mind. Because quite frankly I don't see a reason to defend the notion that animals are complete unfeeling machines.Gumpngreen
December 18, 2005
December
12
Dec
18
18
2005
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
Josh writes: "Because an animal seems to act in a certain way doesn't mean it's actually experiencing moods or feeling anything." Do you really believe that a dog moping under a table because his master has yelled at him isn't "experiencing moods or feeling anything"? And if you're skeptical about that, then why believe that other humans are capable of thinking and feeling? After all, you can't see their thoughts and emotions -- only your own. Asking a person doesn't help -- when they respond, how do you know the responses reflect genuine feelings or thoughts, and aren't just the mechanical responses of an affectless zombie? Josh charges: "You're now confusing decision making and planning with instincts." Am I? Your low opinion of birds and other animals is not warranted. See the links below concerning Irene Pepperberg's research with Alex, an African Grey Parrot. Alex has learned to name objects, discriminate colors, judge relative sizes, count things, and decide whether things are the same or different. These learned skills are far from the "instincts and impulses" you cite in your post. A short but neat video of Alex in action: http://www.alexfoundation.org/alextheparrot.mov A longer video on Alex and other parrots from Scientific American Frontiers. The Alex video is the 3rd one down the page. Also see the 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th videos for more on animal intelligence. These excellent videos feature 1) a sea lion who reasons without language; 2) a chimp who understands the correspondences between a scale model room and its full-size counterpart; 3) rhesus monkeys who display impressive mathematical abilities without any training (take that, DaveScot :-)); 4) the same chimp as in #2, who shows that she can understand numerals, addition, and fractions; 5) raven problem solving; and 6) concepts of gravity and physics in cotton-top tamarins. http://www.pbs.org/saf/1201/video/watchonline.htm An interesting article describing how Alex is trained: http://www.africanature.com/Orig%20Africa%20Nature/African%20Birds/meetalex.htm Evidence that Alex understands a concept very much like 'zero': http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-07/bu-agp070805.php An interview with Irene Pepperberg, Alex's trainer: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pepperberg03/pepperberg_index.htmlkeiths
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
lol. yes keiths- birds acting on instincts and impulses are doing the same thing humans do. suffice it to say im going to guess very few people alive see birds loving like humans. youre now confusing decision making and planning with instincts. unfortunately we cant ask penguins how they feel about eggs breaking. but we can always, as i said, project our own human qualities onto them as we often do with animals in general. because an animal seems to act in a certain way doesnt mean its actually experiencing moods or feeling anything. it doesnt mean theyre pondering their feelings, their thoughts, their very lives. we might want to personify them in a way, but it doesnt make them moody creatures, nor thoughtful, nor anything else.Josh Bozeman
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Are we reducing love to feelings, or are we including actions? (Can I love my mom and let her starve?). Anyway, J.P. Moreland defends dualism.Ben Z
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Keiths: Right on about animals loving. Automatons, they ain't. But does the fact that love is associated with brain states or even dependent on them in some sense---a fact I concede, by the way---mean that love IS those brain states? Love is, at least in part, also an experience, and it seems odd to say that an experience, as experienced, is a brain state. Aren't you risking confusing the material support of experienceing love with love as actually experienced? Cordially, Adrianadrian walker
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Josh makes mistakes faster than they can be pointed out to him. Not a bad strategy for avoiding refutation. I'll get to some of his other flubs, but this one cries out for an immediate response: "Few would support the ridiculous notion that a bird could show love at all...You have to have the ability to make decisions to actually LOVE." Josh, birds make decisions all the time: Where should I forage? Do I need to flee that predator, or is it at a safe distance? Which mate do I choose? Which telephone line shall I perch on? And contrary to your assertion, few would support the ridiculous notion that a bird CANNOT show love. As DaveScot points out, birds are quite capable of displaying love. If you haven't seen it, watch "March of the Penguins" and take note of the scene where a penguin quite obviously grieves when the egg he has been incubating breaks and the chick fails to hatch. Next you'll be telling us that animals are automatons that can't experience pain, as Descartes believed (to the detriment of countless animals whose cries of pain were ignored by the scientists vivisecting them without anesthesia, on the belief that this was merely an automatic response with no attendant feeling).keiths
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
I should note that it's plain fact that when it comes to brain CHEMICALS (neurotransmitters), there is no way to know much of ANYTHING about levels in particular people. You often hear a doctor say 'he/she has a chemical imbalance.' But, you cannot measure the levels of brain chemicals on living patients- this is only possible during an autopsy, and it really goes without saying that, overall, autopsies are a rare event. fMRI and other scanning techniques have come a long way, but they don't measure levels of chemicals in the brain.Josh Bozeman
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
Oops. Make that "serotonin".Josh Bozeman
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Dave continues to confuse moods/feelings/emotions/thoughts with impulses or sensory perception. There's zero evidence that mood/feelings/emotions/thoughts can be reduced to brain matter and that's the end of that. The ONLY thing we have even remotely gotten close to seeing is a brain scan where the senses (the eyes and ears usually) picked up a certain thing. High pitched noises make for a different pattern than low pitched noises...straight lines fire off a different pattern than a zigzag. Brain signals telling your arm to move show up in a certain fashion. None of these are thoughts or moods or emotions. My commentdidn't go thru yet, but the book keiths mentions has the author stating that love is a feeling of jealousy and possessiveness- a defintion I assume few here would accept. The book also says that love only lasts around 4 yrs, why? She looked at some stats that showed a high number of marriages end within 4 yrs after the birth of the first kid. Well, that's a leap to get from this stat to this is how long love in humans lasts! The chemicals mentioned are in question as well. In my comment before I mentioned seratonin...new evidence has come out to show that maybe this chemical has little and maybe nothing at all to do with a feeling of happiness. Which is probably why the SSRI's which boost the chemical has such a high failure rate- it works on about 20--30% of the people who take it. A failure any way you look at it. Few would support the ridiculous notion that a bird could show love at all, let alone show love in anywhere near the same way humans do. I have to wonder why such a reductionist supports ID at all. If a bird CAN show love and it's indistiguishable from human love- let's be honest about it- we were doomed from the start. You have to have the ability to make decisions to actually LOVE. A dog licking your face and sitting by your side isn't love. Humans seem to want to project their own humanness onto animals, but that's all it is.Josh Bozeman
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
"In what sense is a feeling ‘dependent’ on the brain?" The sense is totally dependent. However, I'm open to evaluating any evidence you may have that feelings can be experienced independent of a brain. If you have any credible evidence in that regard you'll be the first.DaveScot
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
"Based on this statement, I’m going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you’re not married." Yeah well I've been married 25 years, raised 3 kids of my own and countless critters, and I agree with Keith on the nature of love. What's most interesting to me is that higher animals, mammals and even some birds, are capable of displaying love that is indistinguishable from the human emotion. Love appears to be an instinct in some animals and it definitely isn't limited to offspring. Many bird species mate for life and when a mate dies the other often dies soon afterward of what can only be described as heartbreak. I pity the poor fool who hasn't the empathy or experience of love amongst a wide range of God's creatures. Love is the greatest gift we were given and it wasn't given to just us humans.DaveScot
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
"Can you reduce a concept or proposition like love, with all of it’s subtlties, to matter?" More or less... yeah.DaveScot
December 17, 2005
December
12
Dec
17
17
2005
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
from reading many reviews and summaries of the book keiths mentions- it turns out that many scientists don't accept her claims in the least. also- her definition of love is odd...she defines a feeling of love as being dependent on the other person, not something you feel internally that doesnt need the other person. her definition, from that particular book, is based on the idea that love is being dependent on another person and how they feel about you- my feeling of love depends on how so and so (the other partner in the rship) feels about me. One amazon.com reviewer says this is the book's definition of love, and the chemicals involved are based on this definition: "Jealousy, possessiveness, need, mood swings, emotional dependence " Sorry, but I don't feel any of these things when I feel love for another person. I doubt there are many people alive that think any of this is what constitutes love. Of course brain chemicals drive certain functions, and they increase levels of certain feelings (even this is up for debate, new studies on seratonin are showing that these levels might have little to NOTHING to do with a feeling of being depressed- which might be why only around 30% of the population in the US has ANY improvement while using SSRIs, a class of drugs that boosts the levels of seratonin in the blood stream and in the brain.) We know far too little about anything related to emotions and moods, and worse yet- compound moods (I feel happy, but at the same time I feel anxiety for my inlaws come home tomorrow, and I feel sad a bit because my favorite team lost the championship.) Scientists and any other person need to be constantly warned that we, as people, know only a fraction of all there is to know and to be always cautious when thinking we know more than we truly do.Josh Bozeman
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
'This feeling [love]is dependent on the brain and influenced by hormones such as oxytocin.' Your language is ambiguous; like so many defenses of materialism in philosophy of mind its whole strength depends on its ambiguity. In what sense is a feeling 'dependent' on the brain? If mind is matter, then it would be clearer and more correct to say that the feeling _is_ the a state of the brain under the influence of certain hormones.BenK
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
GilDodgen wrote: "Perhaps (because they are convinced that such a process _must_ take place, because the underlying theory _has_ to be true) they have deluded themselves into thinking they are providing facts and explanations instead of unsubstantiated speculation." It is "wishful thinking" or "magical thinking" or "insanity". It seems to permeate every field of science and culture. I've written this before: .... Someday phychologists (or phyciatrists!) will want to examine what underlay the mass insanity of the 20th and early 21st century. My theory: the cause of madness will be found to be … Darwinism. .... There is magical thinking in science, in politics, in law. Darwinism says, "This obviously developed accidentally over millions of years from such and such structure that has two similiar molecules." ID says, "This system requires all it's parts to be functional. It appears to be designed." The first "explanation" is fantasy, magical thinking, aka insanity. The second is not "explanation" at all, but objective observation of reality, aka sanity. G. JenningsRed Reader
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
keiths: "Love is a feeling and a constellation of behaviors associated with a particular brain state (see Helen Fisher’s excellent book “Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love”). This feeling is dependent on the brain and influenced by hormones such as oxytocin." Based on this statement, I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you're not married.PaV
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
1. we don't know what causes a person to feel love. the list of 25 questions here admits that we cant even explain consciousness. if you cant explain that, you cant explain a feeling of love. keiths, youre trying to reduce the feeling to a pattern in the brain, but thats not going to work but for a small minority in science. 2. love IS illusory in the world dawkins must live in. if theres no point or meaning to even being alive, youre gonna have a hard time arguing that love means anything either. if life is nothing but a game run by your selfish genes to simply make more genes, then love in fact does not exist, and it is, as bombadill said, illusory. as ive said before- few people wish to take nde theory to its only logical conclusion. dawkins seems to be an example.Josh Bozeman
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
I would be interested to know what the Dawkins family does on December 25. Well...on second thought...given Dick's immense hostility to belief in God and its subsequent religious practices, it may not be such an amusing sight to behold. I really wouldn't be surprised if it included sexual orgies and burning nativity scenes.crandaddy
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Me: "Why on earth should a materialist worldview imply that love is illusory?" Bombadill: "Because it is a metaphysical reality, keiths. Can you reduce a concept or proposition like love, with all of it’s subtlties, to matter?" Bombadill, Love is a feeling and a constellation of behaviors associated with a particular brain state (see Helen Fisher's excellent book "Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love"). This feeling is dependent on the brain and influenced by hormones such as oxytocin. No, love cannot be "reduced" to matter, but it can be "reduced" to a set of configurations of matter and energy in the brains of people and animals, just as other feelings can. But "reduced" is the wrong word to use here, because the brain is enormously complex and capable of rendering emotions which are quite nuanced and multifaceted.keiths
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
I can order a cup of coffee in French, but that's about it. Is the book available in Enlgish?SteveB
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
"He insists that we have no idea how evolution occurs, and simple scientific honesty compels us to say so." This is a key point. Apologists for Darwinian theory frequently present pure speculation, based on absolutely no hard evidence, as established fact. For example, you'll hear, "The way evolution produces complex, functionally integrated biological machinery is through a process called co-option. Here's how it works..." They should be honest and say, "Some biologists speculate that biological components that served other functions could be co-opted to assemble new machinery that performs a new function. However, there is no hard evidence that this process actually takes place, and no detailed, testable proposals for how random mutations could engineer such a process." Of course, they also always leave out an explanation for the hard stuff. Where did the assembly instructions come from? They too must be irreducibly complex, since a partially assembled motor is of no use even if all the parts are available. I sometimes wonder if these people are actually aware of what they are doing. Perhaps (because they are convinced that such a process _must_ take place, because the underlying theory _has_ to be true) they have deluded themselves into thinking they are providing facts and explanations instead of unsubstantiated speculation.GilDodgen
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Because it is a metaphysical reality, keiths. Can you reduce a concept or proposition like love, with all of it's subtlties, to matter?Bombadill
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Bombadill writes: "Dawkins is married? Does he see the covenant as illusory, since love is illusory under his world view?" Why on earth should a materialist worldview imply that love is illusory?keiths
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Woah! He married Romana from Dr. Who!?Bombadill
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
I think he had 2 wives prior to his marriage to Lala Ward. Ward is a british actress. Bill are you married?Benjii
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
"Not just married, but several times." Women like girly men at first but the novelty wears off quickly.DaveScot
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Ah that nasty selfish gene again, spreading itself far and wide.Marcos
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Not just married, but several times.William Dembski
December 16, 2005
December
12
Dec
16
16
2005
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply