“There is no controversy”

_{William Dembski

May 22, 2008

Evolution}

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

“There is no controversy.” “There should be no controversy.” “It’s okay to expel those who pretend that there is a controversy.” “Academic freedom does not apply where the scientific consensus says there is no controversy.” …

The Washington Post has a ridiculous editorial that elevates evolutionary theory to the same status as gravitational theory and the truths of mathematics (go here).

Meanwhile, the Altenberg meeting coming up this summer brings together biologists who see the contemporary state of evolutionary theory as in upheaval (go here). Yes, the field is in disarray, but there is NO CONTROVERSY. What, are we living in a Kafka novel?

Comments

dmso74, Actually right now as I've referenced above, physics is undergoing a sort of crisis and there is much controversy surrounding theories of gravity. Are you trying to tell me that biology is somehow immune from that happening? Humans make many differing hypothesis about evolution and test them. There is much controversy about said theories. Same is true with gravity. It's still all science.CJYman_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Jerry, If you want to know what evolutionary theory is, read a textbook on it, or take a class on it. I give 30 1.25 hr lectures on it/semester and don't nearly cover it all. I agree micro evolution is better understood. THat's why some of the hottest research right now is going on in macroevolution.. Evo-devo, man..v exciting The problems w gravity are no more nor less esoteric than those w evolution. If we can't explain why stars appear to move faster than they should according to gravity, it would completely destroy our current understanding of gravity. Is this not a "theory in crisis"? We make hypotheses about evolution and test them. We make hypotheses about gravity and test them. it's all science.dmso74_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

dmso74, Where did I say that's all there is to evolutionary theory? In fact I was only highlighting a few theories of evolution. Which one is right or which components of each theory are correct? That is the relevant question and that is what the controversy over the theory of evolution is about. The point is that there is, as of yet, no "one theory of evolution" just as there is no "one theory of gravity." The fact that there are differing theories shows that there will be controversy. Science thrives off of controversy. Furthermore, the reason that I brought up "information measures" is that it is an extremely relevant topic within any evolutionary mechanism yet it is one which is rarely ever discussed. Is evolutionary informatics discussed in any of the textbooks you cite? dmso74: "As for gravity, I agree, it is very interesting that so much is unknown about gravity and that discrepancies in it are attributed to vague, unproven entities like dark matter, yet we don’t hear any outcry about how it is “just a theory” or “in disarray.” Well actually the competing theories of gravity *are* "just theories." And yes, according to Theoretical Phycisit Lee Smolin, theories of physics are at the moment in disarray. String theory is highly controversial and no one knows yet what causes gravity. Theories of gravity at the moment are controversial subjects. Now, that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't work or that life hasn't evolved. That only means that we need to take controversial ideas as to necessary conditions and mechanisms that are based on observation and testing into consideration. Furthermore, even if ID Theory didn't exist, there would still be controversy surrounding the "final theory of evolution." I have already cited James A. Shapiro's work and we all know that you don't have to be an IDiot in order to make controversial claims about observations that RM+NS isn't the full story. There's nothing wrong with controversy. Science thrives on controversy.CJYman_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

The article says: "NO ONE would think it acceptable for a teacher to question the existence of gravity or to suggest that two plus two equals anything but four. It’s mystifying, then, that a movement to undermine the teaching of evolutionary biology is attracting some support. Equally perverse is that this misguided effort is being advanced under the false guise of academic freedom." dmso74, The effects of grativity are not controversial, everyone who measures it gets the same answer. The origin of gravity however, is. Just like the effects of humans are not controversial, their origin is. Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the origin of humans, which is controversial. Think UCD. Lucky for us the origin of gravity is not discussed, so there is no need to teach both sides, or all sides as to its origin, hence no constroversy. Unlucky for us the origin of humans are discussed in high school textbooks, which becomes highly controversial because no one has seen or demonstrated a human coming from a non-human, which leads us to develop an inference as to the best possibility, hence the 'design inference'. Evolutionary proponents like the one in this article always compare gravity as an 'effect', with evolution as a 'cause' (for biological complexity). Comparing an effect with a cause while showing no valid relationship is as Jack Golightly put it: apples and oranges.RRE_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

dmso74, Many of us are well aware of arguments within the "so called" evolutionary theory. In truth there is no theory. If there is, let us know what it is? Nothing out there explains what is known as macro evolution except speculation. Micro-evolution is better understood and can be observed so it might count as a theory except even here many of the mechanisms for change are at present unknown. But macro evolution is no where and should not be thought of as a theory. It is a series of WAS (wild assed speculations.) We should be precise when we talk about evolution and interjecting some esoteric problems with gravity does not help. Gravity is observable in every day life by all while macro evolution has never been observed by anyone either in the laboratory or in nature or in history. We hypothesize it not demonstrate it.jerry_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/history/080521-creationist-teachers.html) says that 1 in 8 highschool science teachers present ID or creationism in a favorable light. A hight percentage of highschool science teachers hold to a young creation of man ( bFast_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

LATEST PERMUTATION OF PERVERSE PRIMITIVISM No one would tolerate a teacher questioning the existence of the humors or the philosopher’s stone. So it is mystifying that a movement to undermine the findings of Ptolemy has garnered some support. This movement pretends to support academic freedom by seeking relaxation of the Inquisition, when in truth it is a poorly disguised attempt to reintroduce the primitive ideas of Aristarchus, having been given new impetus by the absurd publications of the Tuscan lens grinder, Galileo. To the well-meaning, these efforts may seem harmless. Who does not support academic freedom? Who does not want scientific progress? Such questions may have force if there were any doubt about the Ptolemaic system, but as the Most High Council of Affiliated Schoolmen (MHCAS) concluded in Venice just last spring, “There is no controversy.” Consider also that there is no real academic freedom where the Inquisition is in force. Teachers do not have the freedom to simply walk around spouting their own notions when the divine philosophy of Aristotle has been elegantly interpreted for our times. The Tutors’ Guild has openly opposed the movement, even though it is meant ostensibly to support educators. Clearly then the movement is nothing more than a ruse to undermine education.allanius_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

CJYman, if that's all you think there is to evolutionary theory, I would politely suggest you brush up. Take a class, or read an up-to-date textbook (Futuyma's is a bit wordy, Ridley's is a bit dry.. I would suggest Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron). As for gravity, I agree, it is very interesting that so much is unknown about gravity and that discrepancies in it are attributed to vague, unproven entities like dark matter, yet we don't hear any outcry about how it is "just a theory" or "in disarray."dmso74_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

dmso74 : ‘but from a scientific standpoint, there is no controversy over the validity of evolutionary, or gravitational theory’ What evolutionary theory? RM+NS, without consideration of information measures. And, even anti-IDers are calling to task the explanatory power of NS. And "random" mutations ... what about those adaptive mutations that are aimed at a target as seen during the evolutionary process that is utilized by the immune system and technological evolution. Those mutations are not strictly "random." And then there's James A. Shapiros hypothesis of natural genetic engineering -- a far cry from RM+NS. Now on to gravitational theory. Do we even have a gravitational theory? There's quantum field theory and then there's string theory and do we yet know if gravity is a field or a boson ... very controversial stuff here.CJYman_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Borne, Thank you for the psychological exam. Again, you are referring to controversies within evolutionary theory.. and, if you read the literature, it hardly paints a picture of "perfect unity." Scientists love to prove each other wrong, and are frequently less than collegial in their choice of words doing so. I published a paper this month basically pointing out that a colleague's hypothesis was based on a complete misunderstanding of basic physiology. so it goes. and as for the petition; petitions are political tools, not scientific ones. and yes, that goes for the list of Steves too.dmso74_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

The escalating satire of the 2-3 quotes was obvious.
Maybe a tag would help. Something like >blockquote>For heaven's sake people. This is a P-A-R-O-D-Y !!sparc_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

dmso74 : 'but from a scientific standpoint, there is no controversy over the validity of evolutionary, or gravitational theory' Darwinian fundamentalists pretending there is no controversy are in deep denial of reality. The only thing Darwinian scientists can agree upon seems to be that 'it's true', after that controversy. Over how, why, when etc. is everywhere to found - except in the literature pawned off on the lay public where they always paint a pretty mask of perfect unity. Your statement is a denial of the 1000's of degreed, working, qaulified scientists that do not accept Darwinism. This, 'no controvery' BS is a denial of their very existence!Borne_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

leo, Here is part of a quote I made yesterday about you and others "I find it ironic that an evolutionary biologist such as Bob or biologists such as specs or leo never defend their positions with facts but who seem to delight in finding slight inconsistencies in often minor arguments by proponents of ID. Step up to the plate and swing away instead of hurling insults from the rafters that the opponent’s game isn’t going perfectly." leo, you are in the position of contributing but you do not. If you agree with naturalistic evolution arguments, defend them. Otherwise you should be disclaiming the hypocrisy of the Washington Post editorial.jerry_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

leo : BarrtA is right. Get over your pretense to pointing out erroneous quotes and being shocked. Did you know what sarcasm is? Apparently not. Did you see anything that says all the quotes were literally in the ref. article? No. But they may as well have been since they are all implied. And we've seen them all in one form or another in Darweenie pseudo-journalism. Rightous anger!?! You're kidding right? Grow up.Borne_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Jack, "Does anyone object to teaching these gravitational “controversies”? I doubt it. No one would have second thoughts about discussing the “Pioneer Anomaly” in a high school science class. Just try and mention the inconsistency of the Cambrian explosion with NDE and you are bringing creationism into the classroom. That’s why I say “apples and oranges”. you are talking about political, not scientific, controversy. so yes, we are talking about apples and oranges. If the reporter had called and asked about the political controversy concerning the teaching of evolution in public schools, he would have gotten a different response. but from a scientific standpoint, there is no controversy over the validity of evolutionary, or gravitational theory. and personally, i think it would be great if we talked about the fascinating questions posed by the cambrian explosion. it would show the students that top-notch scientific work is being done to explain the amazing diversity of life forms that "exploded" over 8 million years or so.. unfortunately, i think it would have to be taught in an upper-level honors course as evo-devo would probably be a bit confusing for most high school students (as it is for lots of us). so, to bring it back to the original topic, i just want to emphasize that just because there are controversies within a theory does not mean that it is in disarray, or that it is "controversial" (other than politicially). a semantic point, but an important one.dmso74_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

leo says: "The fact is, when one wants to be taken seriously, one has to act seriously." Good point, in the world of Darwin there is no time for fun and games, with those selfish genes running the show. We all know that the Evo Psych crowd has explained satire and humor without breaking a sweat. As well as people who take themselves very serously. All for the purpose of unifying the tribe, you know.Ekstasis_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Does anyone object to teaching these gravitational "controversies"? I doubt it. No one would have second thoughts about discussing the "Pioneer Anomaly" in a high school science class. Just try and mention the inconsistency of the Cambrian explosion with NDE and you are bringing creationism into the classroom. That's why I say "apples and oranges".Jack Golightly_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Really? it seems that some observations on the speed of stars fly in the face of gravitational theory. In fact, physicists had to invent a very vague hypothesis about something called "dark matter", that can't be directly measured, to explain these observations and keep them consistent with gravitational theory. Did you know that there are at least 6 alternatives to standard gravitational theory? Surely it is a theory in disarray as well?dmso74_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Apples and oranges.Jack Golightly_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Jack, Maybe, but if you called a cosmologist and asked him what he thought about the controversy over the validity of gravitational theory, despite some cosmological observations that are inconsistent with it, what do you think would he say?dmso74_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

BarryA, I'm shocked. Rightous anger when the inaccuracy (or shall I say outright lie) of a post is pointed out! From you! Instead of noting that it was wrong, you continue to genuflect. The fact is, when one wants to be taken seriously, one has to act seriously. [Leo: I'm afraid you don't have the right sense of humor for this forum. Goodbye. --WmAD]leo_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Hmmm...controversy? "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There)The Interface_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

In this context, the statement: "there is no controversy" makes as much sense as the statement: "I am lying". Why even listen to someone who has his eyes shut, his fingers in his ears and is yelling at the top of his lungs?Jack Golightly_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

leo, give it a rest. The escalating satire of the 2-3 quotes was obvious. If you aren't smart enough to recognize satire when it is kicking you in the pants, the next best thing would be to keep quiet while smarter people discuss the issues.BarryA_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

or, to stick closer to the topic, does this mean we should view them as being controversial theories?dmso74_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

There are many controversies in gravitational theory (e.g. those that led to the to the hypothesis of dark matter). Mathematics is full of controversies and unsolved problems. Does this mean that they are invalid?dmso74_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

The first quote was in the editorial, but not the other ones. I guess making up quotes is one way of trying to start a controversy.leo_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply