When will evolution be “well understood” by the unwashed masses?

_{William Dembski

October 11, 2007

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

Judgment Day, a Nova documentary on the Dover case, will be aired next month. In a report about this documentary, one reads the following:

“Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core,” said Paula S. Apsell, NOVA Senior Executive Producer. “Evolution is one of the most essential and least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools.”

The phrase that jumps out here is “least understood of all scientific theories.” Reality check: the basics of evolutionary theory are not hard to fathom — evolution is not rocket science (presumably Paula Apsell thinks she understands them). Moreover, tax payers have been paying megabucks to have their children indoctrinated in this theory. So perhaps the problem is not that evolutionary theory is poorly understood but that it is sufficiently well understood and disbelieved.

Comments

ReligionProf, There is another religion professor who is also a world class scientist who comments on evolution. He believes in NDE but also admits that there is not one species that can be attributed to its mechanism. His name is Stanley Jaki and he is in his 80's now and is a Catholic priest but still writes on science and theology. He is critical of ID but not as severely as most. The reason he says NDE has been so accepted is not because of the empirical evidence that supports it but because the theory unifies all biological thought and as such make sense to biologists. I doubt that most biologist are aware that not one species can claim its origin to NDE but understand the simplicity and logic of NDE. They know that NDE isn't perfect but like most theories is being fine tuned. I bet if you probed any biology professors this is what you get from them. They may be quite surprised that no species can be identified and may suggest some examples but at best they will be trivial examples of NDE which as Behe has shown does work in very limited examples. But NDE can not explain any major new capability in biological function. It is all speculative and that is why we object to it. It is being offered as absolute truth in the educational curriculum and at best is very, very speculative. If you can find anyone that can disprove this last paragraph we would be all ears here to learn about it but no one ever has and like you many have come here to prove us wrong. All have failed to produce anything of substance. So don't be critical of us here till you or anyone else can enlighten us. We are not dumb or ignorant of any of the arguments for NDE or anything else relevant to it.jerry_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Darwinism is a kindergarten level myth---yes---but have you seen today’s featured Wikipedia article? When will they ever learn?Rude_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

This guy has figured out how to explain evolution to a four-year-old: http://notgartner.wordpress.com/2006/12/31/explaining-evolution-to-a-four-year-old/ (How do you insert a hyperlink on this blog?)russ_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

shaner74: I agree with you. Gpuccio's point #4 was a terrific summation!russ_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

To be fair to Darwinists if a system is set up (trying to avoid the word "designed"...) properly I can see it being amicable to large-scale positive evolution by unguided mechanisms. I presume this is why earlier models of biological life were so simple as to be accommodating to unguided evolution. Problem is, the simplistic notion that a beneficial mutation will be acted on by natural selection is severely limited by the actual real-life system (effects of pleiotropy, etc).Patrick_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Offtopic: Today's Wall Street Journal "Taste" section comments on the Dawkins/Lennox debate in Alabama here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119214767015956720.html A subscription may be required. Sample:
Each scholar received a round of applause after a few of his smarter remarks. But there was no hooting or hollering. Indeed, not one stray comment could be heard from the audience. I didn't make out a single sarcastic whisper from the college students sitting to my left or the middle-aged couples to my right. * * * Perhaps Mr. Dawkins was surprised by this reception. He recently referred to the Bible Belt states as "the reptilian brain of southern and middle America," in contrast to the "country's cerebral cortex to the north and down the coasts." This debate marks the first time Mr. Dawkins has appeared in the Old South. Maybe his publishers suggested it would be a good idea. After all, "The God Delusion" and similar atheist tracts have been selling like hotcakes (or buttered grits) down here.
russ_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

"Finally, while darwinian evolution theory is simple, simplistic and wrong, and ID theory is fairly complex and right, all the attempts made, more or less recently, by darwinists to solve some of the problems arising from their own theory are incredibly complicated, meaningless, obfuscating and wrong." - gpuccio This quote should be at the top of the UD page. I love it.shaner74_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Something that always bugs me, as it does Phil Johnson, is the use of the word "evolution." I'm especially annoyed by the phrase "understanding of evolution." If asked if I believe in evolution I would say, sure, things are not now as they once were, so they have evolved, by definition. If asked if I believe in the the blind-watchmaker thesis I would say, no, it's obviously bunk that doesn't comport with evidence and doesn't withstand even the most trivial analytical scrutiny.GilDodgen_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Powerful Newspeak from NOVA -- wow. We are in the middle of having to reunderstand DNA-RNA, etc., a complexity increase that could arguably put evolution's timeline beyond statistical possibility, but somehow evolution is "foundational." _Right._offcenter_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

1) Darwinian evolution theory, in its essential form (a la Dawkins), is very simple and easy to understand. RM + NS, and everything is cooked. That deceptive simplicity is certainly one of the main factors of its success, both by the general public and mainstream scientists. 2) At the same time, it is totally counter-intuitive if you consider it better. That's still another argument of darwinists, who often praise their theory as a very simple way of explaining an apparently counter-intuitive "truth". In principle, obviously, they could be right: a theory being counter-inyuitive does not in any way mean it's wrong, as the theory of relativity and especially quantum nechanics have clearly shown. 3) On the contrary, there are a lot of precise reasons which clearly demonstrate that darwinian evolution theory is completely wrong. These reasons, although supporting a perfectly intuitive point of view, are indeed not simple, and that's why many can't easily appreciate them: most people can easily understand intuitively that RM + NS cannot reasonably have created biological information, but really understanding "why" it is so, on solid scientific grounds, requires some good basic scientific preparation, if possible multidisciplinar, and a lot of attention, dedication and patience. And, I would say, a mind as free as possible from prejudice. The task of ID is definitely to formulate, elaborate, formalize and clearly explain all these reasons, and help people understand and freely judge them. 4) Finally, while darwinian evolution theory is simple, simplistic and wrong, and ID theory is fairly complex and right, all the attempts made, more or less recently, by darwinists to solve some of the problems arising fron their own theory are incredibly complicated, meaningless, obfuscating and wrong. These "darwinian salvage theories", like punctuated equilibrium, information generation by neutral mutation and genetic drifting, the supposed crucial importance of gene duplication, cooption, the various follies about OOL, genetic big bangs, and so on, are so complex, artificial and unsubstantiated that their only role is to confound the minds of those who cannot see through them, and leave people with a vague sensation that "evolution" has evolved, that ID people are rude for calling darwinists darwinists, and that if you don't understand how darwinian evolution can work, well, that's only your fault. Against these lies and artificial constructions ID has an important role: to stick to truth, even if it is not always simple, even if it is not always popular.gpuccio_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

Rejoice! The long journey of Darwnism to religious status is accomplished. It is now a form of Gnosticism--only the privileged few are capable of absorbing its hidden wisdom. See how mystical they are! One imagines their master taking them aside to impart the Secret Things that cannot be conned by the masses. But now that the theorists have all gone into the world of light, the door is open once again for science; which, after all, is the study of physical things.allanius_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Another problem in this debate is that Darwinists use a typical sleight of hand by calling any change as "evolution". If you keep calling "evolution" any change that happens in the genome, soon enough you'll have "overwhelming evidence" for evolution, not because you have actually found the evidence, but because you have called "evolution" to everything.Mats_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

While the basic concept of evolution is easy to comprehend what becomes difficult is when you apply it to a real world scenario. Quickly it "should" become obvious that the basic concept of evolution does not completely work as advertised in the real world beyond trivial observances. So while the basic concept of evolution is simple, nowadays a bewildering array of alternate mechanisms are being proposed in order to prop up the underlying set of assumptions. Really, the problems come about when it comes to "applied science".
But when people cannot even understand why the theory is so widely accepted, without positing implausible scenarios involving scientists’ unwillingness to think critically, it seems clear that something hasn’t been understood.
I find that humorous. What is more implausible: that social dynamics plays a part in science or the scenarios commonly cited by Darwinists as being "reasonable"? If a Darwinist is honest and is willing to state that Darwinism is currently in an uncertain condition and more investigation must be done that is a fine stance by me. What makes me roll my eyes is when Darwinists insist everything is fine. Even as an ID proponent I think that the limits of Darwinian mechanisms should be investigated thoroughly. Maybe I'll be surprised and a combination of certain mechanisms in certain environments under certain conditions will result in more than I would expect.Patrick_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Beyond "survivors survive" and random mutation creates new features for natural selection to act on, what's there to know? Answer: *****hand-waiving****** Darwinists hand-wave all the time around hard problems. Philosophy drives scientific conclusions. Not observations. Not measurements. Not mathematical models.geoffrobinson_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Berceuse, could you repeat (some of) those quotations here for future use, please?mattghg_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

I also think that evolution is not rocket science. However, I believe that evolution is much more complex than rocket science, as it is dealing with the entire complexity of life (which, as you will agree, Dr Dembsky) is infinitely more complex than rocket science. with the rest of your statements, I do agree.IrrDan_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

Bill, Evolution is so easy to understand that only the superstitious, ignorant (and possibly wicked) don't understand it. /sarcasm Well, seriously, evolution is not hard to understand. The "problem" is that we look at it without the naturalistic gogles, so we don't swallow it. Darwinists, on the other hand, are schocked that people don't believe that things created themselves because thay have been totally defeated by naturalistic myths. If they really want to see why people who think about these issues fairly don't believe in it, they should ask themselves the simple question: "Has anyone ever seen mindless/impersonal process generating living forms?" OR "If we put aside the assumption that nature is a closed system, do we have any reason to believe that living forms are the result of forces operating within nature itself?" Once they are willing to step back, and look at the big picture, they will realize it. The problem of course, is that taking a step back demands that one puts aside many cherished philosophical beliefs, and most Darwinists are not willing to take that chance. They have too much to loose if Darwinism is not true.Mats_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

I can relate to what you're saying, bFast, to some degree. And I think some of those who do believe evolution don't know enough about it. Not to long ago I was debating with another evolutionist on a message board, and I was telling him how even evolutionists themselves admit the speculative and metaphysical nature of their theory. When he asked for proof, I posted several quotes by noted evolutionists/naturalists like Huxley, Francis Crick, Gould, etc. He wrote them all off as biased creationists, and it became clear to me he didn't know what he was talking about. Either that or he thought considering my arguments would be beneath him and therefore unworthy of consideration. I'm inclined to think the latter because one of these "creationists," Gould, was a consistent point of reference that he used when defending his case.Berceuse_{October 12, 2007
October
10
Oct
12
12
2007
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

[...] William Dembski has nailed it! You should hit his blog for the whole story and for associated comments by readers, but here’s a snippet: The phrase that jumps out here is “least understood of all scientific theories.” Reality check: the basics of evolutionary theory are not hard to fathom — evolution is not rocket science (presumably Paula Apsell thinks she understands them). Moreover, tax payers have been paying megabucks to have their children indoctrinated in this theory. So perhaps the problem is not that evolutionary theory is poorly understood but that it is sufficiently well understood and disbelieved.” [...]Dembski Nails It! « Life Under the Blue Sky: The View From Below_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

I would like to know where I can take an "Evolutionary Biology" exam that establishes where my understanding of the theory of evolution is in relation to that of society. I bet bones my understanding is top 1%. In fact, I bet that nearly all of the biological non-professionals who regularly post on this board would rate in that top 1%. If we are the cream of the crop, why don't we buy the theory?bFast_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

idnet.com.au, I do too, which, in a way, is unfortunate for me, I suppose, because it would be so much easier to swim with the cultural current than against it, but, as Phil Johnson says, I simply cannot manage the faith commitments necessary to believe in materialism -- and Darwinism, which is more a logical deduction from materialist philosophy than a scientific theory. While I swim upstream I'll just have to content myself with the thought that, while it may be hard swimming, at least I'm going in toward truth (and Truth) and not away from it.BarryA_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

I find evolution by random mutation and natural selection easy to understand but hard to believe.idnet.com.au_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

It truly is not that hard to see the fallacies of evolution.. Once I was told about the actual state of the fossil record in Johnson's "Darwin On Trial" the shock hit me. I remember sitting there reading it with my mouth wide open ,,Absolutely Astounded,,, I think I marked like 75% of the book in yellow highlighter,,, LOL,,, I was amazed that I had been so thoroughly lied to for all those years by the science I had grown to love through the American Space Program. Then once I found out the harmful/fatal mutation rate to DNA from Dr. Hugh Ross, I knew the case was airtight against Darwinism... Your right Dr. Dembski,,evolution is not that hard to understand, in fact it is real simple...Random mutation to the DNA of some sort then natural selection on that mutation...Remove either of those two pillars and the stack of cards for evolution collapses... And what a truly tall stack of cards it is!!! It seems to me evolutionists love to play intellectual games to try to obfuscate the shallowness of their evidence...They truly hide behind smoke and mirrors,,,and are magicians are worse yet charlatans with words.. I'm truly proud of America's accomplishments in science ...I believe it is high time the integrity of science was taken away from the intellectually dishonest Darwinists, who have hijacked biology in the name of materialism and be restored it to its proper position of the fearless pursuit of truth in American culture!bornagain77_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

I don't think I claimed it is beyond your understanding or anyone else's. I may at times have expressed doubt about whether someone DOES understand it, but I have no doubt they CAN. :) I think that the comparison with rocket science is interesting. I wonder if there is any evidence that the science involved in unravelling and mapping the genome, understanding the workings of cells, and so on are significantly easier than launching a rocket. Of course, in the case of the latter the concept is relatively easy to grasp: ignight it, stand back and cover your ears. :) But just as there is expertise involved in getting the rock to not merely ignite but follow a specific trajectory, there is expertise involved in understanding the details of the workings of a cell, DNA, etc. Returning to the main point - I don't think that biology is significantly harder or easier for people to understand than most other areas of science, if we are talking about basic concepts. I suspect that what the NOVA producer had in mind is the failure of so many Americans to understand why most biologists and most educated people (in other countries, at least) find the evidence for evolution persuasive, when in America various people keep proclaiming that it isn't. One may or may not, in the end, be convinced that evolution is the best explanation of the evidence. But when people cannot even understand why the theory is so widely accepted, without positing implausible scenarios involving scientists' unwillingness to think critically, it seems clear that something hasn't been understood.ReligionProf_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

I agree that the basics of evolution are relatively easy to understand, but when one speaks to your average guy on the street, one hears an alarming number of misconceptions--irrespective of whether they believe in evolution or not. For example, most of the non-biologists that I know still equate "fitness" in the evolutionary sense with being fast, strong, having sharp claws, etc. I have met multiple skeptics of evolution who still use the old "why are there still monkeys?" response, without any clue as to why that might be a ridiculous question.Reed Orak_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

ReligionProf claims that evolution is beyond our understanding (those that comment here at UD) implying we do not have the technical knowledge here to criticize it and should accept as gospel what the biological community tells us. As an aside I have purchased a lot of Teaching Company courses and find them easy ways to keep up to date on various topics in science. Yesterday I purchased their course on Natural Law since this topic comes up occasionally in posts here. And the first book on their recommended reading list was Behe's Darwin's Black Box. I was astounded since the Teaching Company tends to be mainstream academia. So I guess the Teaching Company thinks those who purchase a philosophy course can understand critical thinking about evolution and should not have to listen uncritically to the biology establishment.jerry_{October 11, 2007
October
10
Oct
11
11
2007
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply