Are challenges to Darwinian theory from those outside the discipline legitimate?

_{Gil Dodgen

July 30, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

I would argue that, indeed, they are.

In a previous UD thread, Tom English made the following comment:

I have seen a number of brilliant and highly educated people do abysmally stupid things when they stepped outside their domains of expertise. Computer scientists make abysmal biologists. Journalists make abysmal biologists. Philosophers make abysmal biologists. Theologians make abysmal biologists. Mathematicians make abysmal biologists. Physicists make abysmal biologists.

I would argue the following: Darwinian theorists do foolish things when they step outside their domain of expertise. They are generally not competent mathematicians, computer scientists, chemists, philosophers, theologians, or physicists. Yet, they make sweeping claims of incontrovertible fact that impinge upon all these disciplines, and then expect immunity from challenges from those with expertise in those disciplines.

The essentials of Darwinian theory are actually quite trivial and easy to understand. But are they true, and do they hold up under scrutiny from those with expertise in the disciplines upon which the theory impinges?

Comments

Darwinists need to come to grips with the fact that the future of science belongs to the Hard-Sciences: Mathematics, Physics, & Chemistry. The deeper we peer into life at the molecular level, the more we discover the complex programming which is driving it all, and the more we find a dizzying array of machinery which the NeoDarwinian synthesis fails to explain. Ask yourself: Why are biochemists employing phD\'s in mechanical engineering in order to try and understandÃ‚Â cellular machinery?Ã‚Â As science moves forward and new data is collected, the more Darwinian Evolution looks like primitive Steamboat-era mysticism. Ã‚Â Scott_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Tom English: Why are you so set on bringing a slew of other disciplines into biology? Because that is warranted: Approaching Biology from a Different Angle:
Systems biology is a loosely defined term, but the main idea is that biology is an information science, with genes a sort of digital code. Moreover, while much of molecular biology has involved studying a single gene or protein in depth, systems biology looks at the bigger picture, how all the genes and proteins interact. Ultimately the goal is to develop computer models that can predict the behavior of cells or organisms, much as Boeing can simulate how a plane will fly before it is built. But such a task requires biologists to team up with computer scientists, engineers, physicists and mathematicians. The structure of universities makes that difficult, Dr. Hood said.
Science should be all about telling us the truth, ie the reality, behind our existence. And until any biologist can tell us what makes an organism what it is then I would say they need as much help/input as they can get.Joseph_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Ã¢â‚¬Å“You are not qualified to speak about it. Let us, the holy Darwinian scientists, tell you what to believe. Oh, and if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe in what we say, then you are ignorant!!Ã¢â‚¬Â No, science does not tell you what to believe. It tells you the beliefs of a community of authorities. If you believe that scientific theories could ever be true in the same sense your religious beliefs are true, then that is sad.Tom English_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

I would point out that there are hundreds of engineers, computer scientists and mathematicians working in the biological scientists, and many of them work in issues directly related to evolutionary biology. A lot of them that I have met know a lot more about it than I do, but they agree that is only many years of working in the field, reading the literature and speaking to other scientists that has made them experts.Chris Hyland_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Let's make it explicit in this thread that, before writing what you quoted, I wrote, "I am a computer scientist who, despite working in evolutionary computation for 15 years and despite learning quite a bit about evolutionary biology along the way, counts himself incompetent to pronounce on the work that life scientists are doing." The first class of people I said made abysmal biologists included myself. "I would argue the following: Darwinian theorists do foolish things when they step outside their domain of expertise. They are generally not competent mathematicians, computer scientists, chemists, philosophers, theologians, or physicists." And biologists should have their foolishness pointed out to them when they step outside their area of expertise. For example, I will say now that Richard Dawkins' intertwining of evolutionary biology and his impoverished philosophy is disgusting. "Yet, they make sweeping claims of incontrovertible fact that impinge upon all these disciplines, and then expect immunity from challenges from those with expertise in those disciplines." I strongly doubt there are many "sweeping claims of incontrovertible fact" in the peer-reviewed biological literature. Everyone learns in science class that there are no incontrovertible scientific facts. Indeed, one thing that disturbs scientists and others about the explanatory filter is the claim of "no false positives" -- i.e., incontrovertible facts. I never suggested that researchers and scholars in disciplines other than biology should not challenge biological findings. I indicated that people who are not reading the biological literature for themselves would do well to listen to the biologists rather than non-biologists. The non-biologists should challenge the biologists in the peer-reviewed literature, not present themselves as "better at biology than biologists are" in the public arena. As an example of why one shouldn't listen to an expert pronouncing outside his discipline, consider the chemist Linus Pauling. After winning his second Nobel prize, he turned his attention to nutrition and medicine. He originated the notion that vitamin C is good for colds and for cancer. People have actually taken megadoses of vitamin C in lieu of conventional cancer therapy. Controlled studies have shown that vitamin C is good for neither malady, but sales of the vitamin continue at very high levels in the U.S. In short, a brilliant man can go where he should not and do harm to society. "The essentials of Darwinian theory are actually quite trivial and easy to understand." There is a huge difference between basics and essentials. The basics are easy to grasp. The essentials take a great deal of study. "But are they true, and do they hold up under scrutiny from those with expertise in the disciplines upon which the theory impinges?" What you advocate is to set up a "straw man" theory and then find as many people as you can to knock it over. But you can't falsify a theory just by taking its basics into account. See the entry for "falsification" in Wikipedia. Why are you so set on bringing a slew of other disciplines into biology? Does it work that way in physics? Of course it does not. The physicists would not put up with it for a moment. I cannot help but think that you, standing on the outside of biology, have decided that biologists are not doing their work right, and that people from other disciplines can do biology better.Tom English_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Tom English's comment is rather strange given that one of the leading voices of Darwinism says
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
If anyone can understand it, then anyone can criticize it. If it is so obviously clear, then those who disagree with it can't be against it due to lack of understanding. Why? Because Darwinism is so obvious. Adding to that, following Dr Phil Johnson's words, since every single major Darwinian preacher wrote to the *general public*, why can't someone from the *general public* voice it's lack of reason to believe in it? I have to say that Tom's comment is more like "You are not qualified to speak about it. Let us, the holy Darwinian scientists, tell you what to believe. Oh, and if you don't believe in what we say, then you are ignorant!!" Thirdly, what about when Darwinists (like Julian Huxley) makes theological claims based on his particular worldview? For example, when he says "The world was not created; it evolved", isn't he "outside" of his "domains of expertise"? When Darwinist Eugenie Scott says that you can be a Christian and be a Darwinists, isn't she stepping outside of her area? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.Mats_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

I agree that Tom's statement was too sweeping, and that being trained in another field does not automatically make one an "abysmal" biologist. Anyone who takes the time to learn the material and is capable of making rational arguments is qualified to comment on any field, though a little humility is in order. For example, if you find yourself disagreeing with 99.9% of professional biologists after studying the field for a few weeks, it pays to consider the possibility that you might be mistaken. But in Tom's defense, if you go to the thread from which his comment was taken, you'll see that he was reacting to Denyse's mention of the Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwinism" list. In that context, his objection makes a certain amount of sense. All we know about most of the folks who have signed the list is that they have credentials in a non-biological field. We know nothing about the amount of time they have spent studying evolutionary theory, or of the soundness of the arguments they might advance against it. In that context, their opinions carry less weight than those who are practicing biologists.zapatero_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

"I have seen a number of brilliant and highly educated people do abysmally stupid things when they stepped outside their domains of expertise. Computer scientists make abysmal biologists. Journalists make abysmal biologists. Philosophers make abysmal biologists. Theologians make abysmal biologists. Mathematicians make abysmal biologists. Physicists make abysmal biologists." I say just agree with him and remind him that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Biologists should not be making claims about the work of engineers, mathematicians, etc. When they complain about the use of the word design, or a design based approach to some sort of molecular chemistry, call foul and say they are not qualified to comment on things outside of thier discipline. Remind them that this is there ground rule and that if they want to ignore it they cannot legitimately complain when others do. Then let them choose what they want to do. Either the biolgists will relent or their discipline will continue to sink into irrelevance.jwrennie_{July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

I'm sorry. What are the "sweeping claims of incontrovertible fact" that biologists use to impinge on chemistry, physics, mathematics, philosophy, theology, and computer science? I just don't see it.Strangelove_{July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

According to Tom English's thesis, all those who read "The Origin of the Species" should have disqualified themselves as understanding it. Nearly all the 6,000 copies in the first year were bought by lay people and most of the readers up to today are probably non biologists. Should they all admit they are not capable of following Darwin's logic. Are students to be told that they will not be able to judge the merits of neo-Darwinian theory when they are taught biology in high school or college? Isn't it possible for a person of average intelligence to read what someone claims and then read what has actually been established and make a judgment? English makes a sophist argument and the fact that he resorts to it indicates the basis for what he supports is probably specious. If the argument was so air tight, I would think a lay person would understand it let alone a mathematician, physicist or a computer scientist.jerry_{July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

They are generally not competent mathematicians, computer scientists, chemists, philosophers, theologians, or physicists. Yet, they make sweeping claims of incontrovertible fact that impinge upon all these disciplines, and then expect immunity from challenges from those with expertise in those disciplines. This is true. However Darwinists welcome arguments by non-biologists all the time. But only if it supports their theory. If it doesn't support their theory, then those are considered 'abysmally stupid' arguments made by non-biologists.Lurker_{July 30, 2006
July
07
Jul
30
30
2006
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply