Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Future Scholars Will View Evolution

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Centuries from now, here is how a history book is likely to describe the theory of evolution:

As with many new paradigms, evolutionary thought developed over a lengthy period. Within the period known as Modern Science, which had its beginnings in the middle of the second millennium, evolutionary thought began to emerge in the mid seventeenth century. At that time theologians and philosophers from various traditions strenuously argued that the world must have arisen via strictly naturalistic processes. These schools of thought contributed to what became known as The Enlightenment period in the eighteenth century which marked a major turning point in Western intellectual thought.

In The Enlightenment period theological and metaphysical positions became codified in Western thought. These positions became sufficiently accepted and familiar so as to be no longer in need of justification. Instead, Western thinking rapidly incorporated these positions as new truths. This new theology made strong commitments in the area of divine intent, action, and interaction with creation. The impact on science was profound as this theology mandated that God’s interactions with the world was to be strictly via secondary causes (i.e., natural laws), and that all of history must be governed solely by such causes. This paradigm later became known as Evolutionary Thought.

In Evolutionary Thought, science implicitly incorporated these theological and metaphysical commitments. Western, and by now worldwide, thought entered a dark age of anti intellectualism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In this period all findings were described as evolutionary. Needless to say this was cause for ever more strained explanations of the evidence. Nonetheless, a rigid social and financial structure enforced adherence, complete with implicit penalties and harassment of dissenters.

Continued here

Comments
—-Nakashima: “And yet that assumption has served all of the science that has flowed from the Atomic Theory of Matter ever since Dalton.” [Methodological Naturalism] You also need to be aware that "methodological naturalism" is only about twenty five years old, so it could not have served science in the way that you claim.StephenB
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
----Nakashima: "And yet that assumption has served all of the science that has flowed from the Atomic Theory of Matter ever since Dalton." [Methodological Naturalism] ----Nakashima: "Who was the Science Pope when this was published ex cathedra? [Methodological naturalism]. How far is the false analogy of science and religion going to be pushed?" You cannot, on the one hand, reaonably tell me that there is no "rule," and, on the other hand, tell me that this rule has worked very well. So, decide which one of these two conflicting positions that you hold and I will respond to it.StephenB
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
According to the DOGMA of “methodological naturalism,” the analyst may not follow the evidence if it could lead to that destination. Who was the Science Pope when this was published ex cathedra? How far is the false analogy of science and religion going to be pushed?Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Mr StephenB, John Dalton’s Atomic Theory of Matter must, under your assertion, have metaphysical assumptions. What are they?” We have already covered that ground. The assumption is that “nature is all there is,” one of the bitter fruits of the enlightenment. I made this point very explicitly. And yet that assumption has served all of the science that has flowed from the Atomic Theory of Matter ever since Dalton. No angels pushing the planets either. No results from Newton's alchemy either. Why? Suppression of metaphysically contingent results? Or were Newton's metaphysics wrong?Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
StephenB "To follow the data wherever it leads means to follow it wherever it leads. That would include following it to supra-natural (not necessarily supernatural) causes if the evidence suggests it. According to the DOGMA of “methodological naturalism,” the analyst may not follow the evidence if it could lead to that destination." Exactly. I said that "the supernatural should be kept out of science because there is no data to support its existence". I did not say that it should be kept out as a point of principle.iconofid
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
----"iconofid Dr. Hunter: I’ll take your sentence to mean that the supernatural should be kept out of science because there is no data to support its existence." ----I agree." You are reading something into Dr. Hunter's words something that he did not say. To follow the data wherever it leads means to follow it wherever it leads. That would include following it to supra-natural (not necessarily supernatural) causes if the evidence suggests it. According to the DOGMA of "methodological naturalism," the analyst may not follow the evidence if it could lead to that destination.StephenB
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
I've previously said I reject the concept of "self evident".Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
----Nakashima: "You should have not had any concerns over my existence. As a large ensemble of particles (too large around the middle) my existence is quite definite." Do you hold that as a self-evident truth that can be denied only at the point of absurdity, or do you hold it "provisionally?"StephenB
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
----Nakashima: "Didn’t you just say that there is no science without metaphysical assumptions? Leaving aside atomism, John Dalton’s Atomic Theory of Matter must, under your assertion, have metaphysical assumptions. What are they?" We have already covered that ground. The assumption is that "nature is all there is," one of the bitter fruits of the enlightenment. I made this point very explicitly. ----"Sadly, I cannot read Mendel’s work in the original. But if I read a translation, would I be able to see either of your assumptions [A] of [B] in his work?" When you write something in error, and someone corrects that error, the proper response is, "Thank you, I didn't know that. I stand corrected." ----"I am shocked, shocked I say, to hear that Dr Hunter’s future history might have cracks in the facade." So far, no cracks have been identified. So, I don't understand your response here. ----Nakashima: "Mendel wasn’t an atheist? Faraday wasn’t a metaphysical naturalist? Well, at least they were expelled from the rigid social structure and implictly penalized. Who would have promoted a Mendel, or named a prize or medal after a Faraday!" The institutional mechanism for persecution did not appear overnight. If Mendel had been practicing science today, and, if he was equally forthcoming with his views, he would indeed have been expelled from the scientific community. Michael Behe, who has been slandered and disfranchised by that same scientific community, is much less of a "creationist" than Mendel was.StephenB
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Borne:
code = intelligence so the genetic code had to have been built by an intelligent of vast intellect? No intelligence = no code. Code, by definition, requires intelligence.
So there's no real disagreement about the facts on the ground, just whether they should be interpreted as being "from design". If I wanted, I could describe the laws of physics as "information" or "code", and even if the entire community of physicists agreed with me that they were designed, the practices and conclusions of physics would not be modified in the slightest. The difference isn't even one of cosmology, but of philosophy. Until "design" becomes a specific, observable, mechanical phenomenon, calling something "designed" seems no different scientifically than calling it "pretty".
“they all agree on the details of mutations”? Surely you jest! No? Well then dream on, dream on…
What I mean is that as far as I can tell, evolutionary scientists basically agree on what mutations physically are, that they occur, how they occur, and even the general ratio of positive to negative to neutral mutations. Where things get complicated is things like the role of sexual selection, the rate of change to the allele frequency, etc. Whereas IDers don't seem to agree on whether the designer uses cosmic rays to cause mutations, or have any similar agreed-upon mechanism.
have you never heard of genetic entropy? Do yourself a favor and pick up some knowledge on that.
Indeed, I have. I'm afraid that the concept has yet to enter mainstream biology even slightly, however. There simply is no evidence that "genetic information" (however we want to define that) experiences some measurable rate of "entropy" over time. You say "Mutations… are almost always deleterious and damaging to genetic information". Depending on the definition of "genetic information", this could mean a lot of things. I suppose one could argue that all mutations "damage" the genome, even if they help the organism, simply because the genome is different from what it was before. Ultimately, though, evolution is unaffected how "informationally pure" DNA is, so long as the available DNA gets the job done. Having read your post, I'm now curious what you make of the old evolutionary concept of "selection". Why, despite all evidence to the contrary, do you think it is actually powerless to filter out those harmful mutations?
The things that cause so many diseases are also the things that make new body plans and organs…?
Yes, and the substance that we all drink to live can also make us drown.Lenoxus
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Cornelius Hunter I can help you with that Lenoxus. The religious premises need to be replaced with scientific ones, like following the data. "Following the data" is a premise? Be that as it may, I'll take your sentence to mean that the supernatural should be kept out of science because there is no data to support its existence. I agree.iconofid
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Mr DATCG, You should have not had any concerns over my existence. As a large ensemble of particles (too large around the middle) my existence is quite definite. If I was a sub-atomic particle, I would have both told you and not told you immediately! ;-pNakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
"And that you exist! " I wonder Nak do you hold your position that you exist provisionally? Vividvividbleau
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Mr StephenB, Didn't you just say that there is no science without metaphysical assumptions? Leaving aside atomism, John Dalton's Atomic Theory of Matter must, under your assertion, have metaphysical assumptions. What are they? Sadly, I cannot read Mendel's work in the original. But if I read a translation, would I be able to see either of your assumptions [A] of [B] in his work? I am shocked, shocked I say, to hear that Dr Hunter's future history might have cracks in the facade. Mendel wasn't an atheist? Faraday wasn't a metaphysical naturalist? Well, at least they were expelled from the rigid social structure and implictly penalized. Who would have promoted a Mendel, or named a prize or medal after a Faraday!Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Nakashima, I think maybe you are projecting your own fears of what might be in the future if we allowed open scientific debate in universities and possible implications. What I read and gain from Dr. Hunter's story is limited to the Darwinian cult, not all of science. So I do not share your fears. Science goes on discovering new insights and functions about digital code, signals, intricrate mult-layered meta data of formerly assumed "junk" DNA. The future is bright having taken off the blinders of Darwinism. So good to know you err, as we all do at times. And that you exist! I was worried that simultaneously you did not exist. Then I'd possibly be in error talking to a non-existent, very intelligent being. My day seems somehow more evident now... I'll be off to pick up a Loropatelum Chinensis Purple Diamond and some Floribunda. Enjoy the day that exist for now. :)DATCG
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Cornelius Hunter @19
I’m still not sure exactly which “old mainstream” evolutionary premises will be replaced by which “new mainstream” design premises.
I can help you with that Lenoxus. The religious premises need to be replaced with scientific ones, like following the data.
Could you please point out the specific empirical evidence that contradicts modern evolutionary theory? I'm sure some Ph.D. candidates who are looking for a way to make a name for themselves would benefit from your suggested areas of research. JJJayM
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Lenoxus: "I’m still not sure exactly which “old mainstream” evolutionary premises will be replaced by which “new mainstream” design premises." I can help you with that Lenoxus. The religious premises need to be replaced with scientific ones, like following the data.Cornelius Hunter
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Mr DATCG, Yes, it seems that Dr Hunter's little parable was aimed at evolution, but somehow hit all of science. You'll have to ask him how that happened. Certainly I exist! After all, error exists, and I am in error.Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
oops sorry - it got posted twice :-OBorne
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Nakashima: "You are on much safer ground expressing the opinion that evolutionary thought entails metaphysical naturalism than relabelling all post-Enlightenment science as 'Evolutionary Thought'." Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.Cornelius Hunter
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
----nakashima: "Yes, and it is the profound failure of the metaphysical assumptions of the Atomic Theory of Matter that explain the status of that theory today. And likewise, the failure of the Atomic Theory explains the status of those assumptions in the scientific world." The Atomic Theory of Matter is not a metaphysical assumption, it is a scientific theory, which was rightly displaced by another scientific theory. Please don't confuse it with "atomism," a pre-Socratic philosophy that took far too long to die. The two current metaphysical assumptions are these: [A] Nature is all there is, and [B] Nature is not all there is. The former is a science stopper; the latter is not. ----"What would Gregor Mendel have concluded differently about genetics if he had been a monk, and not blinded by the implicate metaphysical naturalism of all post-Enlightenment science?" Mendel was not an enlightenment type thinker. Quite the contrary, he believed that since God created the universe, then physical laws exist not only in physics and chemistry, but in biology as well. He was one of those scientists who believed that he was "thinking God's thoughts after him."StephenB
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Lenoxus:
disputes always emerge when it comes to the specifics (common descent, mechanism of design, etc). Whereas even as evolutionists debate punk eek versus gradualism, they all agree on the details about mutations.
mechanism of design? You don't get it. Design is the mechanism, molecules are the parts - DNA contains the information and meta information for assembly of the parts. Thus your question doesn't even make sense. "they all agree on the details of mutations"? Surely you jest! No? Well then dream on, dream on... However, have you never heard of genetic entropy? Do yourself a favor and pick up some knowledge on that. Mutations - which are almost always deleterious and damaging to genetic information - are the very thing that brings about all 10+ million life forms on earth? The things that cause so many diseases are also the things that make new body plans and organs...? I guess you've never heard of statistical mechanics either huh. Or combinatorial dependencies in complex machines? Still don't understand that code = intelligence so the genetic code had to have been built by an intelligent of vast intellect? No intelligence = no code. Code, by definition, requires intelligence. The genetic is not analogous to code it IS code. Molecular machinery is not analogous to machinery it IS machinery. Complex inter-cooperating machines working concurrently cannot arise by random processes. Period. The line up of facts now working against the neo Darwinian ToE is getting so large that the truly amazing thing is that Darwinists either can't or refuse to see it. Yet you all go on merrily imagining that "somewhere out there" someone has the real evidence for this 'modern synthesis' - when in fact no one has.Borne
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Lenoxus:
disputes always emerge when it comes to the specifics (common descent, mechanism of design, etc). Whereas even as evolutionists debate punk eek versus gradualism, they all agree on the details about mutations.
mechanism of design? You don't get it. Design is the mechanism, molecules are the parts - DNA contains the information and meta information for assembly of the parts. Thus your question doesn't even make sense. "they all agree on the details of mutations"? Surely you jest! No? Well then dream on, dream on... However, have you never heard of genetic entropy? Do yourself a favor and pick up some knowledge on that. Mutations - which are almost always deleteroius and damaging to genetic information - are the very thing that brings about all 10+ million life forms on earth? The things that cause so many diseases are also the things that make new body plans and organs...? I guess you've never heard of statistical mechanics either huh. Or combinatorial dependencies in complex machines? Still don't understand that code = intelligence so the genetic code had to have been built by an intelligent of vast intellect? No intelligence = no code. Code, by definition, requires intelligence. The genetic is not analogous to code it IS code. Molecular machinery is not analogous to machinery it IS machinery. Complex inter-cooperating machines working concurrently cannot arise by random processes. Period. The line up of facts now working against the neo Darwinian ToE is getting so large that the truly amazing thing is that Darwinists either can't or refuse to see it. Yet you all go on merrily imagining that "somewhere out there" someone has the real evidence for this 'modern synthesis' - when in fact no one has.Borne
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Nakashima, I thought Dr. Hunter's fictional future was about failed Darwinism, not science. I've never seen anyone here have problems with science, only the fascist-like dogmatism of some Orwellian thought-minders who police evolutionary scientist from using words like "design" and prevent any critical thought. Except of course when it comes to SETI, then by all means, teach the children. By the way, you never said if you exist or not. Which is it? You certainly debate with passionately satiric wit as if you exist. ;-)DATCG
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Mr StephenB, Yes, and it is the profound failure of the metaphysical assumptions of the Atomic Theory of Matter that explain the status of that theory today. And likewise, the failure of the Atomic Theory explains the status of those assumptions in the scientific world. If it weren't for Newton's metaphysics guided alchemy we would no nothing of the true nature of the world.Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
----"We now understand that a key enabler of Evolutionary Thought was the denial of its very foundation. In its Delusion of Objectivity, evolution denied any theological or metaphysical influence or commitment. Indeed, the very term Enlightenment is an anachronism. We still use this historical term, even though it was meant to convey the idea of objectivity and independence of religious assumption and authority. Indeed, The Enlightenment period was precisely the opposite. As with so many periods of history, The Enlightenment was strongly influenced by theology and metaphysics. The difference in The Enlightenment was its denial of such influence. This Delusion of Objectivity was the source of much of the justification for Evolutionary Thought, until its demise in the early twenty first century." Brilliant! And absolutely true. The biggest mistake is in believing that science can or ever has operated without metaphysical assumptions.StephenB
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
What would Gregor Mendel have concluded differently about genetics if he had been a monk, and not blinded by the implicate metaphysical naturalism of all post-Enlightenment science?
Excellent point! To which I might add: I've been following this blog for months now, and I'm still not sure exactly which "old mainstream" evolutionary premises will be replaced by which "new mainstream" design premises. For example, will the laws of inheritance be modified to include saltation or front-loading? Time and time again, I get the sense that all the various ID people have in common is a nebulous notion that evolution is wrong and design is right, but disputes always emerge when it comes to the specifics (common descent, mechanism of design, etc). Whereas even as evolutionists debate punk eek versus gradualism, they all agree on the details about mutations.Lenoxus
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
I like the prediction of a demise in the early 21st century. It reminds me of this: "Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904. Religious people have been prophesying the death of evolutionary thought since its existence. In reality, the percentage of the U.S. population describing themselves as having no religion has doubled since 1990, and the support for purely naturalistic evolution is higher amongst the young than the old. Could there be an element of wishful thinking in such predictions?iconofid
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Dr Hunter, You are on much safer ground expressing the opinion that evolutionary thought entails metaphysical naturalism than relabelling all post-Enlightenment science as "Evolutionary Thought". Exactly what part of condensed matter physics deserves the label "Evolutionary Thought"? What part of organic chemistry? What part of meteorology would be done differently if it was all done by Hasidic Jews? What would Gregor Mendel have concluded differently about genetics if he had been a monk, and not blinded by the implicate metaphysical naturalism of all post-Enlightenment science?Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Mr Jerry, I'm not the one publishing fantasy. But even a fantasy of a scholarly history can make the appropriate distinctions.Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply