Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Independent Evolution of Complex Designs in Molluscs: Why the Explanations are in Need of Explaining

arroba Email

To the modern student Aristotle’s physics and cosmology are likely to seem bizarre. His final causes, geocentrism, and sublunar and superlunar realms seem to have no correspondence with reality. But Aristotelianism makes more sense when one understands the historical context of ancient Greek thought. In fact Aristotle’s physics and cosmology describe and explain what we observe in nature. This is attested to by the fact that it was well accepted and influential for a millenium and a half. Eventually, however, as scientific understanding progressed, the Aristotelian explanations became increasingly strained. Aristotelianism became more of a tautology, as whatever was observed was described according to the ancient system. Fire, for example, had the quality of dryness and heat. But is this not simply a tautology? As Descartes put it: “If you find it strange that … I do not use the qualities called ‘heat,’ ‘cold,’ ‘moistness,’ and ‘dryness,’ as do the philosophers, I shall say to you that these qualities appear to me to be themselves in need of explanation.” Aristotelianism failed to explain the physical action causing the effects. Today Darwin’s theory of evolution follows a similar denouement. To modern scientists it seems strange, but Darwin had good reasons for his theories of common descent and evolution. In the final acts, however, evolution is more of a tautology. Like Aristotelianism, evolution is a superfluous explanatory device rather than a value added. The difference is that evolution is running its course over a couple of centuries, rather than a couple of millenia.  Read more

Here is another evaluation of this article from crev.info: Four miracles: Getting one central nervous system by an unguided process would seem unlikely enough, but now, without a twinge of shame, Ferris Jabr at New Scientist tells us it happened four times! Jabr relayed, without any cross examination, the new idea of an evolutionary biologist at Auburn University, summarizing it thus: “The new findings expand a growing body of evidence that in very different groups of animals – molluscs and mammals, for instance – central nervous systems evolved not once, but several times, in parallel.” (While at it, the evolutionist rearranged the mollusc family tree.) Because the new family tree shows that gastropods and cephalopods are not as related as once thought, it can only mean one thing: “they must have evolved their centralised nervous systems independently, at different times.” If this was a crackpot view from one university it might be forgiven, but a neurobiologist at Georgia State chimed in, “This is more evidence that you can get complexity emerging multiple times.” No, it is more evidence that Darwinists will believe anything to save their hypothesis! This is an example of making interpretations wearing Darwinian glasses. Or as the writer of this site likes to say, it is a good example of interpretations of scientists who are drunk on Darwine and can't think straight. tjguy

Leave a Reply