Jerry Coyne Wants Empiricism Except When He Doesn’t

Ofro:

I don’t think that is quite correct. In my understading, the terms micro- and macro-evolution were invented in these circles here because there was no avoiding to admit that there were mutations causing changes in phenotype; the alternative would be to postulate that forms were continually designed de novo.

You're wrong Ofro. This distinction has been around since at least the 1930's. Goldschmidt in his 1940 classic uses both terms. PaV

Mats, PaV: "This is why Darwinian skeptics should dismiss the term “micro-evolution”, since it’s an illusion aimed to portray the wrong conclusion that micro-evolution EVENTUALLY leads to macro-evolution. By using the word “micro-evolution”, we are playing THEIR game." I don't think that is quite correct. In my understading, the terms micro- and macro-evolution were invented in these circles here because there was no avoiding to admit that there were mutations causing changes in phenotype; the alternative would be to postulate that forms were continually designed de novo. Personally, I am happy just to call both evolution, which is what they really are. "Genetic adaptation" is an OK term, as long as it is understood that it is a subset of evolutionary processes. ofro

Mats:

This is why Darwinian skeptics should dismiss the term “micro-evolution”, since it’s an illusion aimed to portray the wrong conclusion that micro-evolution EVENTUALLY leads to macro-evolution. By using the word “micro-evolution”, we are playing THEIR game.

I couldn't agree with you more. Instead of 'microevolution', I think we should simply use the word "adaptation". That's what organisms do after all. It's not "evolution"; it is, as you say, "genetic change"--and I suspect change brought about it a directed way. We'll have to leave it to science to elucidate how it is directed. PaV

In the essay, Coyne writes: But after demolishing creationists, Crews gives peacemaking scientists their own hiding, reproving them for trying to show that there is no contradiction between science and theology. Regardless of what they say to placate the faithful, most scientists probably know in their hearts that science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world. Supernatural forces and events, essential aspects of most religions, play no role in science, not because we exclude them deliberately, but because they have never been a useful way to understand nature. Scientific “truths” are empirically supported observations agreed on by different observers. Religious “truths,” on the other hand, are personal, unverifiable and contested by those of different faiths. Science is nonsectarian: those who disagree on scientific issues do not blow each other up. Science encourages doubt; most religions quash it. # # # # I don't see, having not read the book, how Crews "demolishes" ID or NDE? Has he demonstrated a Darwinina pathway that results in the flagellum? Has he refuted Dembski's arguments (I can recommend the book highly) in THE DESIGN REVOLUTION. (Buy it, learn, give Bill a royalty!) Now, we have a debate about cosmology on U.D. The PIG Guide to Science discusses global warming and cancer research, where heretics are at best ostracized. Darwin, Freud, Marx -- three horsemen, at least -- were all considered "empirically supported observations agreed on by different observers". What about these facts? The interesting thing to me about human behavior, which Freud can't explain, is the emotional resistance raised when observations do indeed contradict "sacred" dogma or preconceived beliefs! While cold fusion may not work, using biologic processes may: http://www.blacklightpower.com/ As Thornhill wrote: However, I have suggested that the way to tap into nuclear energy is not via the "brute force and ignorance" approach of smashing nuclei together. Rather, it is to use the exquisite resonant nuclear reactions that biological enzymes routinely use to convert one element into another. See the work of Louis Kervran.I think the US research company of Blacklight Power have stumbled on to the resonant catalysis of hydrogen to form hydrogen atoms with the electron at a lower level than the so-called Bohr ground state. The process releases considerable energy. It is this intelligent, "tuned" approach, which will (IMHO) be the way of the future. It requires that we understand the physical basis for quantum effects instead of the metaphysics that surrounds the subject. http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/history.htm # # # # # # # # # A year before the Wright brothers flew their airplane at Kitty Hawk, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, declared that attempting to fly a heavier-than-air aircraft was simply “absurd.” A few weeks before the airplane flew, Simon Newcomb, a distinguished professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, stated that heavier than air powered human flight was, in scientific terms, “utterly impossible.” According to Newcomb, any form of powered flight would require the discovery of an entirely new force. With such eminence behind these statements, the mainstream media of the day meekly followed the lead of the authorities, and sneered at the ridiculous notion of powered flight. To add injury to insult, more than two years after the Wright brothers had first flown their aircraft, and in spite of the fact that dozens of eyewitnesses had actually seen them fly, the popular Scientific American magazine continued to ridicule the “alleged” flights. An editorial in the magazine explained why: If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted ... on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter ... - even if he has to scale a fifteen-story skyscraper to do so - would not have ascertained all about them and published them long ago? Many years later, when the editor of the Wright brothers’ hometown newspaper was asked why he had refused to publish anything about their amazing accomplishment, he replied “We just didn’t believe it. Of course, you remember that the Wrights at that time were terribly secretive.” The interviewer responded incredulously, “You mean they were secretive about the fact that they were flying over an open field?” The editor considered the question and replied sheepishly, “I guess the truth is we were just plain dumb.” # # # # # # # I can recommend Forbidden Science too: http://www.amazon.com/Design-Revolution-Answering-Questions-Intelligent/dp/0830823751 (Bill's book) http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Science-Suppressed-Research-Change/dp/1857023021 http://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Science-Challenging-Scientific-Establishment/dp/0892816317/sr=1-2/qid=1158068655/ref=sr_1_2/103-7099181-1892659?ie=UTF8&s=books Book Description In this compelling tour through the world of anomalous research, Richard Milton makes clear what the scientific establishment takes pains to deny: plenty of hard experimental evidence already exists for such things as cold fusion, paranormal phenomena, bioenergy, and the effectiveness of alternative medicine. Because these subjects and those who dare to investigate them are continually denied legitimacy by what can only be called the "paradigm police," the public is led to believe that all claims made about such topics are completely groundless. With humor and an eye for the telling detail, the author describes many instances when the defenders of scientific orthodoxy acted with unscientific rigidity in the face of the evidence. Faraday, Roentgen, Edison, and even the Wright Brothers were thought to be charlatans by their contemporaries. Taking the broad view of the way science is done, Milton discusses the forces at work in the marginalization of unorthodox research, and makes the reader wonder if there is not something fundamentally wrong with the way that science is currently being practiced. P. Phillips

Dawkins says

“The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is becoming a favorite one for creationists. Actually, it’s no big deal. b>Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution stretched out over a much greater time span…”

This is why Darwinian skeptics should dismiss the term "micro-evolution", since it's an illusion aimed to portray the wrong conclusion that micro-evolution EVENTUALLY leads to macro-evolution. By using the word "micro-evolution", we are playing THEIR game. The phenomena they call "micro-evolution" already had a name (or names). Those were "genetic change", or "genetic variation", or just "variation", as Darwin calls it. No need to use the word "micro evolution" since it's misleading, and illusionary. Mats

Carlos writes: “For me, the brilliance and audacity of the New Testament is the ethical insights it contains.” As I said in my original comment, Christ’s ethical pronouncements were profound, even radical, so I agree with you in a sense. I disagree that there was anything new about them. When asked what was the essence of the law, Christ did not make something up out of whole cloth. He quoted a formulation that had been around for over 1,000 years (The Shema: God is one, and you shall love him with all your being) and the well-known principle of “love your neighbor.” How was Christ radical then? It was not in the ethical principles he espoused. It was in his insistence that the people (especially the religious leaders of the day) observe in a purer way the ethical system they already knew! You allude to his putting intention, rather than action only, under the microscope. This is exactly right. In a wonderful series of statements in the form of “You have heard it said . . . But I say . . .” he called for ethical renewal. But his call was for just that, i.e., “renewal,” not for something “new.” The religious leaders were teaching the people how to “get around” the law, how to “get away” with doing what in their heart they knew to be wrong. Christ’s was simply calling them to take their already existing ethical system seriously. Christ did not announce a new ethical system, because for there to be a “new” system there has to have been an old one that it supplanted. There is and has always been only one ethical system. Christ’s ethics were not so different from Islamic ethics or Buddhist ethics, or Hindu ethics. After all, everyone has access to the same natural law, and we should therefore expect that all systems of ethics will to some extent approximate it. No, the true essence of the New Testament was not Christ’s ethical message (as beautiful and wonderful as it was), but Christ himself, his incarnation, his redemptive work on the cross, and his resurrection. It is a shame (more than a shame, a tragedy) that that part of it doesn’t grab you so much. BarryA

Carlos, before I say anything else, let me say that I have truly enjoyed our little dialogues over the last few days, and though I have never met you, I have grown to love you. Thank you for saying so. I feel the same way. I'll respond to your very provocative challenge, and I'll try to show how one can have objectivity without absolutism. This will be interesting! Carlos

Carlos, before I say anything else, let me say that I have truly enjoyed our little dialogues over the last few days, and though I have never met you, I have grown to love you. Now my response. You say that we are rational beings (provocatively, you say “rational animals”) fully capable of holding ourselves accountable to a universally valid moral law. Yes, we are rational. No argument there. Yes, we are fully capable of holding ourselves accountable to a universally valid moral law. No argument there. But here’s the rub. On what ground do you say that a universally valid moral law exists? In other words, is there an objective (there’s that word again) foundation for a system of ethics? You suggest three options for a foundation for ethics: (1) God has created us and He has also established an objective, transcendent moral law, and to breach that law is to transgress our duty to our Creator, Him to whom we owe everything, including our very existence. (2) The rationalistic story. Ethics exist as part of rationality itself. (3) The naturalistic story. The moral law is the application of intelligence to experience. Yes, those are three options that are frequently discussed. I would add a fourth: Deep Feeling: The moral law is a product of deeply and universally held intuitions. Here is the problem with options 2-4. There is nothing to anchor them. Provine and Dawkins may not be your gurus, but their logic, it seems to me, is unassailable. Dawkins or Provine do not deny the existence of morality. They say it is an evolved adaptation. Surely you will agree that in a materialistic Darwinian world they are right. In that world there is nothing “out there” that we can appeal to in order arbitrate differences of opinion about how “rationality” requires us to live, or what our “experience” says is the good, or whether this or that “intuition” is leading us in the paths of righteousness. Why? Because without God there is no right. There is no wrong. There is no reason to even believe that the universe makes moral sense at all. In a 2002 article in First Things J. Budziszewski explained there are at least four problems with trying to have morals without God. 1. Approaches 2-4 at bottom appeal to a sense that a particular course of conduct goes “against the grain” of human nature. But if evolution is true, didn’t our “nature” evolve based upon the conditions as they were. If conditions had been different would morality be different? Budziszewski writes: “Given the nature that we do have, certain things go against the grain, hence a certain natural law. Honor your father and mother. Do not kill. Do not covet. Given some other nature, different things would have gone against the grain -- hence a different natural law. It might have been anything. Supplant your father. Chase away your mother. Eat your neighbor and covet his mate. What strikes our nature as distressing would for that nature be the norm.” Once I understand that morality is an arbitrary and highly contingent result of natural selection, why should I consider it normative or binding? 2. Approaches 2-4 do away with “oughtness” and replace it with a highly subjective “prudence.” Budziszewski again: “Unfortunately, a truly oughtless prudence would have nothing to say to free riders. Anyone who thought he saw a way to obtain the benefits of these laws and institutions without their costs -- or who was willing to accept the costs of transgressing them -- would do so. To speak . . . of marriage, some men prefer seducing married women. Others say they can do very well without trust. Still others, that although they fear exposure, they would rather risk it than forgo their pleasures. Some even enjoy the risk; for them, it isn’t a cost.” 3. Approaches 2-4 assume that we have reason to believe the universe makes moral sense. Here again, Dawkins and Provine are correct. If blind watchmaker Darwinism is correct, there is no right. There is no wrong. There is only the stronger and the weaker. 4. The fool has said in his heart there is no God. Here Budziszewski emphasizes the word “said.” He asserts (and I agree) that no one truly believes there is no God, and that the foolishness of saying so consists of lying to oneself. Here is my final word on this subject: When I say the holocaust was evil, I mean that it was evil in an absolute, objective sense. I do not mean that in my opinion all rational people would believe it was not the thing to do. I do not mean that applying my intelligence to my experience I conclude that it was not a good idea. I do not mean that I feel very deeply that it was a bad thing. All three of the latter approaches boil down to “I disagree with the holocaust.” Who cares what I think? Other people thought (and some people still think) it was a good idea. What is there to arbitrate between my opinion and theirs? Nothing, absolutely nothing. That is why I do not base my moral judgments on my fallible human opinion. I base them on God’s law. BarryA

Before I say anything else, let me say that I understand that I'm coming to Christianity from an outsider's perspective. I don't want to come across as having the audacity or arrogance to lecture you on what you believe on matters of doctrine, and if I come across to you that way, please let know and I'll mollify my rhetoric. With respect to the moral law: well, Provine and Dawkins aren't my gurus, so I have no problem disagreeing with them, even on fundamental matters. Here's my take on the situation. We are rational beings (even "rational animals") who are capable of holding ourselves accountable according to a universally valid moral law. That is, if you will, a first-order fact about human beings. Given that, we can nevertheless entertain different explanations as to how the origin and status of the moral law: 1) The theistic story: the moral law is commanded by our creator, God. To act contrary to the moral law is to displease God. 2) The rationalistic story: the moral law is the form of rationality itself. To act contrary to the moral law is to be irrational. 3) The naturalistic story: the moral law is the the application of intelligence to experience. This intelligence is the result of cognitive capacities formed through millions of years of the kinds of selective pressures found among highly intelligent, social animals. Now, maybe (3) is wrong -- certainly a lot more needs to be done to flesh out the relevant details -- but it's not incoherent. And almost certainly the fleshed-out picture of (3) is going to entail a deflationary conception of the moral law. But a deflationary conception is not a refutation! In any event, rationality and morality are basic features of modern self-understanding, and have been for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The task of science is to explain these features, not to deny them. If Dawkins or Provine think that science requires us to deny them, then they've made a philosophical blunder, but that blunder shouldn't be taken to richochet back onto neo-Darwinian theory as a whole. If I'm wise, I won't say else about how I, as an outsider, approach the New Testament. But I'm foolish, so I'll say something. For me, the brilliance and audacity of the New Testament is the ethical insights it contains. It presents a truly universalistic ethic -- perhaps the first one in Western history. And it puts intention, rather than action, under the ethical microscope. That's what's really interesting about the NT, from my perspective. The metaphysical story doesn't grab me so much. I see that the metaphysics is necessary to motivate the ethics -- as Paul puts it, "we are neither Jews nor Greeks, but all are brothers in Christ crucified." The "Christ crucified" is where you want to put the emphasis. I'm more interested in the part where Paul uses faith in Christ as a way of putting aside traditional cultural divisions ("Jews and Greeks") in favor of a universal ethics, what I want to call here the moral law. In these conversations it's of fundamental importance that we're clear on the difference between reasons and motives. A reason is something that's going to appeal universally. If I have a reason to do x, then anyone in my situation would have a reason to do x. But motives don't generalize in the same way. So if a theist has a reason to act morally, that reason will apply just as much to an atheist -- if it's a genuine reason. On the other hand, the theist and the atheist could have very different motives for performing same moral action -- one is afraid of divine punishment, the other is afraid of a loss of self-respect. Motives figure prominently in the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, and figure prominently in the communities and traditions within which identity is located. Reasons figure prominently in the arguments we use to persuade, by reason alone, those whose identities differs from our own. There is a considerable philosophical tradition which holds that only humans can be rational. I think there's something plausible and powerful to that tradition. On the other hand, it does not follow from that that neo-Darwinian theories cannot explain the evolution of rationality from other forms of animal cognition. In short, I want to have my cake and eat it, too. I want to be a Kantian and a Darwinian and a Jew. And to think that avocationist said I had no ambition! Carlos

(Speaking of Freud) [If you've never read the book please ignore this comment.] From the conclusion of The Future of an Evolution by Sikmind Fraud:

...And there are two points that I must dwell on a little longer. Firstly, the weakness of my position does not imply any strengthening of yours. I think you are defending a lost cause. We may insist as often as we like that intelligence is unnecessary for the origin and evolution of life, and we may be right in this. Nevertheless, there is something peculiar about this weakness. The argument for intelligent design is an old and oft-derided one, but it does not rest till it has gained a hearing. Finally, after a countless succession of rebuffs, it succeeds. This is one of the few points on which one may be optimistic about the future of science, but it is in itself a point of no small importance. And from it one can derive yet other hopes. The primacy of intelligent design lies, it is true, in the future, but probably not in a too distant one. It will presumably set itself the same aims as those whose realization you expect from Darwinism (of course within reasonable limits — so far as external reality, Anank, allows it), namely the discovery of the truth about life. This being so, we may tell ourselves that our antagonism is only a temporary one and not irreconcilable. We desire the same things, but you are more impatient, more exacting, and -- why should I not say it? -- more self-seeking than I and those on my side. You would have a state of unquestionable knowledge begin now; you expect the impossible from it and will not surrender the outrageous claims of Darwin. Our theory will fulfil whichever of these wishes reality outside us allows, but it will do it very gradually, only in the unforseeable future, and for a new generation of men. On the way to this distant goal your Darwinist doctrines will have to be discarded, no matter whether the first attempts fail, or whether the first substitutes prove to be untenable. You know why: in the long run nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction which Darwinism offers to both is all too palpable. Indeed any evolutionary theory cannot escape this fate so long as it tries to preserve the atelic desolation of Darwinism. No doubt if it is confined to a belief in "evolution", whose qualities are undefinable and whose details cannot be discerned, it would be proof against the challenge of intelligent design theory; but then it will also lose its hold on the human intellect. And secondly: observe the difference between your attitude to illusions and mine. You have to defend the Darwinian illusion with all your might. If it becomes discredited — and indeed the threat to it is great enough — then your world collapses. There is nothing left for you but to despair of everything, of science and the future of mankind. From that bondage I am, we are, free. Since we are prepared to renounce a good part of our adolescent rebelliousness, we can bear if a few of our expectations turn out to be illusions. Education freed from the burden of Darwinian doctrines will not, it may be, effect much change in men's intellectual nature. Our theory may fulfil only a small part of what the Darwinists promised. If we have to acknowledge this we shall accept it with resignation. We shall not on that account lose our interest in the world and in life, for we have one sure support which you lack. We believe that is is possible for intelligent design theory to provide some insights about the reality of the world, by means of which we can increase our understanding and in accordance with which we can arrange our life. If this belief is an illusion, then we are in the same position as you. But ID has given us evidence by its important successes in identifying the problems with Darwinism that it is no illusion. ID has many open enemies, and many more secret ones, among those who cannot forgive her for having weakened Darwinist faith and for threatening to overthrow it. She is reproached for the smallness of the amount that she has taught us and for the incomparably greater field she has left in obscurity. But, in this, people forget how young she is, how difficult her beginnings were and how infinitesimally small is the period of time since human technological capabilities have been great enough for the tasks she sets. No, intelligent design is no illusion. But an illusion it would be to suppose that what intelligent design cannot give us we can get from Darwinism.

j

I also have to ask- why do atheists care about saving species and the like? If life has no purpose and all life will eventually end, and all will end in oblivion, why care about what happens to a spotted owl or a tree frog? It will eventually cease to exist, as will the rest of the universe itself- so why all the bother? I have a feeling that many atheists, deep down, have an idea that there's more (much more), which is why they feel the need to even bother with things that will eventually cease to exist forever as it is if their worldview is correct. JasonTheGreek

CARLOS says: “If neo-Darwinian theories of evolution are true, that could mean, at most, that the whole metaphysical story of Christianity is false. That doesn’t show that the ethical story is false. If the ethics comes first, then what’s the problem?” I've never understood this mindset. If the metaphysical part of Christianity is false, that makes the religion's founder a liar or a loony weirdo. Now, I personally can't see how you'd even begin to follow an ethical code laid down by a madman who pretended to be God- else, he was confused and actually thought he was God. If the very basis of the story isn't true (that Christ is God in human form), then the rest has no meaning. I wouldn't take my moral lead from a nutty sage who pretends to be God...and if I did, his moral foundation would mean nothing outside of it being his personal opinion. That and the moral foundation would be meaningless, as it could easily change with time, from person to person, from place to place. And a moral foundation that can so easily shift and change like that isn't much of a foundation at all. A moral pile of quicksand maybe, but not much else. If morals don't come from a higher power- they will ultimately mean very little or nothing at all. Why? If they didn't come from a higher power, they're surely just recommendations that served a survival purpose and nothing more. Which means they're relative- moral relativism is nonsense. Morality is inherently fixed and absolute. If not- why call it morality at all? Just call it opinion. So, no- the basic foundation of Christianity is that a man was born among us and was also God Himself. The ethics go along with that. If Christ wasn't God, his ethics mean nothing, because they're ultimately just the opinion of a very deranged sage. JasonTheGreek

What about E.O. Wilson, noted Darwiniac, wanting to save the planet is his 'dialog' with a 'minister' here? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/books/review/Scully.t.html?8bu&emc=bu No surprise that the New York Times review is favorable: Excerpt God Is Green By MATTHEW SCULLY In the academic habitat of evolutionary scientists, religious sympathies are weeded out over time, and the fittest survive to pass along their traits through haughty books and lectures examining the “delusion” and purely biological origins of faith. So when an eminent evolutionary biologist breaks from the pack to address religious folk in warm and respectful terms, this is what’s known in the field as “punctuated” change — a sudden and, in this case, pleasant variation. There is good reason for the friendlier tone, explains Edward O. Wilson in this engaging and gracious book. A renowned entomologist and Harvard professor emeritus, Wilson has warned for years, in books like “The Future of Life” (2002), of global warming, mass extinction and other troubles of humanity’s own making. But these works were addressed largely to fellow environmentalists, and that approach will get you only so far. More out of habit than considered judgment, Wilson believes, many religious people and especially conservative Christians tend to brush off environmental causes as liberal alarmism, vaguely subversive, and in any case no concern of theirs. Wilson’s book is a polite but firm challenge to this mind-set, seeking to ally religion and science — “the two most powerful forces in the world today” — in an ethic of “honorable” self-restraint toward the natural world. In learned and congenial prose (I understand now how a book called “The Ants” could win a Pulitzer Prize), Wilson casts his appeal as a letter to an imaginary Baptist minister from the South. As a boy in Alabama, Wilson recalls, he too “answered the altar call,” and though today a “secular humanist” he proposes to the pastor that as gentlemen and Southerners they lay aside principled disagreements about evolution and intelligent design. We do not need to answer or agree upon every mystery of the universe to confront problems that are, by any account, serious and urgent. Some will see in the natural world a divine creation, and the Lord of Life who makes nothing in vain. Enough for others “living Nature,” every plant or animal a “masterpiece of biology,” as Wilson writes. “Does this difference in worldview separate us in all things?” he asks. “It does not. ... Let us see, then, if we can, and you are willing, to meet on the near side of metaphysics in order to deal with the real world we share.” Looking around the real world, we find “the rest of life” vanishing. Half of all species — from the glorious tigers and elephants to the lowlier “little things that run the world” — could be gone forever by the century’s end, leaving only the genetic codes that wildlife biologists have stored away. No lions left to lie down with the lamb. P. Phillips

Carlos writes:  “If neo-Darwinian theories of evolution are true, that could mean, at most, that the whole metaphysical story of Christianity is false. That doesn’t show that the ethical story is false. If the ethics comes first, then what’s the problem?” The problem is that the ethics do not come first. The essence of Christianity is not its ethical claims. It is true that Christ made ethical pronouncements in a powerful, even radical, way. But his ethics were not new. Indeed, natural law theory teaches us that there is no such thing as “new” ethics. If Christ’s ethical teachings were not central what was? The incarnation, atonement and resurrection of course, precisely the part you seem to chuck out so insouciantly. “Nothing in Darwinism shows that we should not hold ourselves accountable according to the moral law. At most it requires us to tell a very different story about how we became so accountable. That’s all.” Just the opposite is true. If Darwinism is true then it is meaningless to say we should be accountable to the moral law, because, as Provine and Dawkins say (see quote above) there is no such thing as a moral law. It is therefore meaningless to say we should hold ourselves accountable to that which does not exist. BarryA

Carlos writes:  \"Well, if you’re so sure it’s “obvious,” I won’t belabor the point, except to say that it’s a live and very interesting debate among primatologists.\" Who, not coincidentally, get grant funds in the course of generating silly controversies like that. Yet another example of the corrupting influence of the funding process on scientific inquiry. BarryA

(31) If neo-Darwinian theories of evolution are true, that could mean, at most, that the whole metaphysical story of Christianity is false. That doesn't show that the ethical story is false. If the ethics comes first, then what's the problem? Nothing in Darwinism shows that we should not hold ourselves accountable according to the moral law. At most it requires us to tell a very different story about how we became so accountable. That's all. (32) Well, if you're so sure it's "obvious," I won't belabor the point, except to say that it's a live and very interesting debate among primatologists. Carlos

Christ is recorded as eating fish and eating Passover meals (lamb). I found a fair amount of disagreement over that. Google christ vegetarian. Here's a sample http://www.ivu.org/history/christian/christ_veg.html DaveScot

Carlos, 1. if "spirituality" is an adaptation; 2. if, as an adaptation it need only be expedient rather than actually reflecting some plane of reality and/or mode of existence; then would you say that this evolved "spirituality" is actually a delusion (a belief in or hallucinatory interaction with non-existent forces or entities)? kvwells

Carlos writes: “I wanted a term that would capture what makes human culture different from chimp culture.” If we use any meaningful definition of the word “culture,” chimps don’t have a culture. Don’t bother providing counter arguments. I don’t argue for the obvious. I just point it out from time to time. BarryA

Carlos writes: “the ethical precepts are not invalidated by thinking of Christ himself as the product of evolution.” Wrong. All ethical concepts of any kind are invalidated if any person (not just Christ) is the product of blind watchmaker evolution. Without a lawgiver there can be no law. Provine and Dawkins are surely correct if BWE is correct: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.” William Provine, Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract); on the web at http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/DarwinDayProvineAddress.htm. “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life (London: Phoenix, 1995), 133. BarryA

bFast, I think your posts point to an observation, one that was made about Darwin but seems to apply equally to Freud: What was new was not true, and what was true was not new. BarryA

Spirituality helps contribute to more stable, more tightly-knit communities. It helps make possible systems of cooperation across generations. Some Darwinians think of religion as a destructive force. In some cases, it can be. But it needn't be in all cases. In any event, adaptations can be destructive -- if the environment changes, and the species doesn't adapt, or adapt fast enough, then what was adaptive at one point becomes maladaptive. If the maladaptation is serious enough, the species becomes extinct. We haven't become extinct yet, but maybe it's only a matter of time. Or helping our non-genetic related fellow humans in some other tribe? One of the most beautiful things about humanity now is that our sense of compassion, love of justice, and hatred of oppression isn't (always) restricted by genetic boundaries. But for a very, very long time, that was the case. It took a long time for a sense of justice to evolve from a sense of revenge, and for a hatred of oppression to evolve from a hatred of being oppressed. One can see this sensibility emerge in the so-called "Axial Age." What evolutionary theorists need to explain isn't every detail of social evolution, but rather the emergence of the cognitive capacities for social evolution. And that's what I was trying to get at by appropriating Hegel's use of "spirit." (But maybe I need to rethink how much of Hegel I want to use.) I didn't want to use the term "culture" because there's some evidence of cultural transmission in chimpanzees, and I wanted a term that would capture what makes human culture different from chimp culture. Carlos

"Christ was a vegetarian as far as I can determine, never harmed another living thing, produced no progeny at all, lived a minimalist existence, and told everyone that his was the perfect example that God wants us all to live." Actually, Christ is recorded as eating fish and eating Passover meals (lamb). However, I give you kudos for the rest of your post. Adolph Hitler was the vegetarian, I believe. ;) However, the Bible does describe the future "ideal" world as one in which there is no animal predation ("The lion shall lay down with the lamb"). russ

Carlos, You mention that "human adaptation is spirituality". What, according to you, is the object of the adaptation? True, religious people tend to be healthier and live longer than non-religious. However, that hardly seems a plausible explanation for such a complex trait "evolving". Besides, according to many leading Darwinists, religion is a destructive force. So how would it help us adapt if it is destructive? Besides, with evolution imposing primarily a competitive dynamic, as DaveScot said, why the tendency to evolve a submission trait? And why spend tons of our time in something like worship? Or helping our non-genetic related fellow humans in some other tribe? Ekstasis

DaveScot, I don't know what else to say here, except that I experience a sense of awe, mystery, and wonder when I think that the same forces that produced us also produced everything else. I never got into the whole "nature, red in tooth and claw" interpretation of Darwin. Differential reproductive success does not exclude cooperation, affection, and love. Different species are characterized by different adaptations. The human adaptation is -- boy, I know I'm gonna get it for saying this -- what the philosopher Hegel (see here or here called "Geist," spirit. So, to put it crudely, the human adaptation is spirituality. Spirituality does make us unique, but it does not make us unique in a way that other species are not unique in their own ways. As for the forced contrast between Darwinism and Christ: Darwinism is a theory about how organisms actually behave, not an ethical doctrine about they humans should behave. Evolution is not ethics. Suppose Christ is a good model -- indeed, I can accept that most humans have been far worse! -- the ethical precepts are not invalidated by thinking of Christ himself as the product of evolution. The metaphysical side of Christianity is inconsistent with Darwinism -- at least on some interpretations! -- but you don't need the metaphysics to get the ethics off the ground, and certainly not the metaphysics of Plato or Aristotle. Carlos

Carlos writes Whereas a Darwinian view of life does give one a sense of connection and one-ness with other living things. I sure don't see the logic in that. The Darwinian view gives one a sense of competition with other living things. In the Darwinian world the winners are judged by so-called reproductive differential. He who produces the most progeny and is better and faster at gobbling up natural resources to produce more progeny wins the game of life. Judeo-Christianity on the other hand commands that we be good shepherds of the earth. Christ was a vegetarian as far as I can determine, never harmed another living thing, produced no progeny at all, lived a minimalist existence, and told everyone that his was the perfect example that God wants us all to live. Quite the difference there if you ask me and Darwinism isn't the one coming out smelling like a rose. DaveScot

barryA, re Freud's theories compared to the four humors. If there is a comparison between psychology and "blood letting" one would have to recall the lobotomy. This, if I understand, was not Freud's idea. You may also want to include "electroshock therapy". The latter, though it is radically misunderstood by society, also not Freud's invention, does seem to have some therapeutic value and continues to be used under special circomstances. Alas, Freud raised the issue of sexual abuse as a cause of mental illness. He got that one right, didn't he? Psychology certainly has promised to be much more effective than it has turned out to be. Even if someone "wants to change", change is still very limited and difficult. When you say, "Their patients got better, if they got better, not because of the treatment but despite it" statistics would suggest that you speak some truth. It seems that, with the exception of chemical psychiatry, there is little link between the quality of a person's psychological care and whether a person gets better or not. The one difference that has been observed, however, is that for those who do get better, the ones with professional care get there more quickly. However, I contend that though psychology was vastly over-promoted, Freud started psychology on the track that it is on, on a track that is much better than the punitive track that it was on before he came along.

Would the psychology profession never have figured this out without Freud?

Though I am sure that our society would have eventually figured it out without Freud, Freud still made major moves in this reguard. He changed the way that patients in "sanatoriums" were treated. Russ:

lots of regular people understand intuitively that it’s therapeutic to be listened to without judgement, and that it helps us unburden our souls if we are allowed to share openly and without fear of condemnation

Freud and Rogers are primarily responsible for this significant change in our social attitude. We used to live in a very punitive and judgemental society. As far as scripture pointing the way to good psychology, I would also reference Romans 12:15, "rejoice with them that do rejoice and weep with them that weep." This "empathy" verse is, in my view, the best Biblical description of what Jung referred to as "matching the affect", a very effective therapeutic tool. bFast

Carlos writes The former USSR destroyed its environment in a desperate and shortsighted attempt to catch up to the West. But we’ve hardly done much better. If we are enjoined “to till and to tend,” we’ve done a really bad job of it. This shows a really profound lack of the facts surrounding the situation. Substituting one bunch of heathen commies for another I invite you to research the environmental record of China. Your mistaken conclusion is probably based upon the fact that we in the U.S. actually care about, set strict standards for, and obsessively measure things like arsenic in drinking water, asbestos in buildings, ozone in the air we breathe, DDT in the soil, owls in the redwood forests, replanting of harvested timber, soot and noxious chemicals in auto exhaust & factory smoke, in factory and things like that. When these standards aren't met in the U.S. everyone hears of it and there's a thunderous response. They don't even bother measuring these things in many areas of the world. India has a horrible problem with arsenic contamination in their aquifers that is slowly killing many millions, for example. They've only just learned of it and begun to pretend they care enough to start fixing it. DaveScot

I've sometimes considered running up a defense of both Marx and Freud, in addition to Darwin, on this site. It's taken for granted by everyone that Marx and Freud are over and done with, swept into the dustbin of history. I don't share that view. But I figured that if I presented myself as a hyper-naturalist (Marxist-Freudian-Darwinist) and as a person of faith, no one here would know what to make of me, and the conversations would be even more difficult than they already are. Carlos

Boy, I've really stepped in it this time, haven't I? (11) and (13): I'm with Dawkins on this one, with respect to the fact of common ancestry as an "inference to the unobserved," as Hume put it. That leaves open the problem of the mechanisms and steps whereby evolution took place. The neo-Darwinian story is one proposed mechanism, and one that has a lot of evidential support, but also not without serious problems. The intelligent design story is another proposed mechanism, one which I still think has even more serious problems. And I've made my preference clear for something like complexity theory or autopoiesis. Among intelligent design theorists, Behe has made it clear -- clear enough for my taste, at any rate -- that he does not deny (a) the fact of common ancestry or (b) natural selection as an important mechanism. What he denies is that genetic information could have come into being ex nihilo, as it were. I don't know where Dembski and Stephen Meyer stand on the issue, but it strikes me that they could easily accept common ancestry and simply argue that intelligent design is the principle mechanism that drives macroevolutionary patterns. (3) Can you empirically verify empiricism? Hume tried his best (in Book 1 of A Treatise of Human Nature and in Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding), and he was one of the finest minds the British Isles ever produced. Opinion remains divided, but my take on it is that Hume showed that the empirical verification of empiricism couldn't be done. (16) and (17): I wasn't suggesting that Christian doctrine supports anti-environmentalism -- although Coyne may be guilty of that inference. I was alleging that anti-environmentalism is sometimes justified on the basis of Christian doctrine. Now, if you want to claim that that's a misinterpretation, you'll get no argument from me! Carlos

"Further, Freud’s general model of quietly and respectfully listening has been the cornerstone of all psychology." - bFast I don't know diddly about Sigmund Freud beyond PSY101, but lots of regular people understand intuitively that it's therapeutic to be listened to without judgement, and that it helps us unburden our souls if we are allowed to share openly and without fear of condemnation. Would the psychology profession never have figured this out without Freud? Anyway, I think one New Testament writer may have beaten Freud to the punch: JAMES 1:19 "My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry..." ;) russ

Has anyone reading this ever taken a rented car through a carwash? Sure. Who doesn't prefer being seen in a clean car instead of a dirty one? I think a better question is who reading this has used an expensive wax guaranteed to protect the paint for a year on a rental car they'll be returning in a week. :lol: DaveScot

Russ is certainly correct. Anyone who suggests that Christian doctrine supports environmental irresponsibility has a profound lack of understanding of the doctrine they purport to be explicating. BarryA

"...people who think that they can mess up this planet as much as they want, since it’s only a temporary assignment before they’re relocated to a more spiritual abode." The major religions of the west hold both that this is a "temporary assignment", and that judgement follows death. Why would adherents of western religion--following that religion---gratuitously trash the "temporary" earth, knowing that their stewardship of everything earthly would be judged once the "assignment" was over? russ

bFast Freud’s theories are little different than doctors’ theories 200 years ago. They had no idea what caused disease, so they came up with the four “gross humors” to explain it, and they bled people to correct imbalances in the gross humors. Their patients got better, if they got better, not because of the treatment but despite it. Freud had no idea what causes mental illness, so he came up with his own crackpot version of the gross humors. And the same thing happened. Patients treated using Freud’s methods got better – if they get better – not because of the treatment but despite it. Freud in his treating room is the mental health equivalent of an 18th century doctor standing over his patient with a lancet and a bowl to catch the blood. BarryA

Carlos writes: “But we’ve hardly done much better [on the environment].” This is absurd. The countries of the former Soviet Union (FSU) are environmental disaster zones. Conversely, by practically every significant measure the US’s environment is not just cleaner, but far cleaner, than it was 30 years ago. There is no clear link between Darwinism and the FSU’s disastrous environmental record. The latter is due to the FSU’s disregard of human nature. People will do (or not do) what you give them an incentive to do (or not do). If you take away ownership of property you give people an incentive not to be good stewards of that which they do not own anyway. Has anyone reading this ever taken a rented car through a carwash? Ekstasis’ basic point is still valid, however. Crews states that acceptance of Darwinism is critically linked to environmental responsibility. Ekstasis points to an example of a nation (the FSU) that accepted Darwinism with great fervor and yet had a terrible environmental record. The link that Crews suggests not only does not exist, but at least with respect to correlation (if not causation), just the opposite is true. BarryA

In any event, “having overcome all scientific challenges” is hardly “certain,” let alone “certainty of certainties.” Scientists can be dogmatic, but they are not as dogmatic as you pretend they are. On the other hand, I do think that NCSE and that crowd (e.g. Shermer, Panda’s Thumb) lay it on a bit thick. Comment by Carlos — September 11, 2006 @ 11:54 am Richard Dawkins on evolution as fact/theory: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.shtml "A fact is a theory that is supported by all the evidence...The number of clues, the sheer weight of evidence, totally and utterly, sledgehammeringly, overwhelmingly strongly supports the conclusion that evolution is true...." By "evolution" he means the following: "The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is becoming a favorite one for creationists. Actually, it's no big deal. Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution stretched out over a much greater time span..." "...We can all look back through the generations, through 4000 million years to a tiny bacterium who lived in the sea and was the ancestor of us all. We are all cousins." russ

As one who has studied psychology on the masters level, I fail to understand the distain for Freud. It is well true that psychoanalysis is a field that is very difficult to study by the scientific method. It is also clear that the ability of the psychologist to improve or transform the life of the patient is very limited -- otherwise our prisons would be empty, and "rehabilitiation" would be a term of siginificant social value. I also recognize the North American tendancy to over-sexualize Freud's "labido" concept, but that's our problem, not his. However, Freud's view of the developmental stages of childhood are very well respected. The oedipal and electra phenomenons certainly have some validity. Further, Freud's general model of quietly and respectfully listening has been the cornerstone of all psychology. Freud is certainly the father of modern psychology. Modern psychology certainly plays a role in modern life, albiet a much smaller role than was expected of it (except in marketing). Freud certainly didn't get it all right. However, I certainly place him squarely in the camp of a significant contributer to society. I hardly view him as "debunked". bFast

In any event, “having overcome all scientific challenges” is hardly “certain,” let alone “certainty of certainties.” Scientists can be dogmatic, but they are not as dogmatic as you pretend they are. On the other hand, I do think that NCSE and that crowd (e.g. Shermer, Panda’s Thumb) lay it on a bit thick. Comment by Carlos — September 11, 2006 @ 11:54 am "Evolution is a scientifiec fact. That is, the descent of all species, with modification, from common ancestors is a hyposthesis that in the last 150 years or so has been supported by so much evidence, and has so successfully resisted all challenges, that it has become a fact." - Douglas Futuyma's 2005 college textbook "Evolution", quoted in Jonathan Wells' The Politically Incorrect Guide to Intelligent Design and Evolution, p. 63 russ

The acceptance of Darwinism does not imply, nor is implied by, communism. The rejection of Darwinism does not imply, nor is implied by, Christianity. The former USSR destroyed its environment in a desperate and shortsighted attempt to catch up to the West. But we've hardly done much better. If we are enjoined "to till and to tend," we've done a really bad job of it. I think Coyne is wrong to regard anti-Darwinism as the natural ally of anti-environmentalism, but the two are often found together, for example, in people who think that they can mess up this planet as much as they want, since it's only a temporary assignment before they're relocated to a more spiritual abode. Whereas a Darwinian view of life does give one a sense of connection and one-ness with other living things. And of course that sense is compatible with Christianity and other faiths as well. Carlos

Jerry says:

The whole enterprise reminded me of the excesses of evolutionary psychology, where adaptive stories about human behaviour pass for scientific truth.

Excesses in evolutionary psychology? Really?!! I can't believe it.

And the propositions of psychoanalysis have proven to be either untestable or falsified. How can we disprove the idea, for example, that we have a death drive? Or that dreams always represent wish fulfilments? When faced with counter-examples, Freudianism always proves malleable enough to incorporate them as evidence for the theory.

Allow me to make a more in-topic twist: "And the propositions of the theory of evolution have proven to be either untestable or falsified. How can we disprove the idea, for example, that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Or that land mammals evolved into whales?? When faced with counter-examples, Darwinism always proves malleable enough to incorporate them as evidence for the theory." This last statement is specially true on the "punctuated equilibrium" desperate atempt to have the fossil record as evidence for evolutionism.

Other key elements of Freudian theory have never been corroborated.

Other key elements of Darwinian theory have never been corroborated.

There are no scientifically convincing experiments, for example, demonstrating the repression of traumatic memories.

There are no scientifically convincing experiments, for example, demonstrating the eye evolution.

Realizing the scientific weaknesses of Freud, many diehards have taken the fall-back position that he was nevertheless a thinker of the first rank.

Realizing the scientific weaknesses of Darwin, many diehards have taken the fall-back position that he was nevertheless a thinker of the first rank. It is interesting that in the debate Bill had with Silver (I think that was the name) Bill alluded to a ppaer saying "The Triumph of Evolution". Bill correctly pointed out that we never hear about the "Triumph" of other theories. When will we read "the Triumph of relativity" ? Or the "the triumph of quantum mechanics" ? What is it about evolution that deserves such special promotion ?

Why, we must wonder, would the shaper of the universe have frittered away some fourteen billion years, turning out quadrillions of useless stars, before getting around to the one thing he really cared about, seeing to it that a minuscule minority of earthling vertebrates are washed clean of sin and guaranteed an eternal place in his company?”

This is a very good question, specially for those who hold for theistic evolutionism, but not only for them. Of course, his question betray assumptions that no Creationist accepts ("the 14 billion year universe")

Regardless of what they say to placate the faithful, most scientists probably know in their hearts that science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world

Oh...so now we have it. When Darwinist and humanist Eugenie Scott says that there is no contradiction between science ("evolution") and faith in God, she is only "placating" the faithful. She doesn't really believe in that.

Supernatural forces and events, essential aspects of most religions, play no role in science, not because we exclude them deliberately, but because they have never been a useful way to understand nature

Except for Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Carl Linaeus, Mendel and Louis Pasteur. But then again, what did those fundies know about science?

Scientific “truths” are empirically supported observations agreed on by different observers.

Except when you compare them. Fo example, if we compare life forms from the morphological viewpoint, and then from the molecular view point, it gets a bit complicated to "empircally" observe the "fact" of evolution. Mats

The attached article said the following: "Crews points out the dangers to the survival of our planet arising from a rejection of Darwinism. Such rejection promotes apathy towards overpopulation, pollution, deforestation and other environmental crimes: “So long as we regard ourselves as creatures apart who need only repent of our personal sins to retain heaven’s blessing, we won’t take the full measure of our species-wise responsibility for these calamities”." Is he serious? Has he visited formerly or currently Communist nations recently? With their idealogy passionately enshrining Darwinian evolution, they have left the land, air and water a total disaster!! Now, did Christianity ever state that personal sins excluded poisoning the environment? I must of forgot that verse in the bible. In fact, where did the idea of responsibility for our habitat come from? Possibly from the instructions to have dominion over the world? What does the bible say was our first task? To tend the garden? Hmmmmm. Ekstasis

There is a danger that a penetrating insight or a very successful approach to problem solving will obscure everything else in the brilliance of its glare. Coyne’s failure to see this is a cautionary tale for us all. Yes, the scientific method and the empiricism upon which it is based have been extremely successful in advancing our technology and our understanding of the universe. That overwhelming success does just that (i.e., overwhelms) people like Coyne, causing them to be unable to see beyond it. Other examples abound. Wittgenstein helped us see the centrality of language. Yet his brilliant general insight has degenerated to the point that some of his intellectual progeny write long books about how it is impossible to communicate through language (except, apparently, their long books). In my own field of law, the Chicago “law and economics” theorists helped us see the interface between economic theory and legal principles. But taken to an extreme the approach ends in a barren morality and justice free zone of utility maximizers. BarryA

OK, but it's one thing for scientists to say, "we know that all organisms had a common ancestor," and another for them to say either, "we know exactly how evolution took place" or "we know exactly how the first terran organism came into existence." In any event, "having overcome all scientific challenges" is hardly "certain," let alone "certainty of certainties." Scientists can be dogmatic, but they are not as dogmatic as you pretend they are. On the other hand, I do think that NCSE and that crowd (e.g. Shermer, Panda's Thumb) lay it on a bit thick. Carlos

Is the “certainty of certainties” (an interesting phrase, that) supposed to be evolutionary theory, abiogenesis, both, something else? Just curious . . . Comment by Carlos — September 11, 2006 @ 11:26 am From the National Center for Science Education: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9008_why_teach_evolution_1_8_2005.asp "Biological evolution is a scientifically settled theory. Among scientists, this means that its fundamental principle —the shared ancestry of living organisms —has overcome all scientific challenges." russ

I'd say we got a lot more practical legwork out of Mendel, and he at least appears to be some sort of a creationist. johnnyb

Darwin was the preeminent thinker of his time? What's Jerry's definition of "thinker" ? Mats

Can you empirically verify empiricism? geoffrobinson

Is the "certainty of certainties" (an interesting phrase, that) supposed to be evolutionary theory, abiogenesis, both, something else? Just curious . . . Carlos

Does anyone out there besides myself ever identify with any of the following gut feelings: Primal Scream. The expression: The inmates have taken over the asylum Charlton Heston's character in the Planet of the Apes, realizing what was going on and screaming "It's a Mad House, a Mad House!". The character in Network (which I don't think I ever saw, but it's so well known) shouting he's not going to take it anymore. and ... hmm, what else might fit here? what was it again? (distracted look and fingers drumming on desktop) Oh yeah, a whole world claiming that the extroadinary complexity of life started up from a dead planet Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!!!!!!!! Forgive me, how very unscientific of me, I've appeared to have lost it there for a moment. [I realize that all credibility, if there ever was even a shred of it, has been lost for all time] Back to "sanity". (Ooh I'm soooo embarrased.) We return you now to your regularly scheduled program.... Hah, this was actually just a joke. These are not my personal feelings, you see. [No, of course not] But, it might me an illustration of what any "legitimately credentialed scientist" actually would have to go through if they even intimate publicly that they question this "certainty of certainties", which is apparently known to be true beyond any other scientific theory in history. es58