Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Pretending That Darwinism is Sophisticated (and Difficult-to-Understand) Science in Order to Deflect Challenges (or, Mickey Mouse Pretends to be a Scientist)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Mickey MouseIn DonaldM’s post (‘Analyze and Evaluate’ Are the New Code Words for ‘Creationism’) discussion ensued about high school students and challenges to orthodox evolutionary theory.

One of the ploys of Darwinists is to pretend (and especially to try to fool young students into thinking) that evolutionary theory is like real science (mathematics, chemistry, physics, or electrical, mechanical, aeronautical, software, or other engineering disciplines) — when it is not. It’s Mickey Mouse stuff pretending to be hard science, and is not difficult to understand and therefore not difficult to challenge.

The Darwinist lobby would like us to believe that young people are neither sufficiently intelligent, nor sufficiently sophisticated, nor sufficiently “educated” to appreciate the fact that all challenges to orthodox Darwinism have been refuted. These innocent young victims of the enemies of science must be protected by the intervention of the courts, so that they are not exposed to any dissent (no matter how justified by evidence or logic), otherwise they might start believing in a flat earth and astrology.

It is true that young students who have yet to learn algebra would have a hard time with partial differential equations, but it is not true that young students can’t grasp the problems with orthodox evolutionary theory. It is not hard to figure out that the fossil record, with its various explosions and consistent pattern of discontinuity and stasis, presents a challenge for the Darwinian gradualism claim. It is not hard to figure out that complex information-processing machinery and the information it processes present a problem for the random mutation/variation and natural selection hypothesis. (All young people nowadays are familiar with computers and software and know that computer programs can’t write themselves through random accidents.) There is nothing difficult at all about understanding the claims of Darwinian theory or the perfectly legitimate scientific and evidential challenges to it.

The Darwinian mechanism is 19th-century Mickey Mouse speculation, passed off as “science.”

As Denyse put it: “Darwinian evolution, as a concept, is in ruins. That much is obvious. However the history of the world happened, that wasn’t how.”

So, let’s at least let young people in the public schools know that no one knows for sure how all this came about, and let them evaluate, think about, and consider the options, rather than attempt to coerce them into thinking that they are too stupid to think for themselves, and must be told by authorities what to think about the most important, ultimate issues in their lives: where they ultimately came from, and why they exist.

Comments
...the empirical question of the degree to which variation in living things permits a ratcheting from lower to higher complexity is complicated. It is not complicated at all. In even trivial, functionally integrated systems, random variation degrades, and does not "ratchet" from lower to higher complexity. It does the exact opposite. Natural selection is irrelevant, because it does not create, produce, or edify -- it just throws stuff out. The myth of Darwinism is that something can be had for nothing. Living sytems are highly neg-entropic, and stochastic processes are highly entropic.GilDodgen
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
"In fact, very few UDers evince comprehension of natural selection as an outcome, rather than a process." If something is a result of three sub processes, then is one wrong to call the all the processes a process? I disagree with Allen, natural selection is a process and most processes have an outcome. Any way the distinction is meaningless and if someone wants to call it an outcome and if someone else want to call it a process, it makes no difference. Allen is trying to trick up someone on minutiae that has no bearing on the debate.jerry
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Ludwig, I suggest you read the Vrba and Eldredge book on macro evolution that Allen MacNeill, who comments frequently here, has recommended. (Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency: Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould (Laws of Life Symposia) Especially read the first chapter by a low life named Jurgen Brosius who was signaled out to do the review of the topic. Allen teaches evolutionary biology at Cornell. Since the book is a tribute to Stephen Gould and the first chapter is a review about what is known about macro evolution, you should know what is said. When you read the chapter, you will know three things: 1) why there is a controversy about the source of macro evolution, 2) there are different ideas on how novelty arose and 3) why I called Brosius a low life. You have appealed to authority for something that is controversial but I doubt if you know whether it is true or not. No one has ever been able to provide here a systematic illustration and proof of processes leading to macro evolution. Here is a comment by Allen MacNeill about macro evolution. It is about 18 months ago. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/future-risk-assessment-in-the-genome/#comment-147099 By the way our understanding of macro evolution is the development of novel complex capabilities.jerry
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
Mapou,
@20 madsen, Just think about it. Spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. Enough said.
I think Sotto Voce said everything that needs to be said concerning the veracity of this claim. I would still like to know (1) if you accept that GR works and (2) whether you have an alternative to GR/spacetime.madsen
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
In a recent Gallup poll, 55% of Americans, IIRC, were able to give an in-the-ballpark response to a question about the scientific theory with which Charles Darwin is associated. You will find few high-school students who understand Darwin's account of natural selection (from MacNeill):
According to Darwin (and virtually all evolutionary biologists), natural selection has three prerequisites: 1) Variety, generated by the "engines of variation"; 2) Heredity, mediated by the transfer of genetic material (either vertically - from parents to offspring - or horizontally - via viral transduction, retrotranscription, etc.); and 3) Fecundity, that is, reproduction, usually at a rate that exceeds replacement (according to Malthus). Given these three prerequisites, the following outcome is virtually inevitable: 4) Demography: Some individuals survive and reproduce more often than others. Ergo, the heritable variations of such individuals become more common over time in populations of those organisms. Natural selection is synonymous with #4; it is an outcome of the three processes listed as prerequisites, not a "mechanism" in and of itself.
In fact, very few UDers evince comprehension of natural selection as an outcome, rather than a process. Change in the distributions of traits of organisms is a logical necessity under the stated conditions. That complexity of some preserved organisms should increase over time is not a logical necessity. Investigation of the very complicated mechanisms of variation is essential to assessing whether evolutionary change yields increases in complexity. The outcome of natural selection is conceptually simple, but the empirical question of the degree to which variation in living things permits a ratcheting from lower to higher complexity is complicated.Sal Gal
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
"I am not at all qualified to discuss these complex topics, but I know enough to know that they are of enormous importance to the question of how evolution might speed up at times". A recently published article in Nature "A heirarchical model for evolution of 23S ribosomal RNA" demonstrates the problem with the argument for macro-evolution. The argument depends on chopping the RNA strand into pieces. Then starting at the outskirts of the molecule argue that it might be possible that this one section was added after another. And then with a majic wand say this is how it evolved. The problem with this is it ignores the functional steps. It is like taking a human body and saying the heart is the earliest to evolve because it has a vital role. Then explaining how we evolve by taking away our parts from outside in; the last thing added fingers, before that hands, before that arms and legs, then our skin and so on and so forth until we get to the heart. It completly fails to demonstrate the neccessity of the many funcions. The argument is great on imagination but is naive and childish. Nothing more.Tim AJ
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Snappy thread title, Gil.
I'm glad you liked it. I added a little enhancement, just for you.GilDodgen
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Except you are begging the question by assuming there are examples where accumulated micro evolution happened to form novel complex capabilites.
No, I am not. I was talking about what the scientific consensus is, not whether that consensus is correct. I was careful to note that. My original point was that there is no "extensive division" in evolutionary biology over whether macro-evolution is an accumulation of smaller changes over long periods of time. You point to PE as if that represents disagreement over that basic principle, but it doesn't. There are periods of stasis and then (relatively) rapid evolution. That doesn't undermine the idea that small changes accumulate into big differences. I have no idea how evo-devo would represent "division" in the scientific community that what we perceive as macro-evolution is an accumulation of incremental changes.Ludwig
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
jerry, Allen MacNeill recently reported on his blog, "[I]t appears I've been moderated off Uncommon Descent...." I think you're not doing very well at interpreting his comments. You recognize that he's been an exceedingly good source of information on mainstream evolutionary thought. I suspect that he would appreciate it if you Googled his past remarks (include "site:UncommonDescent.com" and "Allen_MacNeill") and quoted them. I am not a biologist, and I am reluctant to go where Allen has tread. In my 18 years of research of evolutionary computation, I have gone from believing I needed to refresh my knowledge of biological evolution to behaving as though I knew something about the topic to confessing that I should have let the biologists do all the talking about evolution of biota. Allen has stated repeatedly that Darwin's abstract account of natural selection remains good as gold. He has said that problems with the "modern evolutionary synthesis," which makes specific claims about mechanism, began to appear long ago.
[T]he “modern evolutionary synthesis”, [...] is based on the idea that all phenotypic change is preceded (and caused by) genotypic change. This assumption, while warranted in the 1920s, is now known to be so inadequate a description of reality as to be essentially wrong. [MacNeill at UD]
I'm speaking now from my own understanding. All models are simplifications, and the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as the neo-Darwinian paradigm, essentially says that parents transmit just chromosomes to offspring, and that genes determine traits of the offspring. Everyone knew in the 1920's, as we do now, that parent organisms pass entire cells, and not just chromosomes, to offspring. Yet the neo-Darwinian paradigm served to direct and focus research for a time. And as Popper observed, we learn by finding out what is wrong with our theories. Now there are many theories, plural, of mechanisms of evolution that the neo-Darwinian paradigm, by virtue of its formulation, does not accommodate. These theories have proliferated because scientists have challenged neo-Darwinism, not accepted it. No one has found a framework in which to organize them neatly, but this does not discredit them. A slight change in a follicle's deposition of chemicals in an egg can yield a large change in body plan of the offspring. Environmental factors can trigger epigenetic effects. I am not at all qualified to discuss these complex topics, but I know enough to know that they are of enormous importance to the question of how evolution might speed up at times. And if you can find in the literature any indication that evodevo and epigenetics emerged as attempts to shore up "Darwinian philosophy," rather than explain data to which the neo-Darwinian paradigm was oblivious, I would love to see it.Sal Gal
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
"I don’t see how punctuated equilibrium or evo-devo undermine the idea that macro-evolution is just accumulated micro-evolution." Except you are begging the question by assuming there are examples where accumulated micro evolution happened to form novel complex capabilites. Punctuated equilibrium and evo-devo are not micro evolution and are in play because there hasn't been any evidence of accumulated micro evolution. That is what the controversy is in evolutionary biology. Things seemed to happen in big changes. Why? Punctuated equilibrium and evo devo are alternative theories to Darwin's to possibly explain this. The gradualism in punctuated equilibrium is not the same as in Darwin's theory or the modern synthesis. There is no selection going on until the magic day when the element in the non coding area is exapted for use in the organism and represents a new element not an adaptation of a previous one.jerry
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
jerry [7],
Gould’s gradualism is not changes to the current species by small changes in the allele frequency of a population but rather changes that happen out of sight in unused parts of the genome. A very small number of these changes suddenly become functional and this is when a new species or genera are born. This is the essence of punctuated equilibrium
I don't this is a good representation of punctuated equilibrium at all. Where are you getting this view? Not from Gould, I think.David Kellogg
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Snappy thread title, Gil.Alan Fox
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Sotto Voce @26, Please do not insult my intelligence as I do not insult yours. Empirical science is not empirical without observers.Mapou
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Sotto Voce, When speaking of spacetime or the motion of bodies in curved spacetime along geodesics, one automatically assumes a four-dimensional (3-space and 1-time) perspective. The word 'geodesics', in this context is meaningless in 3 spatial dimensions. By making time a dimension of nature, one automatically eliminates change (motion), period. It's that simple. No amount of self-delusion or rhetoric can change that fact. Sorry.Mapou
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Mapou,
In an essay titled “Objective Knowledge”, Karl Popper wrote “… this is a field from which the observer was exorcised, slowly but steadily, by Einstein himself.” In other words, Popper was not a friend of Einstein’s spacetime pseudoscience.
How does this quote in any way support the contention that Popper was critical of Einstein? The exorcism of the observer is a process by which a science becomes more objective. Surely this is a desirable process.Sotto Voce
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Mapou,
Just think about it. Spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. Enough said.
The claim that "nothing happens" in the block universe assumes a four-dimensional perspective. And indeed, if there were a creature with this sort of perspective on the universe, then it would not experience perceptual change. But we have a three-dimensional perspective on the universe, experiencing time as a dimension of change, so our perceptual experience does not stay constant. For us, things happen, even though from a 4-D perspective, nothing happens. This is the consequence of the block view of the universe. Now explain to me how any of this is incompatible with the notion that bodies follow geodesics in space-time (in the absence of non-gravitational forces). Remember, a body's trajectory is just a map from proper time to spacetime position.Sotto Voce
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Ludwig,
What’s the alternative, anyway? That new species arise ex nihilo? That would be quite a discovery!
M=E/C²absolutist
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Sotto Voce, Read my reply to madsen at 22. In an essay titled "Objective Knowledge", Karl Popper wrote "... this is a field from which the observer was exorcised, slowly but steadily, by Einstein himself." In other words, Popper was not a friend of Einstein's spacetime pseudoscience. Sorry.Mapou
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
@20 madsen, Just think about it. Spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. Enough said.Mapou
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Mapou, Did you actually read the entire text at the site you linked? I ask because it is incredible to me that anyone who has actually read the first chapter of Conjectures and Refutations could come away with the impression that Popper thought Einstein's theory is nonsense. In the quote you provide, Einstein is merely describing how an unfalsifiable theory need not be regarded as worthless to science. It can serve as the metaphysical foundation for an eventual scientific (i.e. falsifiable) theory. For instance, Parmenides's block universe (unscientific) becomes Einstein's block universe (scientific). Popper never says that nothing can move in relativistic spacetime, and if he did say that, he'd be completely wrong. For a body to move in Minkowski space is just for it to occupy different space-time points at different proper times. This is completely compatible with the block universe. I will admit that Popper's parenthetical comment about nothing ever happening in a block universe is quite misleading, but I am certain he was not laboring under the misapprehension that you exhibit.Sotto Voce
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Wha?
In one fell swoop, Popper destroys Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity by showing that nothing can move in spacetime and that, as a consequence, the myth of bodies following their geodesics in curved spacetime is just that, a myth.
madsen
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Re: Popper Sir Karl Popper was extremely critical of 20th century science and, although he was not afraid to voice out his discontent, he took care to phrase it in such a way as not to be cast out as a complete pariah. For example, in his Conjectures and Refutations, Popper compared modern theories of evolution and spacetime physics to ancient myths.
At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical" (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or "meaningless," or "nonsensical." But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the "result of observation. (Source)
In one fell swoop, Popper destroys Einstein's General Theory of Relativity by showing that nothing can move in spacetime and that, as a consequence, the myth of bodies following their geodesics in curved spacetime is just that, a myth. I won't even go into the pseudoscience of time travel that famous (should I say, crackpot?)physicists like Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne promote as a logical consequence of GR with impunity. So how does the spacetime physics community respond to this highly damaging criticism coming from a giant like Popper? They chose to ignore it completely (they could not refute it because it is a fact). They get away with their blatant voodoo science because the scientific enterprise is immune to public criticism. As a result, science, at its core, is intellectually incestuous (it engenders monstrosities) and morally bankrupt (it cannot see that its children are deformed). So science, too, has its infallible gods. When all is said and done, it's all about religion, a billion scientists jumping up and down and protesting to the contrary notwithstanding. May the best religion win!Mapou
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Jerry, I don't see how punctuated equilibrium or evo-devo undermine the idea that macro-evolution is just accumulated micro-evolution. Even if evolutionary progression happens in fits and starts or development plays a larger part in that progression than biologists used to think, that doesn't undermine the idea that, over long (to humans) periods of time, new species come into being. What's the alternative, anyway? That new species arise ex nihilo? That would be quite a discovery!Ludwig
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Ludwig, There is all sorts of controversy over macro evolution amongst evolutionary biologists. I spelled it out for you. There is punctuated equilibrium, evo devo and traditional Darwinism. The first two are popular because traditional Darwinism seems to be nonsense. So there is no scientific consensus. An evolutionary biologist, Allen MacNeill, who comes here often confirmed this and essentially said that Darwin's ideas on gradualism are dead.jerry
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
I see I am being muzzled here as well. Please consult my "Why Banishment?" thread where I have exposed the tactics being employed by the "authors" of Uncommon Descent against a published scientist as they continue their isolationist, protectionist "groupthink" mentality. Uncommon Descent has proven once again to be a bitter disappointment to this investigator. jadavison.wordpress.comJohnADavison
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Jerry:
However, within the evolutionary biological community there is also extensive division on this.
Is there really "extensive division" in the evolutionary biological community that macro-evolution is just a lot of micro-evolution accumulated over deep time? I'm not talking about whether that assertion is correct or not. It just seems to be the scientific consensus. For my money, that's what you teach in high school science classes.Ludwig
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Wholeheartdly agree. In regards to ambiguity, I often hear the argument that the universe just appears to be designed - that an eagle or a sea turtle are not designed, they just have the appearance of design. Be attentive when someone claims "the appearance of design." It brings ambiguity where there should be none. What they are really saying is that we, lay people, by claiming design are way oversimplifying things. Instead, chance and randomness offer a better explanation. A rose, a whale, or a DNA strand containing more information than the library of congress, emerge stochastically in their view. There are things in this world we simply know to be true without knowing how we know them. Knowing that I exist for example, that I want a Nutella Crêpe or desire to hug my son right now, is a fact I do know, and I do not need to know how I know it. There is no scientific data necessary. I simply know it. I can look at a giraffe and simply know that it is not the result of chance. Trying to tell us that we cannot know things without empirical evidence is a lie. Saying that something "appears to be designed" is like saying that this sentence appears to be saying something but in fact is just a string of latin alphabet letters that came together randomly to give the appearance of saying something intelligible. The last sentence either says something or it does not. Consider the sentence below:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum dui pede, tempus a, consequat a, tristique sed, eros.
Even the appearance of this random arranging of letters informs us of the presence of intelligence. Whether the bed is made or not, is irrelevant. The very presence of the bed frame, mattress, pillows and sheets points to intelligence. Likewise, the presence of words, groupings of letters and the page itself show a sign of intelligence. The universe screams design and the truth about that could careless whether it is believed or not. Adding ambiguity by saying that something just appears to be designed is just a tactic to foster confusion, stagnation and inaction. We can confidently say that something is designed and maintain that position until proven stochastic. So far the evolution alternative is not convincing. (cut from orig. post)absolutist
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
------Sal Gal: “I’m all for including a course in philosophy and comparative religion in high schools across the country.” So am I. If students understood the philosophical principles of right reason and the metaphysical foundations for science, they would throw Darwinists out on their ear. Above all, they would understand that the whole scientific enterprise got started because great thinkers strove to “think God’s thoughts after him.” An ounce of good philosophy is worth a ton of pseudo science. -----“A major component of the philosophical portion of the course should be the philosophy of science. It is particularly important for students to learn the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism. As Bill Dembski has written, methodological naturalism tends to turn into philosophical naturalism in the public mind, and that is something our society needs to counter in public education.” The reason that methodological naturalism tends to turn into philosophical naturalism is because it was designed to do that very thing. Methodological naturalism is not an approach to science; it is an imposition of an ideology. The idea is to blur the distinction between practical atheism and dogmatic atheism, as if to say the following: “Let’s make everyone think like atheists without explicitly or formally imposing atheism on them. That way we can frame the issue solely in atheistic terms while maintaining plausible deniability.” How sweet it is. Materialist Darwinists get to win the battle without even entering the arena. The whole thing is irrational for one simple reason: Only the scientist knows what problem he is trying to solve, so only the scientist can decide on the appropriate methodology for addressing that problem. If a scientist needs to be supervised by a bureaucrat, there is something wrong with his professionalism; if a bureaucrat wants to supervise a scientist, there is something wrong with his ethics. -----“Of course, students should be encouraged to explore and think critically about the relationship between science and religion.” That is another way of saying that they should be allowed to think about intelligent design, which can often be found at the intersection between science and religion.StephenB
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Ludwig: I am not specially committed about what should be taught to high school students. It's OK for me that the mainstream consensus be taught to them. I would probably prefer, however, that it be taught for what it is, mainstream consensus, and that the existence of a controversy could be, if not taught, at least not denied. That would be a great improvement.gpuccio
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Another great post Gil. I've been debating this stuff for at least 30 years. I've noticed the same trends in Darwinian defense strategy - tell 'em they don't understand the theory, they don't understand how it works etc. and then tell them that no real scientist doubts it and every doubter is a religious nut YEC and anti-science. On one forum recently the Darwinists had the nerve to dub themselves the "pro science participants"! Ha! What a pathetic joke - on themselves. Any kid can undertand NDT and most do. The ones who stop to think it over don't believe it. I mean come on - frogs to princes, all by the deep magic of rm + ns, is the stuff of fairy tales - not science.Borne
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply