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
Ludwig, There are really two theories of evolution under the Darwinian name. One is not controversial (micro evolution) and the other is (macro evolution). This dichotomy is not made in the textbooks and it is assumed the second, macro evolution, is just an extension of the first over a long time period. This is easy to understand for students and the lay public. The controversy is that ID says the two are not the same and the textbooks say they are the same and that deep time is the only difference between the two. However, within the evolutionary biological community there is also extensive division on this. However, neither side has any time for ID, or that at some point there was an intelligent input.jerry
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
"Punctuated equilibrium" is nothing but the abuse of two words that used to have real meaning until Eldredge and Gould got hold of them. They offered no explanation for what is nothing more than the well established fact that evolution occurred (past tense)in spurts. Don't forget to "moderate" this too.JohnADavison
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
I'm all for including a course in philosophy and comparative religion in high schools across the country. As Gil says,
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.
High school students should hear about a wide range of religions, including their creation accounts, and philosophical notions. Americans are woefully ignorant of one another's religions. And no one should try to coerce young people into thinking that belief systems they have never been exposed to are false or evil. They can evaluate and decide for themselves. 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. Of course, students should be encouraged to explore and think critically about the relationship between science and religion.Sal Gal
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
gpuccio, Thanks for your helpful comments. I think I have a better idea of what commenters here mean by "orthodox Darwinism." As a practical matter, my position regarding high school biology classes would be to use the limited time and resources available to teach students the mainstream consensus (whatever you want to call that). High school doesn't seem to me to be the forum for deciding the outer limits of any scientific theory. Shouldn't that be left for the experts like Behe or Dembski to do in the primary scientific literature?Ludwig
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
I hear there be some in the opposing camp who feel that your mechanical and ‘artist’s impressions’ drawings and enhanced photos of the bacterial flagellum are merely deliberately fashioned or chosen to make it look like a machine, whilst they still contend that it is not. No matter. ‘Tis but a scratch. They see what they want to see, and so do we. But am I mistaken in thinking that there are yet several other wonderfully illustrative champions which trounce random mutation and natural selection as conclusive explanations for the observable natural world today, among them, honey bees? During honey production, the bees fan their hive to cool it and thus evaporate a critical percentage of the natural water content from the dissolved nectar, so that the resulting honey will not ferment and so become unusable (inedible) as stored food for the preservation of the colony and its future generations. One could explain this behaviour as an accidental mutation, as admirably related here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012019.html … or even propose that the bees, apart from queens, workers and drones also evolved a fourth caste, research chemists, who, over several generations, equipped a laboratory and conducted numerous tests to determine ‘why the honey crop was going bad every year’, followed by several more eliminative experiments worthy of Edison to seek an effective solution. And all with the clock ticking against their extinction… Moreover, we see from this example that even nature’s apparent imperfections demonstrate, indeed communicate to us (in terms satisfactorily and deductively clear to any high school student) a complexity and purpose in natural design which we would not otherwise have glimpsed or appreciated, had, for instance, the honey had no inherent fermentation problem, or indeed the honey bee not existed. This example of intelligent design is probably an old chestnut to hardened and qualified ID warriors, yet I, as a layman, feel it needs restating in our community from time to time as a recurring encouragement and reminder to us that true science is on our side, and that it is the Darwinists and their handmaidens the public schoolteachers who must most often find themselves having to resort to faith, creed, and even myths in order to be able to sleep soundly at night, as well as to continue to collect a monthly paycheck.flaminia
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
allanius wrote:
Nowhere is the subjectivity of theoretical science more evident than in Darwinism. It’s very alluring to say that “natural selection” is responsible for the astonishing values seen in nature because the theory is beautifully elegant and simple. Just one problem—nature can’t “select” anything.
What a strange objection. If you mean 'select' in the sense of deliberating and choosing, then of course nature doesn't select. Darwin didn't claim that it does, and neither do his modern-day successors. The word was chosen to evoke an analogy. This happens all the time in science. Astronomers speak of "cannibalistic" galaxies that "eat" smaller galaxies that approach too closely. It would be ludicrous to chide them by pointing out that galaxies can't really eat anything. If you are claiming instead that selection can't be objectively identified or measured, then why do you think so? What is subjective, for example, about measuring the beak size of Galapagos finches and then observing a correlation between beak size and survival during a time of drought?skeech plus
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
I have to disagree. Taking the physics analogy, it's easy to explain Newtonian dynamics at a hand-waving level of detail - "everything is made out of tiny billiard balls, see, and..." But to actually evaluate its truthfulness (or its explanatory power) you need to work out detailed predictions of the theory and test them against reality, and to do that you need to know calculus. Now, it's a historical fact that Darwinism, unlike "Newtonism", began life at the handwaving level without detailed calculations supporting (or undermining) it.* But by now it's evidently possible to draw on detailed knowledge from biochemistry, the fossil record etc. to draw some fairly concrete statistical conclusions supporting or undermining the plausibility of "RM + NS". And to do that you need mathematical and scientific expertise. And so while it's certainly possible to teach the controversy to high school students - Behe says one thing about double mutations in the malaria parasite, Durrett and Schmidt say another - it's not possible for those students to evaluate the evidence for themselves. How can they tell whether Behe or Durrett and Schmidt are correct? The most they can do is take a guess at who to trust. * Unless you want to count Democritus etc. as hand-waving Newtonists, I suppose.anonym
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
I am curious. Have the comments by those dated after mine also been subject to the delays of moderation? If they are then why has my comment not appeared in its proper order of submission? In other words am I being discriminated against? I am used to being given special treatment so don't hesitate to explain this apparent violation of temporal precedence. Incidentally this is not the only thread where I am so honored. I am assuming that if a comment is under moderation that it can only be seen by the user who submitted it and by no other reader of that thread. Do I have that right? Stated another way: do I have to complain to have my views published? I can assure everyone here at Uncommon Descent that I have no intention of abandoning my responsibility to present my science wherever I am given the opportunity.JohnADavison
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Eldredge and Gould's "punkeek" is nothing more than a description of the well established reality that evolution (past tense) occurred in spurts. They offered nothing in the way of explanation, yet "punkeek" is still regarded as having some kind of well hidden significance. I continue to pose the basic question - Is evolution finished? Rivista di Biologia,97, 111-116, 2004. It remains ignored by the Darwinians and so, until that question is shown to lack significance, I will continue to sign off with - "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."JohnADavison
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
There is very little left of the original Darwinism. What is left is common descent and natural selection and natural selection is looked at as a weak force/process in that it cannot create anything new only select from what among what is currently available. It is just that the latest evolutionary synthesis does not know what this process is. New species by gradual change of the current species is out because no data support it. But what is guarded carefully from Darwin is that the process that led to new species is naturalistic whatever it is and is the philosophical essentials of the original Darwinism that must be kept. Another form of gradualism has replaced Darwin's gradualism among Darwin's original ideas. Namely, Gould's gradualism. The biggest proponent here of this is Allen MacNeill who claims, and I believe he is correct, to know what most current evolutionary biologists believe. 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. Now there is evidence that these changes do take place but there is no evidence that the changes lead to anything of consequence. These changes have been featured here as part of Allen MacNeill's 50+ engines of evolution. Once the change becomes functional somehow, it then subject to natural selection and all the other genetic processes that are part of the latest evolutionary synthesis. As John Davison would say, the Darwinian fairy tale but with a new twist.jerry
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Hey Sal Gal! Karl struggled all right, but not in the way you imagine. Popper loathed modern science and its vainglorious infatuation with theory. Now pay attention, young lady: theory is highly vulnerable to subjectivity. The very thing that makes it seem appealing—its unifying power—comes from the resistance of subject to the varieties of experience. Nowhere is the subjectivity of theoretical science more evident than in Darwinism. It’s very alluring to say that “natural selection” is responsible for the astonishing values seen in nature because the theory is beautifully elegant and simple. Just one problem—nature can’t “select” anything. The subjectivity of the theory smashes its tender head against the self-evident role of Subject in the beauty and goodness of nature. Popper made a strategic concession in the face of intense criticism. Then, even more than now, it was forbidden to doubt Darwin orthodoxy. Just as Hume pretended to be friendly to Newton, whom he despised, so Popper pretended to be warming up to Darwin in order to throw the bloodhounds off his scent. But tell me, my dear—what about the words “metaphysical research programme” don’t you understand?allanius
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
>I believe that if Karl Popper, the >philosopher who introduced the >notion of falsification to >science, struggled with >evolutionary theory, then it is >not so easy to understand. Is it the 'random mutation' part which is so difficult to understand? ...or is it the 'natural selection' part? ...or is it the part which tries to come up with an explanation of how random mutation and natural selection works together to evolve life even if common sense tells you that it doesent work at all?Dala
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
At present there is no evolutionary theory. Theories, sensu structu, are verified hypotheses and neither the Lamarckian nor the Darwinian models have passed the acid test of experimental verification. Lamarckism is a true hypothesis and has repeatedly failed to satisfy its predictions. Darwinism does not qualify even as an hypothesis because inherent in its basis is unpredictability. Predictability is the sine qua non of every hypothesis. There is nothing predictable in a "random walk." The Darwinian fantasy is the only proposal, scientific or otherwise, of which I am aware, which is based on the assumption that it cannot be tested. That uncertainty is what led Stephen Jay Gould to compare evolution to a "drunk reeling back and forth between the gutter and the barroom door" and to claim that "intelligence was an evolutionary accident." It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all.JohnADavison
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
Sorry, 1st comment and I still haven't learned the formating rules. I hope the above comment makes sense.PaulT
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
gpuccio at #4 Probably, it would be more correct to call it “orthodox neo-darwinism”. - I tend to agree, although I think it would be good for everyone to stick to one definition - I suggest we keep to the definition in the short glossary section: Darwinism – theories of evolution deriving from the work of Charles Darwin and Richard Wallace, as published from 1858 – 9 on. Subsequently, in the 1920’s – 40’s, in light of developments in genetics and related studies of evolutionary population dynamics a neo-darwinian synthesis led to the classical form of the modern evolutionary theory. Currently, this is undergoing changes in light of various observed and proposed mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer and the like. However this is still a little ambiguous do we now refer to 'Darwinism" or "modern evolutionary theory"?PaulT
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
Gil, I believe that if Karl Popper, the philosopher who introduced the notion of falsification to science, struggled with evolutionary theory, then it is not so easy to understand.
Popper said that natural selection "is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme". However, Popper later said "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation." He went on to formulate natural selection in a falsifiable way and offered a more nuanced view of its status. He still felt that "Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test." However, "[t]here are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry." [source]
By the way, you should not rush to equate industrial melanism with the peppered moth. "[A]pproximately 100 examples of industrial melanism have been reported in a variety of species." [source]Sal Gal
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
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.
Well, then it shouldn't be hard to convince otherwise rational people of this "fact". Yet, why is it so hard? Why are you unable to come up with any solid proof that evolution is false? Why do you have to start with the completely baseless assumption that there IS a creator to prove creation? The creator should be the conclusion, not the base, of a scientific argument. It doesn't matter how many times you claim that biology or paleontology or any other field of study related to the theory of evolution "isn't real science", that doesn't make it so. You have to factually and rationally show, demonstrate, HOW what you say is true.
(All young people nowadays are familiar with computers and software and know that computer programs can’t write themselves through random accidents.)
I could easily write a small script that simply copied itself while randomly inserting small strings of code in various patterns. After a while, the script would undoubtedly be more "complex", and even though technically it would use the same amount of "information" (why do IDists never, ever define this term? What does "information" even mean in the context of evolution?), I could easily make use of a random generator to generate and test random segments. If they validate, the script would incorporate them, and the final result would be both more complex and hold more "information".
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.”
Again, you start with the premise that "the universe HAD to have a creator", and if a theory doesn't accept that, then you don't accept the theory. This isn't science. Science isn't there to fabricate theories that make you feel comfortable in your worldview. It's there to challenge your worldview, constantly refine it through the slow, gradual and self-correcting process of the scientific method. If you start with a false premise, everything leading from that premise will also be false.
So, let’s at least let young people in the public schools know that no one knows for sure how all this came about
If so, then don't teach anything at all. There will ALWAYS be people who disagree on even the most obvious facts, but are you going to "teach the controversy" on round earth-theory as well? Science and scientists don't care if YOU are uncomfortable with the evidence. Evolution itself doesn't even care if you think there's a creator. Creation is a baseless assumption, while evolution is based on evidence. Thousands upon thousands of little pieces of evidence, stringed together by thousands upon thousands of hours of work by thousands of brilliant scientists. If you feel hurt by that, then too bad. That doesn't give you the right to discredit it. Evidence does. If you don't have any evidence, then you have no right to criticize the evidence that does exist.Nathaniel
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
Ludwig: Just a brief follow-up: I have just read a post of yours in another thread, and maybe I understand better your problem with our definition of "orthodox darwinism". I just would like to specify that we usually don't mean "historical darwinism", IOW the literal thought of Darwinism himself, but rather the classical form of neo-darwinism which was developed in the XXth century, and which is usually known as "the modern evolutionary synthesis", which can be find essentially unchanged (even if certainly enriched of new concepts) in the thought of Dawkins and many other contemporary evolutionists. Probably, it would be more correct to call it "orthodox neo-darwinism". The idea is to distinguish this orthodox view from less orthodox variants, like punctuated equilibrium, neutral evolution, and more recently evo-devo and all the new exotic "theories" blooming everyday. Personally, I often call this last gorup "neo-neo-darwinism".gpuccio
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
Ludwig: Your question seems easy enough, so I try to suggest a rather simple answer. I would say that "orthodox Darwinism" is the theory that all biological information can be causally explained by the mechanisms of Random Variation + Natural Selections. The challenges to that are many and varied, and most of them are part of the ID theory, but the most important is probably the argument that the suggested mechanisms are not able to explain what they are supposed to explain, especially as soon as we try to evaluate them quantitatively, in particular to compute the probabilities of the supposed RV events. But, obviously, there are other challenges to the theory, such as the obvious discontinuhity of the fossil record. But Gil, with his usual clarity, had already outlined exactly those two points in his post.gpuccio
April 2, 2009
April
04
Apr
2
02
2009
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
Thanks, Gil, for this interesting post. I'd like to participate in the comments, but I can't unless I understand what you mean by by "challenges to orthodox Darwinism." What is "orthodox Darwinism" and what are the "challenges" to it? Let's define our terms here.Ludwig
April 1, 2009
April
04
Apr
1
01
2009
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
I could not agree more but I believe that the pompous and elitist attitude of evolutionists is just the tip of the iceberg. Scientists, in general, have an annoying habit of acting like the condescending high priests of old. Here is what one my favorite science historians and philosophers had to say about the scientific method:
And how often does it not happen that the proud and conceited judgment of an expert is put in its proper place by a layman! Numerous inventors built 'impossible' machines. Lawyers show again and again that an expert does not know what he is talking about. Scientists, especially physicians, frequently come to different results so that it is up to the relatives of the sick person (or the inhabitants of a certain area) to decide by vote about the procedure to be adopted. How often is science improved, and turned into new directions by non-scientific influences! it is up to us, it is up to the citizens of a free society to either accept the chauvinism of science without contradiction or to overcome it by the counterforce of public action. Public action was used against science by the Communists in China in the fifties, and it was again used,, under very different circumstances, by some opponents of evolution in California in the seventies. Let us follow their example and let us free society from the strangling hold of an ideologically petrified science just as our ancestors freed us from the strangling hold of the One True Religion!
- - -
And a more detailed analysis of successful moves in the game of science ('successful' from the point of view of the scientists themselves) shows indeed that there is a wide range of freedom that demands a multiplicity of ideas and permits the application of democratic procedures (ballot-discussion-vote) but that is actually closed by power politics and propaganda. This is where the fairy-tale of a special method assumes its decisive function. It conceals the freedom of decision which creative scientists and the general public have even inside the most rigid and the most advanced parts of science by a recitation of 'objective' criteria and it thus protects the big-shots (Nobel Prize winners; heads of laboratories, of organizations such as the AMA, of special schools; 'educators'; etc.) from the masses (laymen; experts in non-scientific fields; experts in other fields of science): only those citizens count who were subjected to the pressures of scientific institutions (they have undergone a long process of education), who succumbed to these pressures (they have passed their examinations), and who are now firmly convinced of the truth of the fairy-tale. This is how scientists have deceived themselves and everyone else about their business, but without any real disadvantage: they have more money, more authority, more sex appeal than they deserve, and the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society.
From Against Method by Paul Feyrabend So it's not just Darwinism. There is lot of stupid Mickey Mouse nonsense out there that passes for legitimate science. You'll find it in physics, computer science, astronomy, medicine, etc. The reason that this sort of cr*p can persits is not hard to understand. The scientific community is the only policy making body that is not subjected to the normal checks and balances of democratic societies. They have managed to convince the lay public that it is too stupid to understand science. Peer review, in my view, is mostly an incestuous mechanism that protects the experts (high priests) and guarantees that science becomes stuck in a political rut of its own making, from which it can be extracted only by painful Kuhnian revolutions.Mapou
April 1, 2009
April
04
Apr
1
01
2009
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply