Sober Rebukes Evolution’s Religion (Sometimes)

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The religion in evolution can be subtle and it can fool even sophisticated thinkers. Elliott Sober, for example, has recognized that religious premises are used by evolutionists. He says they don’t work because they rely on gratuitous assumptions. In his book Evidence and Evolution he writes the following:

Continue reading here.

Comments

Mr Phineas, Call them what you like, the fossils with the birdlike features.Nakashima_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Nakashima-san Which fossils? Dinosaur fossils or fish fossils? :)Phinehas_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Nakashima-san
What is the explanation of fossils gradually becoming more birdlike?
It's a ruse.
If birds were always birds, when did birds begin to exist?
Right when they were supposed to.Joseph_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Mr Phineas, To borrow from another thread, it seems perfectly acceptable to me that birds have always been birds. Is there really any good evidence to the contrary? What is the explanation of fossils gradually becoming more birdlike? If birds were always birds, when did birds begin to exist?Nakashima_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

All that has to happen is some actual evidence against it is presented then it’ll be re-evaluated. Got any? LOL. The way it's supposed to work is that you are supposed to present the evidence for it then evaluate it. Broaching an idea then demanding someone disprove it isn't good policy, don't you think? So where is the slam-dunk evidence that ALL life descended from a common ancestor?tribune7_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Tribune7
I guess the thing to do about practicing science is not to be dogmatic about common descent.
Who could disagree with that? All that has to happen is some actual evidence against it is presented then it'll be re-evaluated. Got any?Echidna-Levy_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

herb--I would just ask those of us who accept common descent, is that a religious judgment to some extent Interesting question. I think that a dogmatic insistence on common descent is a religious judgment -- i.e. emotionally rejecting the idea that there is a God outside the realm of physics who can intervene at will with this universe. And obviously a dogmatic rejection of common descent is also a religious judgment but those who hold this view are more honest about it. I guess the thing to do about practicing science is not to be dogmatic about common descent.tribune7_{June 28, 2009
June
06
Jun
28
28
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Mere,
The question certainly isn’t meaningless. Any speaker of English can understand it.
You are quite right, your question is not meaningless because it was ill-formed, but because it was ill informed. Committing oneself to ideas based solely on the evidence may be unusual as practical matter, but it’s a requirement within the design argument. Stick around Mere, you might learn something interesting. - - - - - - - Perhaps you could get some training here on the NIH PubMed website. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 and also http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2662469Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Mark, Sober used the word useless- not me and not you. I agree you can do the probability thing for the sake of seeing how a feature might fit into a Darwinian model - but you cannot just declare things useless and therefore evidence of bad design. I think Sober was skirting this fallacy and so does Hunter. I am only going by the article though because like you I do not have extensive knowledge regarding Sober's work. As far as your god of the gaps objection- this touches on another element in the article- historically people have deferred the origin of species to a God or Gods - a cosmic or omnipotent creator or designer. So the point is that we cant just ignore this possibility simply because is can be a universal gap stop. No we need to accept this debate about universal ancestry in the "full" context of the evidence and competing explanations. Finally and once again I have no problem talking about hypothetical vestiges if one wants to make a case for UCA- I do have a problem when one claims that this is evidence "against" design because that is a logical fallacy. Evidence can break both ways at once- this is called a dichotomy- especially since ID is compatible with UCA. Do not claim ulesslessness(not useful) vestiges and or random (not for a purpose) mutations in biology unless you can prove it- and I think philosophically speaking you will have a hard time proving those negatives. Feel free to piece together a historical theory of design or evolution but don't go proselytizing a dogmatic view about nature - one that makes a negative claim about theological or teleological causality.Frost122585_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

Frost122585 I wrote: “I don’t think his argument is anything to do with the quality of design…” “..but if we start to adopt that explanation for anything we can’t explain then science will grind to a halt.” You wrote: Ok this is my point- if we refuse to look at things from a religious or theistic alternative perspective but in the process of doing do rule out that explanation than we are not being true to reason. Certainly the creator or Designer could use similar body plans to achieve his desired design- this is not a view we can just dismiss because it might be a science stopper- no we must accept this as the flip side to the universal ancestry coin- this is the only flip side. My point is not that the explanation is religious. It is just that given any set of data you can always offer the explanation: “An entity of unspecified power did it for reasons unknown” For example, we cannot see the chemical structure of DNA, we base it on observations of X-rays etc. Or maybe DNA has a quite different structure and an entity of unspecified power arranged for those experimental results for reasons unknown. Are we being unreasonable to dismiss such a possibility? You also wrote: I mean only the designer or creator would be able to to say what the purpose or lack of purpose these things represent. The gills in truth turn into the hearing and respiratory tracks and the tail bone could have serious implications as far as sitting or walking- this gets into a subjective debate about anatomy and kinesiology pretty quick. I am not going to argue about whether fetal gills and human tailbones really are useless. I am sure with enough digging around we will find features that are useful in some organisms but no use in other organisms. But surely Sobers point is not that this is bad design. It is not a point about design at all. The point has to be that if a feature is useful then that is a reason for it turning up in more than one line of descent. But if the feature has no function we have no explanation for it turning up in multiple lines of descent. You can argue that there may be reasons we don’t know about (including an omnipotent designer) - but unless you can put forward a hypothesis as to what those reasons are then it is not a serious alternative.Mark Frank_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank I want you to take a step back and realize what you wrote at 23.
"I don’t think his argument is anything to do with the quality of design..." "..but if we start to adopt that explanation for anything we can’t explain then science will grind to a halt."
Ok this is my point- if we refuse to look at things from a religious or theistic alternative perspective but in the process of doing do rule out that explanation than we are not being true to reason. Certainly the creator or Designer could use simialr body plans to achieve his desired design- this is not a view we can just dismiss because it might be a science stopper- no we must accept this as the flip side to the universal ancestry coin- this is the only flip side. Now that does not make the argument for common ancestry wrong but what Sober goes on to say is slipping into theological ground
"Two of the facts mentioned earlier--that humans and monkeys have tailbones, and that human fetuses and fish have gill slits--are evidence for common ancestry precisely because tailbones and gill slits are useless in humans."
I mean only the designer or creator would be able to to say what the purpose or lack of purpose these things represent. The gills in truth turn into the hearing and respiratory tracks and the tail bone could have serious implications as far as sitting or walking- this gets into a subjective debate about anatomy and kinesiology pretty quick. So it is no the argument about probabilities that I have a problem with but the point that sober goes on to make which is that even if these things are connection ancestrally they are useless. This is the bad design argument and it cannot be used to prop up a questionable theory about ancestry between species that share some* similarities.Frost122585_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

I'm still up in the air with regard to common descent, though I think that universal common descent seems unlikely. To borrow from another thread, it seems perfectly acceptable to me that birds have always been birds. Is there really any good evidence to the contrary? I find it interesting that the inference to common descent seems to share much in common with the inference to ID. Where there is similarity (whether in structure, DNA, or whatever) an inference to the best explanation is made in favor of common descent based on the improbability of that similarity occuring by chance. This seems very similar to how ID is formulated, though ID is based on FSCI and not similarity. I've often wondered, however, whether the inference to common descent has ever been subjected to the same mathematical rigor as the design inference. In any case, I find both inferences compelling for pretty much the same reasons. I don't believe the reasons in either case are particularly religious, though I also believe it is very difficult to separate almost *any* conclusion from deeply held, foundational presuppositions that are arguably religious in nature. When you use a set of directions to get somewhere, where you end up can be as much a matter of where you started as it is of the directions you followed.Phinehas_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

tribune7,
iconofid, vividbleau et al, maybe a better way to say it is that ID is not opposed to evolution with regard to descent with modification and common ancestry.
Well put. In light of these recent threads on evolution's religion, however, I would just ask those of us who accept common descent, is that a religious judgment to some extent?herb_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays—a situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard.
Really? The situation is akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard? You mean the kind of computer keyboard that is designed to do something more complex than hammer tacks? Without the foil of design, would evolution realy have anything to say? Does evolution design anything at all to do anything more complex than survive? How complex is survival anyway (relative to the complexity of humans or even the ostrich wing), seeing that bacteria survive just fine? As it pertains to the manatee hip socket, what exactly is being claimed? That these hip sockets have no function? That we don't yet know what function they have? Or that they have a reduced function in relationship to their clearly designed purpose?Phinehas_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

iconofid, vividbleau et al, maybe a better way to say it is that ID is not opposed to evolution with regard to descent with modification and common ancestry. The theory involves itself with evolution with objections to claims that neo-Darwinism is established beyond reasonable dispute; that NDE doesn't have significant holes; and that random genetic changes fixed by natural selection can explain all biodiversity. Where ID does not directly relate to evolution is in the observation that designed objects have discrete traits and that these traits objectively exist in life. And yes, ID is solely about what's observable.tribune7_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

mere (quoting Theobald):
A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality.
The emphasis in the above is mine. The first, concerning the use of the word "reduced" as it pertains to evolution, seems like begging the question to me. It also seems difficult to talk about reduced functionality without appealing first to design concepts, so I suppose it should come as no surprise to see design referenced explicitly in the quotation. Frankly, it seems to me that *if* you accept the Darwinist mantra that appeal to design is unscientific, then the Theobald quotation seems to further Dr. Hunter's original point. So tell me, when Theobald uses the words "clearly designed," is he speaking from a scientific perspective or a religious one?Phinehas_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

vividbleau I guess you could do a survey of those on this site. FWIW I agree with Upright. Vivid. Good idea. You agree with him that I.D. is not about evolution. So, you must disagree with him on this point: UprightBiPed: "ID is about observable evidence."iconofid_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Upright:
Mere, Your question is meaningless and trivial.
The question certainly isn't meaningless. Any speaker of English can understand it. And if it's trivial, as you claim, then it should be easy for you to answer. Interestingly, neither you nor vividbleau are able to do so. How odd. Evolutionary theory can explain the vestigial pelvis bones and hip sockets of the manatee, yet when two ID supporters are offered a chance to show how their theory explains the same observations, neither one is able to do so. And you wonder why scientists haven't embraced ID?mereologist_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Hello Herb, Vivid, I didn't intend to change the topic. I have a fire on the grill and dinner guest on the way anyway. Mere, Your question is meaningless and trivial. (Why didn't humans evolve wings?) ID is about observable evidence. That concept should not be too difficult to understand - and puts your question into perspective. Try dealing with issues that are within the realm of scientific investigation.Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped:
Also, you might need to find an ID proponent who doesn’t agree with common ancestry in order to pepper them with these questions of yours.
No, the questions apply equally to those ID proponents who do accept common ancestry. If the designer dropped the hind limbs, why did he retain two vestigial pelvis bones complete with unused hip sockets?mereologist_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

"Do all I.D. supporters agree with Upright BiPed on this point?" I guess you could do a survey of those on this site. FWIW I agree with Upright. Vividvividbleau_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Mere, Firstly I doubt Vivid bugged out - he simply wasn't taking the bait. Also, you might need to find an ID proponent who doesn't agree with common ancestry in order to pepper them with these questions of yours. While you at it, perhaps you could answer one yourself: Would the existence of anything that cannot be explained by material being acted upon by chance negate the ability of material and chance to explain everything?Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed says: "You seem to be operating under the idea that ID is about evolution. It is not." Really? Do all I.D. supporters agree with Upright BiPed on this point?iconofid_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Upright, I still don't get your point. But since vividbleau bugged out, perhaps you can give us your opinion regarding the manatee example. Why do you think the designer put two unattached pelvis bones with two unused hip sockets in the manatee's body?mereologist_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

UB,
You seem to be operating under the idea that ID is about evolution. It is not.
I agree wholeheartedly, but evolution and so-called "vestigial" structures in particular are the topic of this thread. In fact the last five or so threads posted by Cornelius concern evolution, so it's not surprising we end up exploring issues such as the ones mereologist has raised.herb_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Mere, Because your post center on evolution.Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped, I'm not. But why did you think so?mereologist_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Mereologist, You seem to be operating under the idea that ID is about evolution. It is not.Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

What a disappointment. I'm sure you have an excellent (and creative) explanation for those hip sockets, yet you won't share it with us!mereologist_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

"You apparently missed this part" Hardly. My point is that they are not gill slits and its hard to take one seriously that did not know this. Now in order to cover your ignorance about something as elementary you are just flaying around. Im not taking your bait. Vividvividbleau_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply