The $68,584 Question

_{Barry Arrington

September 3, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

There is such a thing as a professional “ethicist,” and as of this writing the median annual income of a clinical ethicist is $68,584. Here is one job description for such a position:

Offers guidance to patients, their families, and professional staff on ethical, legal and policy issues and concerns stemming from clinical interactions between health care professionals and patients. Provides guidance to the institutional ethics committee pertaining to policy formulation and educational and case review activities. Develops institutional policies concerning ethical issues such as “do-not-resuscitate” and “withdrawal of life-support”. Requires a master’s degree or doctorate related to health ethics and at least 5 years of experience in the field.

I can understand how a theist who believes in the objective reality of ethical norms could apply for such a position in good faith. By definition he believes certain actions are really wrong and other actions are really right, and therefore he often has something meaningful to say.

My question is how could a materialist apply for such a position in good faith? After all, for the materialist there is really no satisfactory answer to Arthur Leff’s “grand sez who” question that we have discussed on these pages before. See here for Philip Johnson’s informative take on the issue.

After all, when pushed to the wall to ground his ethical opinions in anything other than his personal opinion, the materialist ethicist has nothing to say. Why should I pay someone $68,584 to say there is no real ultimate ethical difference between one moral response and another because they must both lead ultimately to the same place – nothingness.

I am not being facetious here. I really do want to know why someone would pay someone to give them the “right answer” when that person asserts that the word “right” is ultimately meaningless.

Comments

Box: A Colour-blind person who acknowledges the fact can use instruments to guide him. But, he will always be dependent. On the subject of morality, precisely because it is so directly personal, we are all partly colour-blind . . . have planks in our eyes. We need help, not only from each other but in the end from the IS who grounds OUGHT. But, we live in an arrogantly "Sez who" world that clings to self-serving absurdities. We have no excuse. I wish, that people could look in the face of the same former murderer fried and see the haunted look that says, If only I could go back and undo what I did; now, I can only live as a warning and sign of hope for forgiveness and reform. KFkairosfocus_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

MF: Pardon but SB is right. While you are likely to resort to the habitual studious ignoring tactic or the equally habitual "I cannot make sense of" talking point, it must be pointed out that your proposed moral neutralism is not substantially different from the amorality directly entailed by evolutionary materialism. Which, opens the door to the nihilist's credo, might (and manipulation) make 'right.' This has been exposed, highlighted and warned against on the record since Plato in The Laws Bk x, 2350 years ago. I need not point out the history, ancient and modern. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Does it make sense for a person who is colorblind to apply for a job as color adviser?Box_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

SB
Even if the ethicist believes that he should provide only factual and conceptual input and refrain from taking a moral position, he has, by virtue of that decision, taken a moral position, namely that he shouldn’t inject his morality into the situation.
That is not a moral position. It is the job description. He may think he is morally bound to have an opinion but his job description says otherwise. It is not uncommon for jobs to require people to do things they think immoral.
You seem to have lost track of the above argument. I just argued that it is impossible to function as an ethicist without taking a moral position. You just disputed that argument. Your task, then, is to provide an example where an ethicist can function and take no moral position.
I think I just did that but until you can grasp the difference between what someone is required to do as part of their job and what they think is morally right I think we can make little progress.
A materialist can provide no rational justification for any moral position he takes. If you would like to argue against the point, feel free to do so.
You added the weasel word “rational” which then leads to a tedious debate about what justifications are rational and the same old stereotyped positions. I don’t want to go down that route.Mark Frank_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

A-B: Pardon some painful words, but they are necessary. That people are often highly emotive over issues of OUGHT, vs what they do, may well reflect that gap and the underlying significance of implications of being under moral government. That some want to downgrade an unborn child to the level of a bit of unwanted growth to be excised . . . and you know that is a fact . . . speaks volumes on the issue of dehumanising the intended victim. I would suggest, here, that conscience be listened to, not benumbed, beguiled or squelched. OUGHT is real, and it means we live in a world with a foundational IS who grounds OUGHT. I say that, as for thousands of years, the only serious candidate for such an IS, has been the inherently good creator God, a maximally great and necessary being. We are truly "without excuse." And that may explain the intensity when many set out to do or to desensitise to doing the utterly indefensible. And sorry, that may be painful but necessary . . . one of my former murderer friends would suggest that the time to pause and think twice is before something horrible and irreversible is done. He would add, if you have done the unthinkable and so are guilty, face it and seek forgiveness, reformation and transformation, don't try to pretend "a nuh nutten." There is no profit in gaining the world and forfeiting your soul, your core being . . . which directly entails that the worth of just one human life is greater than the wealth of a world. That is what we are trifling with. KFkairosfocus_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

SA & HeKS: I glanced here and saw the isdea of a guest post. HeKS, go to my handle, click, use the contact, then let's talk. The next few days to the weekend will be max-busy ones, so next week. (The local silly season peaks, uh oh, I may have even bigger headaches next week on policy matters . . . but then, I will NEED a break.) All best KFkairosfocus_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

SB: the ethicist cannot help anyone come to a moral decision without taking a moral position of his own. He cannot help anyone decide anything by remaining morally neutral or disinterested. Thus, the materialist, who can provide no moral justification for any position that he takes, is useless in that capacity. Mark:
Why not? You assert this with no proof.
Even if the ethicist believes that he should provide only factual and conceptual input and refrain from taking a moral position, he has, by virtue of that decision, taken a moral position, namely that he shouldn't inject his morality into the situation. It is impossible for a functioning ethicist not to take a moral position. Since he is bound to take a moral position, and since, as a materialist, he cannot provide a rational justification for taking that position, he shouldn't accept payment for his services.
I would guess that it would be a disadvantage having strong and inflexible moral opinions of your own. If for example the patient has a strong religious background that is different from yours (e.g. they refuse a blood transfusion for their child) then their decision may well be something you disapprove of and yet to do the job you might have to accept this.
You seem to have lost track of the above argument. I just argued that it is impossible to function as an ethicist without taking a moral position. You just disputed that argument. Your task, then, is to provide an example where an ethicist can function and take no moral position.
(It is of course utter rubbish that the materialist can provide no moral justification for any position he takes. I have provided countless counter-examples to this inane statement over the years and you just ignore them. But in this case it is irrelevant.)
A materialist can provide no rational justification for any moral position he takes. If you would like to argue against the point, feel free to do so.
StephenB_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

Stephenb
You are missing two points. First, the task of the ethicist is to consider both the legal and moral ramifications of any course of action, including whether or not the laws that bind them are ethical.
You seem to be very sure about what the job of an ethicist entails – where did you learn this? I am less sure, but as I understand it the job is to help the doctors/patients/etc people involved “consider both the legal and moral ramifications of any course of action” and come to a decision about the right thing to do. I guess this may very occasionally include getting them to consider whether or not the laws that bind them are ethical but I would imagine most of the time the laws would not be challenged. No doubt there is still plenty of room for interpretation within those laws. In any case it would not be the ethicist’s job to consider whether the laws were moral from his/her point of view.
Second, the ethicist cannot help anyone come to a moral decision without taking a moral position of his own. He cannot help anyone decide anything by remaining morally neutral or disinterested. Thus, the materialist, who can provide no moral justification for any position that he takes, is useless in that capacity.
Why not? You assert this with no proof. I would guess that it would be a disadvantage having strong and inflexible moral opinions of your own. If for example the patient has a strong religious background that is different from yours (e.g. they refuse a blood transfusion for their child) then their decision may well be something you disapprove of and yet to do the job you might have to accept this. (It is of course utter rubbish that the materialist can provide no moral justification for any position he takes. I have provided countless counter-examples to this inane statement over the years and you just ignore them. But in this case it is irrelevant.)Mark Frank_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

I am considering hanging out my "Amateur Ethicist" shingle. As an amateur ethicist, would it be unethical of me to charge for my services? Recognizing my status as an amateur, I intend to restrict myself to helping my patients answer only the truly tough questions. e.g., Should I buy a Mounds, or an Almond Joy? But should I buy the Mounds and steal the Almond Joy? That's out of my league. However, as a potential practicing ethicist I for some strange reason think I ought to be able to distinguish ethical questions from those that are unrelated to ethics. But how do I manage to do that? Which questions raise 'ethical' issues and which do not? What if I advise someone on a truly ethical matter and get it wrong? Can I lose my license? Not that I care, mind you. When it comes right down to it I was only offering my personal opinion. I can't be held legally liable.Mung_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

A_B #122
Silver Asiatic, we both know that you are simply playing word games here.
Well I believe this discussion has been about word games, hasn't it? You don't like the term Darwinism. But I also find it a problem that you don't know what it means.
After all, they have all been demonstrated to have some wrong assumptions (like the assumption that natural selection is responsible for all diversity, although I am still taking you at your word that this was truly Darwin’s claim).
As above, I'm surprised you're taking my word for anything regarding the theories you're defending (and you're claiming that modern evolutionary theory is merely a modification of Darwinism). You don't know what Darwinism is -- but you're certain the term is not appropriate for ID theorists to use. Here's Wikipedia: "Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory." Notice, it doesn't say "natural selection alone". So, why can't Darwinism include some of the other mechanisms? From what I see - the term is perfectly appropriate for "evolutionary theory". Or I'll put it this way, you've provided no convincing evidence that the term should not be used.Silver Asiatic_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart: My view is that it is incumbent on the doctor to provide accurate information on the options, including the potential risks associated with each option.
The question is why that your view? Your morality is based on what?
Acartia_bogart: But the final choice should be up to the woman.
Again, why?Box_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

HeKS #124 Thanks for a detailed and very insightful reply. You did far better with that than I could. [Note to KairosFocus - a good candidate here for a guest OP?]. There is clearly an agenda that is being promoted and a belief system defended. This does explain why there is so much deliberate ambiguity around what "evolutionary theory" actually is. The theory, which was wide sweeping, can be reduced to merely a single mechanism that allows for adaptations, and the belief remains that "evolution is true". I'll conclude that "Darwinism" is actually the theory that all biological life developed by physical processes alone from its very first cellular origin (it's interesting that multiple origins would create a problem also). That's Darwinism -- and that's evolution. It doesn't matter how many and what precise mechanisms might work -- the evolutionary story is a materialist story about life on earth. With that, nobody in the biological community is going to accept that "Darwinism has been falsified" because that basically means "evolutionary theory is false". But since Darwinian mechanisms have proven to be such a weak explanation, there is some resistance to that particular term. "Evolutionary theory" would be preferred because that is a lot more vague and can incorporate a multitude of contradictory and incomplete ideas. From Wikipedia: "Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory." Darwinian theory is evolution. And evolution is the "theory" that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural, material processes alone and that these processes and organisms show no evidence of having been designed by intelligence.Silver Asiatic_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

The abortion example is an emotion laden one. My personal opinion is similar to Mark's in this respect. But let's pick one that is in more of a grey zone. What if the same woman went to the doctor (not pregnant, but married) and asked for birth control. What, ethically, should the doctor do? My view is that it is incumbent on the doctor to provide accurate information on the options, including the potential risks associated with each option. But the final choice should be up to the woman. And there are many Christians, who supposedly believe in the objective reality of ethical norms, who would agree with this approach. But a catholic would not, even though they also believe in the objective reality of these ethical norms. And if you were a staunch opponent of abortion, you might be OK with discussing the use of condoms and diaphragms but not IUDs and the pill because the first two prevent fertilization but the other two don't. And what about the husband? Is it ethically incumbent on the doctor to refuse to provide birth control unless the husband agrees, or is his obligation only to his patient? I honestly don't see why a person of faith would be better at these issues than an atheist. And, in many cases, the atheist would approach it more objectively. And if you want to get into a really sensitive issue, what about drug trials? What are the faith based ethics around providing a possibly life saving drug to some patients and a placebo to others. But that is for another day bAcartia_bogart_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Mark:
An ethicist’s job, as I understand it, is helping people come to their own decision about the ethics which of difficult situations within the legal and procedural framework of the country/hospital/etc.
You are missing two points. First, the task of the ethicist is to consider both the legal and moral ramifications of any course of action, including whether or not the laws that bind them are ethical. Second, the ethicist cannot help anyone come to a moral decision without taking a moral position of his own. He cannot help anyone decide anything by remaining morally neutral or disinterested. Thus, the materialist, who can provide no moral justification for any position that he takes, is useless in that capacity.StephenB_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Stephenb
There is no such thing as a disinterested or neutral ethicist. Indeed, you have just taken a moral position. In effect, you have argued that it is right to give the woman’s desires preference over the the life of the child if she knows all the options. So, we are back to the point of the post. If you are the ethicist, you cannot, as a materialist provide any moral justification for holding that position. So you shouldn’t take the money
As I tried to explain in my comment – this is my personal moral opinion – it is nothing to do with what an ethicist’s job is. An ethicist’s job, as I understand it, is helping people come to their own decision about the ethics which of difficult situations within the legal and procedural framework of the country/hospital/etc. Mark Frank_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Hi Acartia_bogart, Thanks for your reply at #126. Let me address a few points. You said:
HekS, as correctly mentioned by many people on UD, natural selection cannot create new information, it can only increase its frequency within a population. The source of the information is mutation and any other mechanism that can change the arrangement of base pairs in the DNA, which are many.
I think you may have misunderstood the point of my comment when I referred to those people, committed evolutionists themselves, who think that only Darwinian Natural Selection (NS) can offer a plausible-sounding explanation for the origin of biological information. I agree with you that the theory holds it is the mutations that offer the raw material of evolution. Nonetheless, those who view NS as playing the primary role in evolution hold that it is NS that ultimately produces functional units of biological information from the raw mutational grist. The point is not simply to have an ongoing supply of random base pair substitutions, which overwhelmingly degrade functional information, but to have new units of functional biological information that actually do something useful. Those who hold NS to be central to evolution think that NS is what allows for an ultimately useful output from the random mutational input. You continued...
But the key component of his theory is natural selection. The modern synthesis is simply a theory that combines natural selection and population genetics (I.e., Medelian genetics).
Two comments here. First, as I said earlier, Darwin's theory had two key components. On the one hand, he offered a general picture of the history of life such that all organisms were linked through Universal Common Ancestry and could be represented on a single, unified Tree of Life. On the other hand, he proposed a mechanism by which this Descent with Modification could have come about, namely, Natural Selection acting on random variations. Second, I'm not sure why you're repeating back to me the description of Neo-Darwinism (i.e. The Modern Synthesis) that I just gave to you. Consider... Acartia_bogart #122:
[T]he new-synthesis (neo-Darwinism, if you will, although I think that it is a stupid term) . . . simply took Darwin’s theory and adjusted it for the fact that natural selection doesn’t account for all change.
HeKS #124:
“Neo-Darwinism” is not the recognition that there are more mechanisms at play in evolution than simply Natural Selection. “Neo-Darwinism” is the combination of Darwinism with Mendelian Genetics, also referred to as “The Modern Synthesis” or “Synthetic Theory”.
Acartia_bogart #126:
The modern synthesis is simply a theory that combines natural selection and population genetics (I.e., Medelian genetics)
Do you see what you did there? You continued:
You asked if it is pointless for ID to question the significance of natural selection. The answer is, no, it is not pointless. Evolutionists are doing this all the time.
That's actually not exactly what I asked. I asked whether it was disingenuous and misleading for proponents of ID to criticize Neo-Darwinism, which includes both the mechanism of Natural Selection and the concept of Universal Common Ancestry. As you may recall, you used rather inflammatory language in an earlier comment when you said in comment #114:
[R]eferring to current evolutionary theory as Darwinism is misleading, and in the case of its use by creationists, intentional misrepresentation.
Now, as I pointed out, ID proponents don't refer to all current evolutionary theory as "Darwinism", but they do refer to the mechanism of Natural Selection acting on random genetic mutations as "Neo-Darwinism". Furthermore, the term "Darwinism" can also encapsulate the concept of Universal Common Ancestry, and it doesn't even need the "Neo" attached to it. Also, I don't know if you are one of those people who falsely refers to ID as "creationism" (a tactic that indicates either deception on the part of the person using it or else complete ignorance of the defining features of both concepts), so I don't know whether you were intending to claim that ID proponents were intentionally misrepresenting the facts when they criticize "Neo-Darwinism". Frankly, it's a little hard to suss out what exactly a person is saying when numerous parts of their statement don't accurately reflect reality. It seems based on your recent comments, however, that you recognize there's nothing misleading or disingenuous about criticizing the efficacy of the "Neo-Darwinian mechanism", which is something that is happening all the time in the scientific literature. And since ID proponents do not refer to all aspects of modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism" or claim that NS is the only proposed mechanism of evolution, they aren't actually guilty of any of the things you said were misleading and intentional misrepresentations of the facts, so it's a little hard to figure out what you were talking about or what you were trying to claim. You continued:
That is what neutral theory is all about. Much of the current scientific debate is about the relative significance of selection and drift in the evolutionary process. But I have never read any serious proposition that natural selection should be effectively removed from the theory. So, yes, natural selection remains a significant part of the current theory.
"Effectively removed"? Perhaps not. But some have certainly indicated that it ought to be removed from center stage and relegated to a seat in the "nosebleeds". And yet, for others it remains of primary importance. And, as I said, it basically IS equivalent to "The Theory of Evolution" as far as the popular media, school textbooks and the public at large is concerned. The point being that it is perfectly appropriate for proponents of ID to shine a bright light on its innumerable deficiencies and do so often.
My view is simply that constantly attacking the significance of natural selection does not provide any advantage to the ID cause because it does not address the source of the variation (I.e, the result of intentional design, or the result of un-directed natural processes like mutations, HGT, recombination, transposition, etc.) which should be where ID places their effort. Even if natural selection is proven to be ineffective (not that this is likely) the ID argument is not strengthened. You still have not provided any addition evidence for a designer.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's not likely that Natural Selection will be proven to be ineffective. It already has been proven to be ineffective for anything beyond helping to fix minor improvements into a population (often in a cyclical fashion) or helping to eliminate seriously deleterious mutations from the mix. It certainly can't account for major morphological novelty, such as the creation of new body plans. And its necessarily gradualistic nature doesn't remotely coincide with the fossil evidence. This has been known for at least 30 years now and all the evidence we have supports that conclusion. People like Jerry Fodor don't seem to think much of NS. I don't think PZ Myers has much use for it either. Lynn Margulis wasn't a fan after she seriously considered the evidence. As I've said a few times now, the main reason that people like Dawkins and others continue to give NS the central role in evolution is because they think no other mechanism can take the raw material of random mutations and ultimately produce a result that gives the overwhelming impression of purposive design that we see all around us. For that reason, they think NS just has to be central to evolution, even in the absence of confirming evidence and the presence of disconfirming evidence. Dawkins, for example, has explicitly admitted that his confidence in NS is a kind of faith statement that he bases on his opinion that Darwin's theory makes so much sense to him. In Dawkins' own words about NS:
There cannot have been intermediate stages that were not beneficial. There's no room in natural selection for the sort of foresight argument...It doesn't happen like that. There's got to be a series of advantages all the way...If you can't think of one, then that's your problem, not natural selection's problem. Well I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful
If you actually follow Dawkins' logic in this interview, we are apparently supposed to understand that the Neo-Darwinian picture of evolution is sound and warrants belief because the mechanism is powerful and we are supposed to believe that faith in the power of the mechanism is warranted because the theory is so sound. Moving beyond this issue, however, I find your comments very odd when you say:
Even if natural selection is proven to be ineffective ... the ID argument is not strengthened. You still have not provided any addition evidence for a designer.
I find this statement odd not because it is incorrect but because I can't think of single proponent of ID who would disagree with it. You seem to be pretty active on this site, so surely you must realize that the case for ID goes beyond simply a criticism of NS. ID has presented a negative case against NS and all the other currently proposed mechanisms of evolution, as well as against the more general concept of Universal Common Ancestry (though some, like Behe, accept UCA with the caveat that it is the product of design up to a certain level), but it has also offered a positive case for design. Have you actually read the books of people like Meyer and Behe, as opposed to just the ill-conceived reviews written by people who seem to have either failed to read the books themselves or else are cursed with particularly poor reading comprehension? Take care, HeKSHeKS_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Mung: So if a young unmarried pregnant girl thinks her only option is to get an abortion, the ethical thing to do would be to compassionately explain to her that there are other available options? Mark
Very likely yes – depending on the detail of the situation – but that does not follow from my comment which is about what I think an ethicist’s job is.
There is no such thing as a disinterested or neutral ethicist. Indeed, you have just taken a moral position. In effect, you have argued that it is right to give the woman's desires preference over the the life of the child if she knows all the options. So, we are back to the point of the post. If you are the ethicist, you cannot, as a materialist provide any moral justification for holding that position. So you shouldn't take the moneyStephenB_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

#127 Mung
So if a young unmarried pregnant girl thinks her only option is to get an abortion, the ethical thing to do would be to compassionately explain to her that there are other available options?
Very likely yes - depending on the detail of the situation - but that does not follow from my comment which is about what I think an ethicist's job is.Mark Frank_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
I am sure their job is to help the people involved decide what is the right thing to do by pointing out precedents, consequences, different ways of looking at things etc.
So if a young unmarried pregnant girl thinks her only option is to get an abortion, the ethical thing to do would be to compassionately explain to her that there are other available options?Mung_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

HekS, as correctly mentioned by many people on UD, natural selection cannot create new information, it can only increase its frequency within a population. The source of the information is mutation and any other mechanism that can change the arrangement of base pairs in the DNA, which are many. In Darwin's day, he did not know what the source of this information (variation) was. He thought that heredity was a blending, and he did not rule out the heredity of acquired characteristics. It turns out that he was wrong on one, and partially correct on the other. But the key component of his theory is natural selection. The modern synthesis is simply a theory that combines natural selection and population genetics (I.e., Medelian genetics). By definition, genetic drift is s part of this, although I honestly don't recall whether it was identified as such at the time. Since then, there has been new information that has modified the theory and/or clarified the relative importance of different mechanisms. You asked if it is pointless for ID to question the significance of natural selection. The answer is, no, it is not pointless. Evolutionists are doing this all the time. That is what neutral theory is all about. Much of the current scientific debate is about the relative significance of selection and drift in the evolutionary process. But I have never read any serious proposition that natural selection should be effectively removed from the theory. So, yes, natural selection remains a significant part of the current theory. My view is simply that constantly attacking the significance of natural selection does not provide any advantage to the ID cause because it does not address the source of the variation (I.e, the result of intentional design, or the result of un-directed natural processes like mutations, HGT, recombination, transposition, etc.) which should be where ID places their effort. Even if natural selection is proven to be ineffective (not that this is likely) the ID argument is not strengthened. You still have not provided any addition evidence for a designer.Acartia_bogart_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

I only just read this and I am not going to read the 124 preceding comments - so I apologise if someone has already made the point. I suspect Barry's OP is based on a faulty idea of what an ethicist does. I am sure it is not his/her job to tell medical staff, patients and families what is the right thing to do. That would be incredibly patronising and lead to terrible problems if their own principles were very different from the person they were advising. It would be like Richard Dawkins coming along and telling the pregnant mother she ought to have an abortion because the child is disabled. I am sure their job is to help the people involved decide what is the right thing to do by pointing out precedents, consequences, different ways of looking at things etc.Mark Frank_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

@Acartia_bogart #122 I'm a little confused by your position. Is natural selection acting on random genetic mutations (i.e. the Neo-Darwinian mechanism) still a significant part of modern evolutionary theory, or is it disingenuous and misleading for proponents of ID to criticize Neo-Darwinism and the Neo-Darwinian mechanism as if it were a significant part of the modern picture of evolutionary theory? Both claims can't be true. And you'll note that I've even had to make some adjustments to the wording of your claims just to make them more closely resemble reality. For example, proponents of ID typically refer to "Neo-Darwinism" rather than simply to "Darwinism". On the rare occasions they use the latter, it should usually be understood as the former, unless they're making a historical reference to Darwinian theory prior to the modern synthesis. Furthermore, "Neo-Darwinism" is not the recognition that there are more mechanisms at play in evolution than simply Natural Selection. "Neo-Darwinism" is the combination of Darwinism with Mendelian Genetics, also referred to as "The Modern Synthesis" or "Synthetic Theory". Now, whether or not Natural Selection remains a significant part of modern evolutionary theory depends almost entirely on who you ask. As I pointed out in a previous post, it basically IS modern evolutionary theory in the eyes of the media and the public in general. Among scientists its role in evolution varies from being one of preeminence to being a background player barely worthy of mention. Among those who consider Natural Selection to play the most important role of all, they do so because they think no other mechanism can possibly account for the creation of large amounts of novel genetic information or mimic the effects of purposive design that we see all around us in nature. Reflecting this view, we have people like Alex Rosenberg making a statement like this:
There is only one physically possible process that builds and operates purposive systems in nature: natural selection....Darwinian natural selection is the only process that could produce the appearance of purpose.
Evolutionary models that forego the centrality of Natural Selection don't really offer any meaningful or plausible-sounding mechanisms for the creation of novel genetic information. The problem of the origin of biological information is largely ignored or swept out of view and, instead, the existence of that information is merely taken for granted and what is proposed is primarily a means of recombining pre-existing functional information. I tend to agree with those people who say that no other proposed mechanism other than Darwinian Natural Selection can offer a plausible-sounding explanation for the origin of biological information and the appearance of purposive design in nature. I disagree with them, however, in their belief that Natural Selection can actually do these things rather than simply offer just-so stories that make the claimed efficacy of the Neo-Darwinian mechanism sound plausible to the uninitiated.HeKS_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Mung #83: 'Arcatia_bogart, can you provide any reason why any theist ought to respond to your questions?' 'What are you going to appeal to, other than your own personal preference?' -------------- mung, it's quite comical to think that A_C is stumped, not by extremely-closely reasoned, philosophical challenges, but by a simple question that you posed in a perfectly plain, vernacular register, such as: 'What time is it?' Namely: 'What are you going to appeal to, other than your own personal preference?'Axel_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic, we both know that you are simply playing word games here. But they can be fun. Using the rephrasing of your question (that you accepted as meeting your intended meaning),
...that the development of life can be reduced to a source of variation in the population and natural selection
this stated assumption is wrong (i.e., false, falsified if you insist). I don't deny this, and I don't think that you will find many evolutionists who would deny it either. So far, we are both in agreement, I think. But the question wasn't about whether or not natural selection was a major driving force in evolution, the fundamental aspect of Darwin's theory. It was about whether it was the only driving force. And since we know this not to be the case, it must be concluded that the assumption is false. But this was known, and accepted by most evolutionary biologists, back in the first half of the last century when the new-synthesis (neo-Darwinism, if you will, although I think that it is a stupid term) was proposed. This simply took Darwin's theory and adjusted it for the fact that natural selection doesn't account for all change. Much in the same way that Kepler and Galileo modified Copernicus's theory, and Newton further modified Kepler's. With regard to trying to find scientific acknowledgements that Darwin's theory has been falsified, see if you can find published claims that the theories of Copernicus, Kepler, and Newtonian physics have been falsified while you are at it. After all, they have all been demonstrated to have some wrong assumptions (like the assumption that natural selection is responsible for all diversity, although I am still taking you at your word that this was truly Darwin's claim). Any time a theory is modified, and the modification generally accepted, this is acknowledgement that there was a weakness in the previous model. But a modification of a theory is not the same as a falsification of a theory. Copernicus' theory, once generally accepted, falsified the Ptolomeic theory, largely because the two are completely incompatible. You can't say the same for Darwin's original theory and modern evolutionary theory. Although the modern theory is significantly different than Darwin's theory, natural selection is still a significant part of it..Acartia_bogart_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

@Silver Asiatic #117 The problem with trying to find admissions that Neo-Darwinism has been falsified are multitudinous, but here are a couple... Darwin's theory of evolution did not only propose a mechanism of evolution in the form of Natural Selection, but it also put forward an overall picture of life and evolutionary history in the form of Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) and a unified Tree of Life. The picture of a single Tree of Life should be considered falsified by the evidence, but this is one aspect of "Darwinism" that cannot be allowed to fall, since its falsification would necessitate multiple origins of life, which not even those most sanguine over the ability of natural forces to account for life's origin are prepared to accept. What probably needs to be understood in all this is that post-Darwinian models are primarily proposing new or additional mechanisms of evolution rather than a whole new theory of evolution. Evolution is claimed to be a "fact" because UCA is believed to be a true representation of nature (naturalists don't really have any choice on this point), but the mechanism is widely in dispute. No mechanism (and no combination of mechanisms) has been shown to be capable of generating the type of novel genetic information necessary to bring about the full diversity, and especially the disparity, of life, but since UCA is held to tenaciously and treated as unquestionable, figuring out the mechanism is really considered to just be a matter of hammering out the details. In this regard, all evolutionary models are in some sense "Darwinian" to one degree or another, in that they seek to elucidate the means by which the picture of nature made popular by Darwin could have come about. Proponents of ID have addressed both the general picture of UCA as well as the various proposed mechanisms, both Neo-Darwinian and post-Darwinian. Another problem with finding admissions that Neo-Darwinism has been falsified relates back to what I said in my last post. Ultimately the goal of evolutionists, particularly atheist evolutionists, is to simply have people believe in "Evolution", period. The details are unimportant. The agenda is what is key. They have a culture war to win. Furthermore, this tactic works. You have no idea how many smart, rational people I talk to about "Evolution" who have no idea that Neo-Darwinism has largely fallen out of favor. In fact, they don't even believe it when they're told. And when asked to offer arguments for their concept of evolution, the arguments are exclusively Neo-Darwinian. I would venture, without much risk, that the vast, vast majority of the public who claims to believe in "Evolution" views that term as synonymous with what we'd call Neo-Darwinism. Furthermore, they believe in "Evolution" because the specifically Neo-Darwinian picture of it sounds plausible to them. If the bulk of them suddenly became informed that this plausible-sounding version of "Evolution", the one they see dogmatically preached on PBS and the COSMOS series, the one that is celebrated in the same breath as Intelligent Design is dismissed as religion and "creationism", is pretty much wrong, the damage to the secular agenda would likely be catastrophic. That's why even committed materialists like Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmirini got the kinds of comments they did when they challenged the Neo-Darwinian mechanism of evolution, which they describe in their book, What Darwin Got Wrong:
We've been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn't say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute. (Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong, p. xx (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010).)
And yet, as far back as 1980 we have people like Stephen Jay Gould declaring that Neo-Darwinism is effectively dead, in spite of the fact that it persisted as orthodoxy in science text books (and popular media). Some 34 years later, it continues to persist as orthodoxy in both venues. Personally, I find it highly disingenuous when evolutionists complain that ID proponents spend a lot of time debunking Neo-Darwinism, as though they are only attacking some outdated picture of "Evolution" that nobody even believes anymore. If ID proponents paid attention to this criticism and focused exclusively on post-Darwinian mechanisms, the evolutionists would be thrilled, because they would go right on ignoring criticism on the basis of the philosophical assertion that science can only entertain mechanistic causes, but the risk of the public at large finding out that the picture of "Evolution" that made it plausible to them was false would be significantly reduced, if not entirely removed, and the materialist agenda could just keep chugging away. Take care, HeKSHeKS_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

For the onlookers: The IS-OUGHT gap issue and the associated question of grounding morality is one of the biggies in philosophy and ethics, as a branch thereof, thus also for policy, politics and life. It is a highly significant issue that one of the most prestigious worldviews in our civilisation has severe challenges with that issue, as well as with grounding the life and work of the mind. Namely,lab coat clad evolutionary materialism conjoined with the epistemological stance known as scientism. As in science holds a monopoly or a near monopoly on serious matters of knowledge . . . which (as an epistemological claim about science, not a statement of science itself) is self referentially incoherent. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

A_B: That is now the turnabout accusation tactic (one of the compounding forms of the ad hominem phase of the trifecta . . . ), and FYI fallacies are fallacies, they are not something to tag "Creationists" or other demonised, stereotyped groups with, for consignment to rhetorical purgatory. Where, the compound fallacy in question . . . the trifecta pattern of red herrings led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and ignited was OBSERVED IN THE FIELD, and descriptively tagged with that name based on events here at UD. As a sign of what you have become involved in, notice that the grounding of morality challenge in the OP is no longer a topic being addressed? Notice, secondly, that from the first words of the first comment you tried to drag away focus to something else, then proceeded to set up caricatures of theistic thinkers (and now Creationists as well) which were repeatedly used to try to poison the atmosphere? If you find my simple describing of a process that can be directly demonstrated from the thread above -- I have not time for a point by point -- to be something you object to, think about the caricatures and stereotypes you have projected unto others. And then think about the original subject, the grounding challenge of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap in worldviews and the astonishing fact that for 2350 years, the lack of grounding of morality has stood unresolved by evo mat thinkers, but they seem not to wish to see a serious problem with that. I think you need to pause, and think again, very, very carefully, sir. In that process, I would take Locke's citation of Hooker as he set out to ground the framework of rights and justice in community as a foundation for just government very seriously, especially in light of Plato's warning as also cited. If you want a relevant historical antecedent, reflect on the career of Alcibiades to see what a man with hollowed out morality can become. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

AnimatedDust @ 105 No problemo. I have a deep appreciation for the likes of BA77, KF, StephenB, niwrad, gpuccio, UB and others who over years, patiently pound such repetitious, ill-informed and ill-considered objections into dust, and I'm probably too defensive of them. Someone has to play tennis with these guys to reveal to the crowd that they got no game. I wish I had their patience.William J Murray_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

A_B #114 Thanks for your reply. I accept your corrections to my initial statements.
It has been a long time since I read Darwin’s work but I will take your word that he proposed that the development of life can be reduced to a source of variation in the population and natural selection (we will ignore the idea of sexual selection as it it just a variation on natural selection). If this is true, then pure Darwinism was falsified in the early part of the last century.
Yes, that's the point. I could ask you to do this, but I will take it on myself, namely ... I am going to search the academic literature in mainstream biology to find validation for your statement highlighted above. This should be fairly straight-forward. Darwin's evolutionary theory has been falsified.
Which is why I argue that referring to current evolutionary theory as Darwinism is misleading, and in the case of its use by creationists, intentional misrepresentation.
If I can find abundant academic resources that indicate clearly that Darwinian evolution has been scientifically falsified, what you say will carry even more weight. I shouldn't get any opposition from the biological community by affirming that Darwinian theory was falsified in the early 20th century.
But falsification of the specific details of his theory is not evidence for creationism
I said nothing about creationism here. Darwinian theory has been falsified. That's the first point.
As new information became available, evolutionary theory has been modified.
True. The theory stated something. Then data contracted the theory. Thus the theory was falsified. Then a new theory was advanced. Now we have another theory of evolution. From my research, there is little agreement in the scientific community about what that theory is.Silver Asiatic_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

HeKS - that was very informative, thank you. I'll ask A_B to look at this ...
If proponents of evolutionary theory (and by this I mean those who think that all aspects of life can be explained by recourse only to material mechanisms) would like proponents of ID to spend less time focusing on the specifically Neo-Darwinian picture of evolution, then they should start turning their severe criticisms and insults toward the media outlets who continue to encourage belief in evolution on the basis of the plausibility of Neo-Darwinism to the uninitiated. But they will be in no rush to do this, because the desired goal is to have people believe in “Evolution”, not to have people properly understand the types of evolutionary models and mechanisms that they have turned to upon the failure of Neo-Darwinism.
I'll take it a step further (and reply to AB directly). It's not just the media outlets -- its the biological community itself. There was, supposedly, a THEORY OF EVOLUTION that claimed something in Darwin's time and then later as the Neo-Darwinian view. We often see what a struggle it is merely to find out exactly what those theories proposed. But they did make claims about the development of all biological life on the planet -- supposedly having found the mechanisms to explain the same. Now, Darwinism has been falsified. So, along with what you suggest, this fact has been covered-up by the scientific community -- for reasons you presented so well.Silver Asiatic_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply