WD400 Disputes Dobzhansky

_{Barry Arrington

November 12, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

Many Darwinists are fond of quoting Theodosius Dobzhansky who wrote “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.”

It is good to know there are folks like wd400 — himself an evolutionary biologist — who believe in modern evolutionary theory but acknowledge that biologists can get along perfectly well without even understanding evolution, much less depending on it as Dobzhansky would have had us believe.

In a comment to a prior post wd400 writes:

Unfortunately a lot of molecular biologists (Collins included) don’t understand much about evolution.

Here is a partial list of the awards won by Dr. Collins (per his Wiki entry):

While leading the National Human Genome Research Institute, Collins was elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. He was a Kilby International Awards recipient in 1993, and he received the Biotechnology Heritage Award with J. Craig Venter in 2001.[45][46] He received the William Allan Award from the American Society of Human Genetics in 2005. In 2007, he was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.[47] In 2008, he was awarded the Inamori Ethics Prize[48] and National Medal of Science.[49] In the same year, Collins won the Trotter Prize where he delivered a lecture called “The Language of God”. Collins and Venter shared the “Biography of the Year” title from A&E Network in 2000.[50] In 2005, Collins and Venter were honored as two of “America’s Best Leaders” by U.S. News & World Report and the Harvard University Center for Public Leadership.[51] Collins received the Albany Medical Center Prize in 2010 and the Pro Bono Humanum Award of the Galien Foundation in 2012.[

So, evolutionary biologist wd400 acknowledges that “a lot of molecular biologists,” including one of the world’s leading biologists, former Director of the National Institutes of Health and leader of the human genome project Francis Collins, can do their jobs perfectly well without even understanding evolution, far less depending on it.

Good for you wd. Good for you.

I also admire this little bon mot from wd:

[Richard] Dawkins was a great popularizer (before he bacame a full time internet troll)

UPDATE:

To be perfectly fair I should point out that in the comment thread below, wd400 demurs to the assertions raised in this post. In fact, “demur” does not quite capture his reaction, for it was far from demure.* When confronted with the logical conclusions that ineluctably proceed from his own statement, he did the verbal equivalent of this:

_____________
*There is nothing like a fine play on words; of course that was nothing like a fine play on words. 🙂

Comments

Box: Problem is that none of that stuff is about any other stuff. Your comment included that "According to naturalism ... Existence is exclusive to particles – fermions and bosons. There is simply nothing over and beyond that." There are many forms of naturalism, most that admit to the existence of objects above and beyond fermions and bosons — regardless of the non-representative position of a particular naturalist.Zachriel_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

PS: Pearcey, with a snippet of Provine . . . clip the link and go through wayback machine:
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
[--> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]
kairosfocus_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Z, how -- in sufficient detail to show the soundness -- do you get a self-aware, conscious, responsibly free and warranting thus knowing unified "I" from a collection of particles interacting under quantum laws etc? Can you derive conscious rational responsibly free contemplation from blindly mechanical computation, in other words? Why do people like Provine hold that you cannot and why did this get enough respect to be a U Tenn Darwin Day keynote, Feb 1998? Do you have a response to Pearcey's concerns (I will again clip) sufficient to resolve the matter? Or are you simply asserting materialism, dressing it up in a lab coat and demanding that we kowtow? KFkairosfocus_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Zach: There are cohesive collections of particles, such as molecules, magnates, and moons.
Zach, you are right, there is just fermions and bosons and combinations of them. Problem is that none of that stuff is about any other stuff. If "we" are not able to think about stuff we surely cannot understand stuff — evolutionary theory included.
THE BRAIN DOES EVERYTHING WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL. Science must even deny the basic notion that we ever really think about the past and the future or even that our conscious thoughts ever give any meaning to the actions that express them. Introspection must be wrong when it credits consciousness with thoughts about birthdays, keys, and bosses’ names. But the mistake introspection makes is so deep and so persuasive, it’s almost impossible to shake, even when you understand it. At first you won’t even be able to conceive how it could be a mistake. But it has to be. The mistake is the notion that when we think, or rather when our brain thinks, it thinks about anything at all. We have to see very clearly that introspection tricks us into the illusion that our thoughts are about anything at all. Thinking about things can’t happen at all. The brain can’t have thoughts about Paris, or about France, or about capitals, or about anything else for that matter. When consciousness convinces you that you, or your mind, or your brain has thoughts about things, it is wrong. Physics has ruled out the existence of clumps of matter of the required sort. There are just fermions and bosons and combinations of them. None of that stuff is just, all by itself, about any other stuff. There is nothing in the whole universe—including, of course, all the neurons in your brain—that just by its nature or composition can do this job of being about some other clump of matter. So, when consciousness assures us that we have thoughts about stuff, it has to be wrong. (…) Therefore, consciousness cannot retrieve thoughts about stuff. There are none to retrieve. So it can’t have thoughts about stuff either. [Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide To Reality, Ch.8]
Box_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

KF, I dove among bull sharks off the coast of Costa Rica a few years ago. Fascinating creatures. Obligatory joke: Why did the sharks not bite me? Professional courtesy. Interesting historical fact: Before the ultimately settled on Panama, there was serious consideration given to building the canal through this region and incorporating the lake into it.Barry Arrington_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Mung, Lake Nicaragua has some seriously vicious sharks. KFkairosfocus_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Well, all I have to say is wd400 is no Theodosius Dobzhansky!Mung_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Box: Existence is exclusive to particles – fermions and bosons. There is simply nothing over and beyond that. Sure there is. There are cohesive collections of particles, such as molecules, magnates, and moons.Zachriel_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

@22 wd400 "Yes Barry, I said if you wanted to play games that’s the sort of thing you’d have to deal with. If, instead, you want to actually understand something you should read the posts and think about them." Code for- The internet evolutionary biologist cannot refute what Mr Arrington posted so decided to throw a tantrum instead.Jack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Yes Barry, I said if you wanted to play games that's the sort of thing you'd have to deal with. If, instead, you want to actually understand something you should read the posts and think about them.wd400_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

We should keep in mind that, according to naturalism, no one understands evolutionary theory. According to naturalism no person exist — including a person with the forum name WD400 who is an evolutionary biologist. Existence is exclusive to particles - fermions and bosons. There is simply nothing over and beyond that. We all know that those particles are non-rational, purposeless and are not at all interested in evolutionary theory; or any other theory. It follows that, according to naturalism, there can be no entity "who" is capable of understanding evolutionary theory.Box_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

wd400’s first statement:
Unfortunately a lot of molecular biologists (Collins included) don’t understand much about evolution.
Barry’s reductio ad absurdum argument:
1. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. 2. The human genome project is “in biology.” 3. Collins does not understand evolution,. 4. Therefore, the head of the human genome project is unable to make sense of the human genome project.
wd400
Though it should be pointed out I didn’t say 3.
wd, would you accuse me of playing first year philosophy games again (ouch, that really smarts), if I point out that you did in fact say 3.Barry Arrington_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

wd400@18 "can play you first year philosophy games" Philosophy is known as the love of wisdom. You scoff at this. When you reject wisdom then it is not a surprise that you are doing so badly.Jack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Well, you can play you first year philosophy games if you like. (Though it should be pointed out I didn't say 3. You don't have to know much about evolution to know we are related to other animals, and without that knowledge it's very hard to understand genomes). And the conclusion was actually my point in the first There is much about the human genome that Collins doesn't understand -- he was mistaken about the number of genes it would contain (when evolutionary biologists made accurate predictions much earlier), he was mistaken about the degree of horizontal transfer in the human genome when they first published it, he is now mistaken about how much junk it contains. But my larger point posts like this make it impossible to actually discuss any topic and so it degrades into tribalism and point scoring. That doesn't interest me at all, so I'll leave you to it.wd400_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Mr Arrington said "I have addressed the contents of your post. I pointed out that when confronted with the logical conclusions that ineluctably proceed from your own statement, you did the verbal equivalent of this:" Wd400 seems to be losing his sight and cannot see Mr Arrington's post, Becoming blind just like a blind cave fish, is that entropy or evolution? PZ Myers claims to be a fish, is wd400 becoming a blind fish but one that does not live in a cave? Is he a different species of fish to PZ myers? Is this entropy or evolution over time?. Are you a lumper or a splitter? It is interesting.Jack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

I enjoy watching a good ass whupping. I even got cheetos and beer for the occasion.Mapou_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

wd400 @ 13: I have addressed the contents of your post. I pointed out that when confronted with the logical conclusions that ineluctably proceed from your own statement, you did the verbal equivalent of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5BxrvWtTuUBarry Arrington_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

David Berlinski understands evolution:
You know, nothing is so apt to provoke the indignation of Darwinian biologists as to remark that the centerpiece of their theory is perfectly empty because it is, in fact, a trivial truth: whatever survives, survives. And Darwinian theory does not really get beyond que sera, sera. And there are all sorts of elaborate strategies designed to circumvent that objection, but whenever they’re investigated seriously, they always return to the same point of triviality. Darwinian biologists simply have nothing much better than what survives, survives. They’ll call it differential reproduction—namely, what survives, survives. This may be just a fact of life. (...) What has it ever told us beyond what survives, survives? We have no independent assessment in any respect—and this is a point of difference in physics—as to what qualities in a living system will establish its survivability. That is to say, we cannot look at an organism and say: “These are the qualities from a theoretical point of view, a general theoretical point of view, that we would predict would be favored under certain environments.” There is no mapping from an environment of such-and-such a nature and an organism of such-and-such a nature to a prediction about which organism is possessing which qualitative – forget about quantitative, they’re nowhere near that – will survive and which won’t. We can’t say that. All we can do is look at what happens in the evolutionary record, but that’s not scientific. We could have done that before Darwin. (...) You’ve got one eel that has to travel across the Atlantic to the Sargasso Sea to reproduce and another eel that doesn’t. Can we say in advance, looking at the eels, given the saltwater environment, this is what we will predict? No, we can’t, we just have to look and see. There’s nothing wrong with looking and seeing, but, you know, we don’t need a theory for that.
Box_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

If you'd like to address the contents of my post please do.wd400_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

After seeing Larry Moran and his Moranites get toasted, roasted scrambled and fried by Mr Arrington and other commentators here, But yet they are able to get themselves back together in one piece and come back for more. This is interesting folks, Is this self organization? Is it a built in mechanism, does it involve mutations? are they rapidly mutating back into being suckers for punishment that are getting beaten more than a prime Mike Tyson battered his opponents?. Just wondered folks.Jack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

wd400 @ 5:
I don’t know what compels you to write these [denigrating qualifiers deleted] posts.
It is a fair question that deserves a response. It is amusing to watch people like you run in horror from the logical conclusions that ineluctably proceed from their own statements. So the answer is "it is amusing."Barry Arrington_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

For those of you who believe this, I have some ocean front property in Kansas I would like to sell you. What is the beach like? Any danger of shark attacks?Mung_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Mr Arrington, It's clear that you have studied in correctly utilizing logic, that is why you are tearing Professor Moran (who talks as if he is the worlds foremost authority on evolution) to shreds, it is why his cheerleaders who rely on rhetoric rather than reason are getting torn to shreds too. It is very entertaining to witness.Jack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

BTW, for wd400's statement at 5 to be true, the following series of statements would also have to be true: 1. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. 2. The human genome project is "in biology." 3. Collins does not understand evolution,. 4. Therefore, the head of the human genome project is unable to make sense of the human genome project. For those of you who believe this, I have some ocean front property in Kansas I would like to sell you.Barry Arrington_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

wd400 @ 5 engages in what those of us raised in the south call "crayfishin'" So named because crayfish swim backwards. It is amusing to watch a Darwinist furiously backtrack after being shown where the logic of one of their own statements leads.Barry Arrington_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Apparently wd400 evolved to become an evolutionary biologist by posting on uncommon descent, how that works is strange but apparently posting on the net made him mutate into an evolutionary biologist, does that constitute evidence that one day after many generations that a non human creature will result? hahahaJack Jones_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

I don't know what compels you to write these childish (attempted) point-scoring posts. If you wanted me to clarify what I had said I would have been happy to, instead you create this ridiculous bombastic post. For the record. It should be obvious to anyone that it's quite possible for Dobzhansky's quote to be correct (it's a great essay by the way) and for many molecular biologists to not know much evolutionary biology. For genomics in particular, evolutionary biology has provided many tools for understanding genomes. But that doesn't mean everyone that uses the tools understands their underpinnings. Indeed, it's quite possible to depend on evolutionary biology without understanding much of it. Collins own position is largely a political and organisational one, so that's even more the case for him.wd400_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Evolutionary theory is more like Evolutionary Folk Tales. Whether or not it is literally true isn't the point, the point is that it keeps the ideological, cultural narrative alive for the comfort of current and future generations of materialists.William J Murray_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Yes Mung. I have often marveled at the fact that evolutionary biology appears to be the only scientific discipline in which the researcher's ability to imagine a story counts as positive evidence for the theory.Barry Arrington_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

The ability to generate just-so stories demonstrates knowledge of evolutionary theory.Mung_{November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply