We are invited to ask what would happen if Darwin were excised from biology

_{News
December 7, 2019

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design}

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

Some biologists might shudder at the thought of eliminating Darwinism from their scientific work. A “Darwin-ectomy” sounds more painful than a tonsillectomy or appendectomy. To hard-core evolutionists, it might sound like a cephalectomy (removal of the head)! If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts should make research incomprehensible.
If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage. Here are some recent scientific papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to use as test cases.

Evolution News, “No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology?” at Discovery Institute CSC

What difference would it make if Darwinism were excised from biology?

Well, for one thing, cleaner prose and clearer thinking. Maybe new, better ideas. How about:

“Humans evolved to live in groups”

Response: Wow. Deep.

Fast forward: Editor performs Darwinectomy, resulting in:

“Humans live in groups.”

Response: Well… yeah. But so? Who invited this clown? Is he really worth $5000? That half million-dollar advance on his next book?

Kiddies, try Darwscrubbing at home for fun but keep quiet about the results. Don’t spook your Woke parents if they need Darwin just to get up in the morning and go to work.

Never be cruel.

If you’re a Christian, you know you mustn’t be cruel.

Not a Christian? Fine, but remember, karma’s a bitch. There’s no escape from reality either way. We must dump Darwin non-cruelly.

Take-home point: Science explanations should offer substance, not just reinforcement of belief using hocus-pocus words like “evolved to.”

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Mimus December 7, 2019 at 11:50 pm I like the way the author literally didn’t try to re-write any of the articles and instead replaced actual science with “they’re still finches” and the author’s personal belief that the evolution of echolocation is ridiculous. Really ought to be an embarrassing article for IDists. I read through the article and what you references at the very end of the article and was not used to replace any actual science at all he referenced the articles and highlighted the things that were pertinent to his point I’m almost certain the author is actually referring to the fact that none of the finches actually evolved into another species hence the finches are still finches. I also feel that you’re taking his reference to echolocation out of context as well. Then he speculates on the fact that the studies can be done without the verbal usage of Darwinism and evolution.AaronS1978_{December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

Hi Bob, You never told me the origin of the story in this comment. Care to share it now?Mimus_{December 7, 2019
December
12
Dec
7
07
2019
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

Mimus @ 5 I'd imagine that it's far more embarrassing when Darwinists asks themselves hard questions about the theory and realize they have no actual evidence to support their claim.BobRyan_{December 7, 2019
December
12
Dec
7
07
2019
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

I like the way the author literally didn't try to re-write any of the articles and instead replaced actual science with "they're still finches" and the author's personal belief that the evolution of echolocation is ridiculous. Really ought to be an embarrassing article for IDists.Mimus_{December 7, 2019
December
12
Dec
7
07
2019
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

What would happen if Newton were excised from physics or Aquinas from Christian theology? Seversky December 7, 2019 at 9:44 pm
I think that the point is that eliminating evolutionary words and concepts doesn't hinder biologic research or the results. No scientific information is lost in the elimination of those words, just the metaphysical gloss. I'm pretty sure you just tossed Newton and physics out there as a rhetorical tool to distract or did you really mean to compare Darwin's tautology of "survival of the fittest" to the tour de force that is The Calculus?Latemarch_{December 7, 2019
December
12
Dec
7
07
2019
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

What would happen if Newton were excised from physics or Aquinas from Christian theology?Seversky_{December 7, 2019
December
12
Dec
7
07
2019
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Developmental biology would no longer be wed to the debunked "phenotype = genotype + environment" trope. So that would be a good thingET_{December 7, 2019
December
12
Dec
7
07
2019
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

While it is certainly bad enough for Darwin's theory to be able to remove all the words that make reference to Darwinian theory and, not only leave the papers unscathed, but have the papers turn out to be "healthier and more useful",,,,
No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology? - December 4, 2019 If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts, (“Darwin-ectomy”), should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage.,,, So, here are three papers in America’s premier science journal that appear at first glance to need Darwinism, use Darwinism, support Darwinism, and thereby impart useful scientific knowledge. After subjecting them to Darwin-ectomies, though, the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/no-harm-no-foul-what-if-darwinism-were-excised-from-biology/
,,, While that is certainly bad enough for Darwin's theory, what is completely devastating for Darwin's theory is what type of language, i.e. teleological language, that CANNOT possibly be removed from these scientific papers that purport to support Darwinian evolution without severely compromising the integrity of the papers,,
"Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” J. B. S. Haldane tel·e·ol·o·gy noun PHILOSOPHY the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise. THEOLOGY the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world. (The irresolved problem of) Teleology in biology Teleology in biology is the use of the language of goal-directedness in accounts of evolutionary adaptation, which some biologists and philosophers of science find problematic. ,,, Nevertheless, biologists still often write about evolution as if organisms had goals, and some philosophers of biology such as Francisco Ayala and biologists such as J. B. S. Haldane consider that teleological language is unavoidable in evolutionary biology.,,, Teleology Main article: Teleology Teleology, from Greek, telos “end, purpose”[3] and , logia, “a branch of learning”, was coined by the philosopher Christian von Wolff in 1728.[4] The concept derives from the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, where the final cause (the purpose) of a thing is its function.[5] However, Aristotle’s biology does not envisage evolution by natural selection.[6] Phrases used by biologists like “a function of … is to …” or “is designed for” are teleological at least in language. The presence of real or apparent teleology in explanations of natural selection is a controversial aspect of the philosophy of biology, not least for its echoes of natural theology.[1][7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology
Teleological, (i.e. purpose, goal directed), explanations of any sort are simply self defeating to any Darwinian explanation that seeks to explain biological life as being purely the result of completely blind and purposeless processes (as Darwinists are supposedly ‘purposely intent’ on doing). Yet teleological language is rampant within Darwinian explanations. In the following article, Stephen Talbott points out that it is impossible to describe the complexities of biological life without illegitimately using language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness (i.e. teleology). He even challenges readers to "take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1."
The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
Denis Noble also notes that "it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language".
“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” - Denis Noble - Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/
This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble's assessment and states, "in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them."
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails - Ann Gauger - June 2011 Excerpt: I'm a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn't troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it's high time we moved on. - Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
Thus, as the article in the OP made clear, we can apparently remove all the words that refer to Darwinian evolution in scientific papers and, not only have the papers remain unscathed, but have the papers turn out to be "healthier and more useful". Yet what we cannot do is remove all the words that directly imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology, (i.e. imply teleology), from the scientific papers without severely compromising the paper. As Talbott stated, "Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1." Bottom line, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their biological research, and writing their papers, falsifies Darwinian evolution and validates Intelligent Design: Verse:
Matthew 12:37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
One final note, Michael Egnor has a very insightful article explaining exactly why Darwinists are so "purposely intent" on trying to deny teleology in the first place, “It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.”
Teleology and the Mind – Michael Egnor – August 16, 2016 Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature. Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature. In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts. The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others. Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/
bornagain77_{December 7, 2019
December
12
Dec
7
07
2019
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply