Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We often hear neoDarwinian narrative apologists tell us that they would be hamstrung in conducting their research if they didn’t know the neoDarwinian story was true. Au contraire says NAS member Phil Skell and 70 eminent researchers he asked about it recently. Read on below the fold…

Read the whole story at
The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10
Published 29 August 2005

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
by Philip S Skell

Darwin’s theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin’s theory has been raised to its present high status because it’s said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas,” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.[1] “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

Comments
avocationist wrote: "Not only I but others have noted that the mystics all speak the same language. Just because various people of faith have experiences does not mean they have reached the genuine level that Tina speaks of. I have read what I consider the genuine mystics of many differing faiths and I understand them all, and all their teachings are coherent with each other." It sounds a bit circular: you judge "genuine mystics" by whether their teachings match your standard of genuineness, and then you note that the teachings of genuine mystics are coherent with each other. In any case, assuming that genuine mystics do have similar experiences, how can we know whether their experiences are similar because they've experienced a higher, spiritual reality, versus simply being brain phenomena which are similar because human brains themselves are similar?valerie
February 16, 2006
February
02
Feb
16
16
2006
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Valerie, "Each religious tradition has its mystics who see their direct, intuitive spiritual experiences as genuine. To read the accounts of these mystics is to be convinced of their sincerity. Yet they reach mutually contradictory conclusions." Not only I but others have noted that the mystics all speak the same language. Just because various people of faith have experiences does not mean they have reached the genuine level that Tina speaks of. I have read what I consider the genuine mystics of many differing faiths and I understand them all, and all their teachings are coherent with each other. Incidentally, many of them speak more or less openly of the need to jettison dogma in order to obtain what they have obtained.avocationist
February 15, 2006
February
02
Feb
15
15
2006
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
Incidentally, the denizens of "After The Bar Closes" have responded to my criticism of their tactics by banning from viewing their proceedings. I would very much appreciate knowing what they are up to so that I can expose them on my blog, hopefully in their own words.John Davison
February 13, 2006
February
02
Feb
13
13
2006
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
valerie Please program a computer to be creative. It will keep you busy for quite some time.John Davison
February 13, 2006
February
02
Feb
13
13
2006
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT

valerie, this discussion has popped up many times on this blog - the relationship between the "mind" and the physical apparatus. Neuroscience has demonstrated compelling evidence which would suggest that the will, emotions, first-person perspective, etc... and all of the related propositions, cannot be reduced to a physical organ in the skull. It's an open debate. Please refer to my latest blog entry: "On The Origins of The Mind".

Scott
February 13, 2006
February
02
Feb
13
13
2006
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
John Davison wrote: "Computers can do absolutely nothing they weren’t programmed to do." What if they're programmed to be creative? How do you like them jellyfish skins with maple syrup? Nauseating, aren't they? (Apologies for borrowing your "food as rhetorical device" device)valerie
February 13, 2006
February
02
Feb
13
13
2006
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
Computers can do absolutely nothing they weren't programmed to do. There is no such thing as a creative computer. Most human brains aren't even creative. "God designed the stomach to vomit up things that were bad for it but he overlooked the human brain. Konrad Adenauer Since God found it necessary to limit man's intelligence, why didn't He limit his stupidity?" ibidJohn Davison
February 13, 2006
February
02
Feb
13
13
2006
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT
Tina says: "What they cannot account for is the fact that many people with such chemical imbalances make free will directed choices to think in more positive ways, and the chemistry of the brain changes under the pressure of the will. this is hardly consistent with the idea that will is a by-product of chemistry!" Tina, Material phenomena affect other material phenomena all the time. If will is a material phenomenon, why should it be surprising that it can affect brain chemistry? I detect in your comments a feeling I used to share: the feeling that our human minds, wills, emotions, etc., are somehow devalued if they are attributed to "mere" material interactions, a fear that we become "mere machines" in that case. Or the idea that material interactions are too simple and "mindless" to be responsible for creativity, spiritual feelings, or other human characteristics. The mistake here is in underestimating the power of "mere" matter and energy. They can do pretty amazing things if organized in the right way. The principles underlying computer operation are very simple, but the sheer number and interconnection of parts within a computer renders it capable of amazingly nuanced behavior. How much more true of the human brain, which is the most complicated integrated object we know of in the universe.valerie
February 12, 2006
February
02
Feb
12
12
2006
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
valerie, while it is true that psychology acknowledges the effects of the control of thought, it is completely untrue to assert that they can ascribe will and its control and exercise to material substance: if I am depressed, the psychologist will tell me that there is a chemical imbalance in my brain. They will attempt to correct this imbalance by doping. They will achieve modest success, which immediately falls away when the doping is discontinued. What they cannot account for is the fact that many people with such chemical imbalances make free will directed choices to think in more positive ways, and the chemistry of the brain changes under the pressure of the will. this is hardly consistent with the idea that will is a by-product of chemistry! the opposite is more likely the case. John A Davidson, when I referred to spiritual laws I was purposely being vague in order to close my comment. However, it is quite possible to be more specific: earlier in the same post I referred to the teaching about reaping and sowing. This referrs to a spiritual law which is roughly analogous to the material law of action/reaction. The material law has material effects; is spiritual counterpart has correspondingly spiritual effects: sow wheat, reap wheat. sow love, reap love. there are others. spiritual gravity; think and do mean and ugly things, and you will sink and become heavy spiritually. thing and do loving and light things, and you will be uplifted and lightened. and so on. I just think the idea of completely predetermined everything is silly. Perhaps I shouldn't have said cowardly, although it does seem to come from some deep inability to be responsible for onesself. If everything is prescribed, I am free, in a sense, to just be whatever I am and never improve or change or adapt...no?tinabrewer
February 12, 2006
February
02
Feb
12
12
2006
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
Back to the original topic of this thread. It is true, as Skell asserts, that many biologists do not need to invoke Darwinian evolution in their day-to-day work. To trace out a novel metabolic pathway, for example, you do not need to know how the pathway came into existence. I see an analogy with my field of hardware/software engineering. The success of the entire field rests on our ability to pack millions of reliable transistors onto a tiny slab of silicon. The operation of these transistors cannot be understood without taking quantum effects into account. So, in a way, the entire field rests on the truth of quantum mechanics. Yet logic designers and software engineers can work effectively without any knowledge of the underlying quantum mechanisms (circuit designers are not so lucky). Analogously, evolution unifies the entire field of biology, but you can effectively participate in many biological subdisciplines with very little knowledge of how evolution actually works. In both cases, the intellectually curious will not rest until they understand the foundational ideas of their fields.valerie
February 12, 2006
February
02
Feb
12
12
2006
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
tinabrewer comments: "Just because so many people have competing religious ideas does not in any way illustrate the need to rely on intellect...in fact most of the dross of the so-called spiritual life are nothing but the products of intellect: narrow, self-serving, materialistic. Just because they are nominally religious doesn’t exempt them from this. The spiritual voice can be thought of more in the realm of intuitive life, or the deep inner feeling associated with “insight” of a spiritual kind." Each religious tradition has its mystics who see their direct, intuitive spiritual experiences as genuine. To read the accounts of these mystics is to be convinced of their sincerity. Yet they reach mutually contradictory conclusions. I see no way of avoiding the conclusion that spiritual intuition is an unreliable arbiter of truth. As a Californian, I come into contact with people of many faiths. Each group has its adherents who range from nominal to utterly committed. I enjoy discussing faith with the latter, and do so whenever I can. I can tell you that these people typically have had direct, powerful spiritual experiences which convince them of the truth of their beliefs. Yet those beliefs contradict those of other, equally sincere, equally committed followers of other traditions. Again, what can we conclude except that sincerity and the power of immediate spiritual experience are not sufficient to differentiate truth from falsehood? "Take for example the spiritual concept of “you reap what you sow”. Far from accepting this on “faith” it is entirely possible to run “psychic experiments” of a sort: pick a quality, say lovingkindness, and fill your life with it on every level...if this is done in all sincerity, out of a genuine desire for good, then you WILL experience a reciprocal effect: your inner life will lighten, life will look and feel more beautiful, and kindnesses and forgivenness will come your way. Then you will KNOW the truth of this spiritual teaching." True, but there is no need to invoke anything beyond the material to explain these effects. Psychology understands that moods are profoundly affected by thoughts, and that we can alter our outlook by exerting control over our thoughts. Psychology also understands that others respond strongly to our moods, good or bad, our kindnesses or surlinesses, our optimism or pessimism. How does any of this require an eternal spirit to explain it?valerie
February 12, 2006
February
02
Feb
12
12
2006
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Good for you tinabrewer. You start right out calling me a coward and end up partially agreeing with me. I love it! By the way it is John A. Davison, not john davidson. Which spiritual law do you have in mind or would you rather not say? Thanks for postimg.John Davison
February 12, 2006
February
02
Feb
12
12
2006
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
What a cowardly stance to take, john davidson, and I can only hope it is in jest. It is simply not true, as valerie writes, that our intellect is the only source which can be relied upon. Just because so many people have competing religious ideas does not in any way illustrate the need to rely on intellect. Intellect should be understood rightly as a by-product of the gross material brain, something which is finite, subject to decay, etc. The spirit, on the other hand, is eternal and not subject to decay. Therefore it is the only species or element within the human being which is capable of percieving and therefore judging that which is eternal. Each human being is endowed with this inner element through the creative act. How they develop this substance accounts for the extraordinary differences in maturity and perceptive capacity which we witness around us. in fact most of the dross of the so-called spiritual life are nothing but the products of intellect: narrow, self-serving, materialistic. Just because they are nominally religious doesn't exempt them from this. The spiritual voice can be thought of more in the realm of intuitive life, or the deep inner feeling associated with "insight" of a spiritual kind. It cannot be precisely described, and must be experienced to be known. Tragically, we do not tend to believe that we can know anything unless that thing can be weighed and measured in a beaker. How sad. The knowing of the spirit is so much more vast, and no less lawful. Take for example the spiritual concept of "you reap what you sow". Far from accepting this on "faith" it is entirely possible to run "psychic experiments" of a sort: pick a quality, say lovingkindness, and fill your life with it on every level: practice forgivenness in your thoughts, help your neighbors, give to charity, listen to beautiful music, etc. etc. and although you may not control the precise material outcomes and results, if this is done in all sincerity, out of a genuine desire for good, then you WILL experience a reciprocal effect: your inner life will lighten, life will look and feel more beautiful, and kindnesses and forgivenness will come your way. Then you will KNOW the truth of this spiritual teaching. Conversely most of us have experienced times when our thoughts were negative and dark, fearful and constricted. These types of thoughts tend to attract others and they react and so on, making the situation worse and worse until finally a mighty effort is required to change this inner state. Is this not knowing? Is this merely faith? It is the overdevelopment of the material capacity to think and the grotesque underdevelopment of the inner capacity to percieve which makes us falsely overvalue the outward over the spiritual knowing. This mistake leads to devastating consequences. i agree with John D that we are subject to forces beyond our control, but to align onesself with the direction of the forces and therefore be carried in their currents is not the same as controlling them: it is the definition of submission. The law of gravity is obeyed by all because it is inexorable and any disobedience leads to pain and death. Spiritual law is equally inexorable and the consequences equally painful: we just don't understand the spiritual laws yet, because we don't concern ourselves with them (by and large)tinabrewer
February 12, 2006
February
02
Feb
12
12
2006
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
The question of nature versus nurture seems to now indicate that the former definitely plays the major role in our world views. My own personal bias is that Darwinian atheist materialism is a pleiotropic manifestation of exactly the same genetic condition that predisposes or, if I may be so bold, prescribes political liberalism. There is nothing new in this revelation as the following will prove beyond any reasonaable doubt. "Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control." Albert Einstein "Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion." ibid Three years after Einstein was born: "Every boy and every girl, That is born into the world alive, Is either a little liberal, Or a little conservative." Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe, 1882 "There's a sucker born every minute." P.T. Barnum "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken $%&#." Anonymous In short we are all victims and are simply "born that way." It is only natural that I should feel this way because it is in perfect accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.John Davison
February 12, 2006
February
02
Feb
12
12
2006
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
Barrett1 asks: "People on these boards find Darwin’s theory almost laughable, yet the best and brightest do not. What gives?" Barrett, I'm very glad that you're asking. I wish more ID supporters would ask the same question. The truth is that most of the "best and brightest" accept evolutionary theory for the same reasons that they accept physics: it explains so much so well in a way unmatched by any competing theory. Physics explains why unsupported objects fall to earth, why bicycles become stable when they're rolling, why you can shock someone after rubbing your feet on the carpet on a dry day, why the planets don't careen off into space, why transistors work, and why a 600-ton Airbus A380 can fly. Evolutionary theory explains why the fossils appear in a certain order, why humans are anatomically similar to apes and other mammals, why extinction has been so common over the history of life, why we have disease and predation, why sperm are small but eggs are large, why humans are rougly 50-50 male and female while some other species have different ratios, why beehives and naked mole rat colonies have the same social organization, why we tend to love our close relatives more than other people, why sickle-cell anemia persists in the human population, why we have the same broken gene for vitamin C production as apes do, and why there are so many marsupial mammals in Australia when placental mammals dominate the rest of the world. I can understand why most people, being unfamiliar with the remarkable scientific success of evolutionary theory, would be skeptical. After all, it is counterintuitive to almost everyone, and downright offensive to those whose religious beliefs are threatened by it. Biologists and other scientists are human beings who start out with many of the same qualms. Witnessing the extraordinary explanatory power of evolutionary theory is what makes them evolutionists. tinabrewer comments: "the biblical narrative of the serpent which tempts the human couple could be seen as an explanation for this human tendency to place their intellectual ability to know above their spiritual duty." Tina, The problem is that we have no other reliable way of ascertaining our "spiritual duty", if any, except through our intellects. Faith and revelation don't do the job, as evidenced by the number of contradictory but sincerely held religious beliefs in the world. Those of us who rely on our intellects do so not because we believe they are infallible -- they quite obviously are not -- but because we have nothing else to rely on. Those who accept the Bible, or the Koran, or the Vedas as sacred texts are in the same boat. They are not born believing in the truth of these books. They believe because their parents taught them to, or because the books seemed true, or because most of the people in their culture accepted the books, or because someone they respected accepted the books, or because at some point they were in distress and prayed to the deity described by one of these books and found relief. All of these are common reasons for asserting the validity of a sacred book, but all of them are unreliable. In the end, we are forced to use our fallible, human reason to judge these books. Again, this is not out of arrogance, but because we have no other recourse.valerie
February 12, 2006
February
02
Feb
12
12
2006
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Tina, thanks for that. I think that's an outstanding insight. You've verbalized a certain aspect to this issue which I've been pondering for quite some time.Scott
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Barrett, since it is not thought highly of in this forum to speak of metaphysical things, it would be difficult to have a serious discussion of what could cause intelligent people to take seriously such a poor idea. Such a discussion does belong to the realm of philosophy and/or religion, and yet it is a most fascinating conundrum. Interestingly, you could apply the same question to any number of bad ideas to which seemingly thoughtful people adhere including many lunatic religious ideas which people are willing to die (and tragically also kill) for. With regard to Darwinism, though, it seems clear that only a spiritual explanation will suffice since the battle will not be won in the realm of the intellect: taken metaphorically, the biblical narrative of the serpent which tempts the human couple could be seen as an explanation for this human tendency to place their intellectual ability to know above their spiritual duty. The story of faustus is another such symbolic story: the doctor who sells his soul to the devil in exchange for all knowledge is really quite a perfect metaphor for the materialist who places the narrow sphere of intellectual activity, which is strictly limited to what is material and measurable, above the activity of his spiritual self, which seeks knowledge going beyond the limits of matter. One cannot serve two masters! Neither of these stories imply that knowledge per se (or science) are intrinsically dark or evil: rather the human desire to serve the ego through "knowing better" which cause it to enshrine and worship that which is quite small (intellectual material knowledge) over that which is eternal/immutable (spiritual knowledge) Hopefully this will not be too off-topic to make it through, but it definitely is a stimulating and interesting side-issue!tinabrewer
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
"Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores in the Western World." William Golding Two down, one to go.John Davison
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
This is an interesting topic. It is quite baffling to me how so many people, obviously highly intelligent people, could be so wrong about evolution. Phillip Johnson also found this confounding and addressed it in a lecture. He noted that nearly everyone in the biological sciences at Berkeley (where he taught law) found Darwin's evolution theory completely convincing. In the lecture, he advanced an explanation that smart people have a clever way of essentially denying reality. They can effectively delude themselves, while those of us with average intelligence either can not (or perhaps don't find it satisfying to do so). This may partially explain why America's rank and file find Darwin unconvincing, while America's "elite" find it perfectly reasonable. Despite Johnson's attempt to explain the popularity of Darwin among America's intelligentsia, I still find it astounding that so many smart people could be so wrong. I've heard Darwin's theory compared to discredited Marxist theory, Freudian theory, eugenics, alchemy and so on. The argument is that these theories, once popular, have fallen by the wayside, as will Darwin's theory. But this leaves me unsatisfied. In such a large, relatively free country, where ideas are flying around at internet speed, it just seems implausible to me that all these smart people could be so wrong, and we (and I consider myself an ID sympathizer) could be so right. People on these boards find Darwin's theory almost laughable, yet the best and brightest do not. What gives? Not to put words in his mouth, but I think it is fair to say that Johnson's explanation has a metaphysical quality to it, almost like he wants to attribute the popularity of Darwinism in academia to some kind of evil spiritual force, but he's afraid to say it. Nevertheless, he does set forth a theory with some explanatory power. I like that about him (as well as Davison on these boards).Barrett1
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
I went over to that site and read the little exchange about "unwarranted appeals to authority" versus "who should I believe, you or all the experts". It seems to me that there are times when it's appropriate to rely on experts, but there are also times when skepticism of experts is in order. The world of experts in any field is subject to all kinds of influences and cultural forces that can bias their opinions. I am in the airline business and I understand that pilots have valuable insights into airline safety. They are aviation experts with special insights and years of experience. But I also recognize that their opinions about airline safety can also be influenced by ego, by economic interests and other factors quite seperate from pure safety issues. Why then, as a science layperson, should I assume that science is different? Why should I assume that scientists are unbiased seekers of truth, uninfluenced by ego, careerism, theological/philosophical motivations and so forth?russ
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
here's a comment and the link from After the Bar Closes. uthrie Posts: 40 Joined: Jan. 2006 Posted: Feb. 11 2006,13:04 Ahhh, if phishy was JAD, that would explain why the stream of consciousness and rambling looks familiar. It was bugging me all the way down this thread. So, Phishy, are you JAD or not? And if you are, would you like to try and act like the scientist you once were, or would you like to carry on like the small child you now appear to be? http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43edeaf66bc2ace2;act=ST;f=14;t=151;st=540MacDaddy
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
The one with far and away the most posts and viewers, the one that deals with this forum of course. There were 561 posts the last I looked. What a compliment!John Davison
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
fishyred? What thread topic over there, Dr. Davison?Scott
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Hey folks there is some guy called fishyred or something like that that is raising hell over at "After the Bar Closes." I think he may be Russian. Its a hoot.John Davison
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
Darwinism played no role in any aspect of taxonomy, comparative and general physiology, bacteriology, comparative anatomy, comparative and general embryology, medicine or any other aspect of modern science - none whatsoever. Not only that, these same areas are the ones that prove it is all nonsense. How do you Darwimps like them pronunciamentos? Read it and weep or better yet, gnash your teeth, get mad and do somethimg about it you cowardly nincompoops.John Davison
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply