posted
I just read Card's article on Evolution and Intelligent Design in the Rhino Times http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/story.html?id=1142. I found it to be insightful and his approach of "science as story" to be a marvelous way of framing the issue at hand. However, I do question one thing. He says that evolution is obviously taking place.
I can certainly see natural selection occurring in all sorts of situations. We can see it all over in the ranching and agriculture industry. The natural input from the environment is simply human consumption and the breeding programs (one predator selecting for various traits). We see it when new foreign species are introduced into habitats. I know there are many fruit fly experiments where we've reproduced it. So I don't question the phenomenon of natural selection. We can observe it.
However, it seems all our observations are limited to selection within a species. Have we ever observed natural selection leading to a new species? I'm using the Mayr definition that species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
It seems to me that it's important to divide a theory into the phenomena and the story. The phenomena in this case are (a) natural selection, (b) variation within a species, (c) many species with similar characteristics, (d) fossil records of organisms that are similar to but not a fit for current species. (Are there others I'm missing?)
But have we observed the creation of new species?
If not, then it seems to me that the idea of "common ancestors" and "evolution of new species" is part of the theory (the story) but not the phenomena it tries to explain.
Can anyone point me to this evidence or confirm it doesn't exist?
posted
Just an add on. I know there are fossils of creatures with characteristics similar to current species. But we have that same situation today. There are many primates, for example. They can't breed. Many go extinct. But they're not of the same species and did not evolve in current history from one to the other. If someone in the future were to find the bones of today's gorilla all they've found is a snapshot. The couldn't tell where it came from or if it came from the same ancestor as a human. Although we certainly can postulate a theory that seems to account for it. I'm asking for the observation of the creation of a new species. A phenomenon we can observe.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooooh, that last article is a good one. Thanks for sharing. I'll have to take some time to digest.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
name-calling, credentialism, expertism, sniping, politics, prestidigitation, true: I'm sure anyone could have a conversation using only these words (only one person could do it though), and how fun would it be? Plus, the first 6 are all substitutes for my favourite word; copout, and the seventh is my second favourite word. I love this list! Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought OSC wrote an excellent essay on ID/evolution. A few points that I thought were particularly good: he referenced the fact that the Darwinists/Evolutionists have faith in what they believe - people are often afraid of the word "faith," thinking that it implies that they are religious people; he referenced the fact that there is, in fact, a lot of biological evidence of evolution - something Christians are afraid to admit; he notes that evolution is an example of a theory based off what we know now - science could be drastically wrong about something, but from what we know, we get the model of evolution; the big one... God created the laws of nature and created life in accordance with those laws as they are, not just what we know now - he created it perfectly in truly infinite knowledge and power, which is impossible to comprehend or completely understand with finite minds.
Here's my slam-dunk point about Creation/Evolution: it doesn't matter. There is so much more important stuff in the Bible than that. Yes, science is fun and it's important to know how things work, but there is so, SO much more important stuff than that.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Here's the next question. Do we have observation of the evolution of a species into new genus? Is this something observed as well? Or would this be where the story/theory begins?
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disclaimer: I'm a college student about to complete a degree in biology, and have studied both molecular-level biology as well as evolutionary biology. Take from that what you will.
While I think OSC makes some good points regarding the near-religious fervor of many adherents of Darwinian theory, he resorts to many of the same strategies as those he denigrates. I have very rarely encountered a biochemist or molecular biologist who, while engaged in a debate about evolutionism, attempted to bypass a serious explanation with "it's too complex for you to understand" or "I have a PhD, so shut up"- and those who do are viewed with distaste by their own colleagues. To say that the automatic Darwinist response to a serious inquiry is obfuscation and credentialism is a straw man that ignores the many arguments made on websites such as Talk.Origins based on real science, including cutting-edge research in genetics and biochemistry.
The scientific community is not attempting to enthrone Darwin. Go to any college-level evolution course, and you'll see the instructors point out errors in "The Origin of Species" as often as physicists state that Newtonian mechanics is obsolete. Biologists are perfectly aware that pure Darwinism was only the first step towards the modern theory of evolution, just as Mendelian genetics only accounts for the phenotypes resulting from the simplest of genetic systems. Based on my own experiences, the reasons that Darwin has more name recognition than Mendel, Watson, or Crick have more to do with the continued outcry from anti-evolutionists than any unified deification of Darwin by biologists. The people who with whom I study don't talk about Darwin as anything more than a very smart scientist who came up with a good theory 150 years ago.
As OSC states, the evidence collected over that time period demonstrates that evolution has occurred. The focus of modern evolutionary biology is to determine HOW it occurred, and in order to study that, we do make the initial assumption that evolutionary theory is correct. Or rather, we make the prediction that the variations that we observe within and between species were generated by natural selection, and then collect data to determine whether this prediction is correct. In that sense, the theory of evolution is constantly being tested with every paper published. The fact that it has not yet been falsified, and that indeed much of modern molecular biology, which Darwin could not have possibly even imagined, make sense only in light of natural selection (genetic and structural homologies, transposons, ribozymes, etc.), provide strong grounding for the continued use of evolution as the theory that best fits the facts.
Edit Johnbrown: I doubt there's any direct observational evidence of natural selection creating a new genus, for the simple reason that such a change would require millions of years more than the human conception of scientific research has even existed. That said, there is plenty of fossil evidence demonstrating a continuity of species morphology over time. This link describes just a few:
While one could argue that this isn't observation in the strictest sense of the term, that ignores the place for indirect evidence in science, as well as the sheer mass of said evidence. Sure, we cannot state with certainty that birds evolved from reptiles, but if they didn't, then how does one explain all those transitional fossils showing a smooth progression from dromaeosaur forms to avian forms, each located in rock of the expected age? Any explanation other than "they demonstrate the evolution of dromaeosaurids to birds" would completely invalidate the field of paleontology- and if we're going to do that, why not argue that the length of time between a photon bouncing off a cell and hitting an eyeball invalidates the use of microscopes as tools, because it's not "direct" observation (thus invalidating all of "small" biology)?
posted
My hands down, absolutely favorite line of OSC's article (which I agreed with about 75% overall):
quote: Yes, there are problems with the Darwinian model. But those problems are questions. “Intelligent design” is an answer, and you have no evidence at all for that.
posted
Well, it ends well, but it starts out with a bunch of what I will charitably call mis-representations. Following OSC, let me take the points in turn.
quote:1. Intelligent Design is just Creation Science in a new suit (name-calling).
Name-calling it may be, but it's also true. I highly recommend reading the judgment in the recent Dover trial; it is an extremely thorough document. For your convenience, I have extracted some of the more interesting snippets:
quote:Originally posted by Judge Jones
The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID.
(Note that Of Pandas and People is the ID book that was suggested as alternative reading to the students in the Dover case.)
quote:Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
Not new clothing on old stuff in any way at all, oh no...
quote:2. Don't listen to these guys, they're not real scientists (credentialism).
Now it is OSC who begins to confuse Creationism and ID. I have never heard anyone question, say, Dr. Behe's credentials as a scientist, nor do I htink it will be easy to find anyone doing so. What is commonly attacked is the lack of peer-reviewed journal articles on ID, which is a matter of checkable fact. However, the likes of Ken Ham, who is not a designist but a young-Earth creationist, often make a considerable point of having a PhD. In the case of comrade Ham, then, it is entirely legitimate to point out that he has, in fact, got a paper from a diploma mill. It is he, not the evolutionists, who insist on arguing from authority; it is then entirely fair to point out that he does not, in fact, have any authority.
quote:3. If you actually understood science as we do, you'd realize that these guys are wrong and we're right; but you don't, so you have to trust us (expertism).
I very much doubt that OSC can actually find a quote where any evolutionist has said enything remotely resembling this. As a general rule, putting words in the mouths of others is not a good thing.
quote:4. They got some details of those complex systems wrong, so they must be wrong about everything (sniping).
There is a considerable difference between 'getting some details wrong' and 'asserting as facts things which are demonstrably untrue.' Comrade Behe, for example, has repeatedly asserted that blood clotting could not have evolved. This is not true, as he himself admitted in the aforementioned trial. You can hardly call this a minor detail. Once again, Judge Jones :
quote:To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have been identified in the intervening years.
quote:Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peerreviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. (2:8-20 (Miller); P-854.23-854.32). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admitted that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor.
(The judgment goes on to list the rebuttals for the other two cases, but I don't want my quotes to get unmanageably long. It's in the link I gave.)
quote:5. The first amendment requires the separation of church and state (politics).
Irrelevant to the scientific case, certainly, but extremely relevant in the context of what should be taught in schools.
quote:6. We can't possibly find a fossil record of every step along the way in evolution, but evolution has already been so well-demonstrated it is absurd to challenge it in the details (prestidigitation).
The first part is exactly true. The second part is another case of putting words in the mouths of others. It is perfectly legitimate to refer to the genetic, biochemical, and morphological evidence as proof for evolution as additions to the incomplete fossil record. Prestidigitation, indeed - pot calling kettle black!
quote:7. Even if there are problems with the Darwinian model, there's no justification for postulating an "intelligent designer" (true).
And moreover, all the 'problems' the ID movement has claimed have, in fact, been dealt with. Giving even less reason for any such postulate.
I assume that OSC was simply unaware of the rather complex debate that is intelligent design, and therefore writing in ignorance, perhaps with some rather unfortunate polemical habits from the field of politics. I hope we'll be seeing a retraction soon.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha ha A retraction. That's cute. Based on an expression of contempt by you. I'm sure he's regretting his every word even as we speak. Shaking in his boots, as it were.
Card isn't denying at all that there are a lot of extremely competent, straightforward, and honest evolutionists who are defending their position in the most forthright, accurate, and responsible way. What he is trying to do is sweep away all the stupid arguments he's seen made by stupid people, so that he can get at the arguments that actually matter and make a difference.
The problem with an ancient and overdone debate like this is the fact that everyone is frustrated by all the stupid things they have heard the other side saying. What Card is doing here is first making a connection with potential proponents of Intelligent Design by acknowledging that all the ridiculous, frustrating arguments they have been contending with actually are ridiculous and frustrating. He points out all the places where they are right, or where they raise important issues. And then, once everyone is on the same page, he points out the primary reason why the Intelligent Design position is unscientific and therefore flawed.
It's a really good argument, it actually works to your side's benefit, and you want a retraction. Wow. Brilliant.
quote:And moreover, all the 'problems' the ID movement has claimed have, in fact, been dealt with.
I'm not exactly an expert in the field, but somehow I doubt that all the open or troubling questions about evolution by natural selection have been completely answered and proven. Given the limits of what even can appear in the fossil record, I actually wonder if it's even possible to lay down a definitive answer to some of these questions that is any more reliable than Ptolemy's epicycles ...
I say this as a supporter an evolution and someone who is incredibly annoyed at Intelligent Design. If we go too far and start suggesting that we think we've solved all the problems and answered all the questions, we're stepping onto shaky ground ourselves.
[ January 18, 2006, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
So it seems that this is where the theory begins (or, if not, somebody please show me the observations). We have the phenomena of the fossil record, and to explain it, and the other phenomena, we posit the theory of evolution.
You know, you'd think with fruit flies they'd be able to do something like this. A 10 year study.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that irreducibly complex systems may have evolved through natural selection. Obviously an irreducibly complex system can't have started as a less efficient version of the same system and then gotten more efficient via nautral selection, but it may have evolved from several systems that did other things but also just happened to form a system that did the same thing as the currently irreducibly complex system. The original functions of the other systems could then have disappeared via natural selection because the function of the irreducibly complex system was more useful, resulting in a system that currently is irreducibly complex. This passage from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains this idea better:
quote:Irreducible complexity is supposedly something which could not have come through unbroken law, and especially not through the agency of natural selection. Critics claim that Behe shows a misunderstanding of the very nature and workings of natural selection. No one is denying that in natural processes there may well be parts which, if removed, would lead at once to the non-functioning of the systems in which they occur. The point however is not whether the parts now in place could not be removed without collapse, but whether they could have been put in place by natural selection. Consider an arched bridge, made from cut stone, without cement, held in place only by the force of the stones against each other. If you tried to build the bridge from scratch, upwards and then inwards, you would fail — the stones would keep falling to the ground, as indeed the whole bridge now would collapse were you to remove the center keystone or any surrounding it. Rather, what you must do is first build a supporting structure (possibly an earthen embankment), on which you will lay the stones of the bridge, until they are all in place. At which point you can remove the structure for it is no longer needed, and in fact is in the way. Likewise, one can imagine a biochemical sequential process with several stages, on the parts of which other processes piggyback as it were. Then the hitherto non-sequential parasitic processes link up and start functioning independently, the original sequence finally being removed by natural selection as redundant or inconveniently draining of resources.
Of course, this is all pretend. But Darwinian evolutionists have hardly ignored the matter of complex processes. Indeed, it is discussed in detail by Darwin in the Origin, where he refers to that most puzzling of all adaptations, the eye. At the biochemical level, today's Darwinians have many examples of the most complex of processes that have been put in place by selection. Take that staple of the body's biochemistry, the process where energy from food is converted into a form which can be used by the cells. Rightly does a standard textbook refer to this vital organic system, the so-called "Krebs cycle," as something which "undergoes a very complicated series of reactions" (Hollum 1987, 408). This process, which occurs in the cell parts known as mitochondria, involves the production of ATP (adenosine triphosphate): a complex molecule which is energy rich and which is degraded by the body as needed (say in muscle action) into another less rich molecule ADP (adenosine diphosphate). The Krebs cycle remakes ATP from other energy sources — an adult human male needs to make nearly 200 Kg a day — and by any measure, the cycle is enormously involved and intricate. For a start, nearly a dozen enzymes (substances which facilitate chemical processes) are required, as one sub-process leads on to another.
Yet the cycle did not come out of nowhere. It was cobbled together out of other cellular processes which do other things. It was a "bricolage." Each one of the bits and pieces of the cycle exists for other purposes and has been coopted for the new end. The scientists who have made this connection could not have made a stronger case against Behe's irreducible complexity than if they had had him in mind from the first. In fact, they set up the problem virtually in Behe's terms: "The Krebs cycle has been frequently quoted as a key problem in the evolution of living cells, hard to explain by Darwin's natural selection: How could natural selection explain the building of a complicated structure in toto, when the intermediate stages have no obvious fitness functionality?" (Meléndez-Hervia et al. 1996, 302). What these workers do not offer is a Behe-type answer. First, they brush away a false lead. Could it be that we have something like the evolution of the mammalian eye, where primitive existent eyes in other organisms suggest that selection can and does work on proto models (as it were), refining features which have the same function if not as efficient as more sophisticated models? Probably not, for there is no evidence of anything like this. But then we are put on a more promising track.
In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete design was a very clear case of opportunism. The building of the eye was really a creative process in order to make a new thing specifically, but the Krebs cycle was built through the process that Jacob (1977) called "evolution by molecular tinkering," stating that evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists. The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells (p. 302).
Of course, we probably haven't been able to show that this happened for every irreducibly complex structure in nature. But we also haven't been able to trace every step in the evolution of every creature either.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have long been a proponent of the idea that evolution was designed. That the Earth is very old, that species change, but it was all part of blue prints created by, in my case G-d. What scares me about teaching it in the class room is what I hear from the majority of those arguing for it. Most people on both sides DO seem to think intelligent design replaces evolution, rather then answers it. When I butt in with the question, "How do we know G-d didn't create evolution?", I am totally ignored.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And moreover, all the 'problems' the ID movement has claimed have, in fact, been dealt with.
I'm not exactly an expert in the field, but somehow I doubt that all the open or troubling questions about evolution by natural selection have been completely answered and proven. Given the limits of what even can appear in the fossil record, I actually wonder if it's even possible to lay down a definitive answer to some of these questions that is any more reliable than Ptolemy's epicycles ...
There's a big difference between answering all of the examples that are cited by the ID movement as "flaws" in evolutionary theory (which KoM is saying has been done) and answering all of the open or troubling questions about evolution or natural selection. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
johnbrown: No, the theory begins with Darwin's observation of the Galapagos finches. There is no "line" between the theory of evolution and the fact of observed speciation... I get the feeling that you're using the IDer definition of "theory" (that is, an unconfirmed hypothesis), whereas in scientific terminology, "theory" refers to an explanation for natural events that is supported by the current body of data. Good fossil evidence is just as valid as direct observation in science, and as my link showed, there is plenty of good fossil evidence demonstrating the fact of change in species morphology over time.
As for fruit flies, I don't have time to dig up a cite right now, but IIRC they have managed to speciate Drosophila melanogaster. Creating a whole new genus would, again, take far longer than 10 years, even with modern genetic modification techniques.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
I have no idea what the tenets of Intelligent Design are past what I read in Card's article, although I can guess. But I did like very much the idea Card raises of theory as story, of science observing phenomena and then coming up with a story (explanation) to account for the observations. (It also reminds me of what happens in criminal courts.) What I was trying to do is simply distinguish between what it is we've observed, the facts, and the theory that attempts to explain and predict them.
I know that Darwin did his studies down on the islands, but I'm not talking about story as in when the theory of evolution began, but story as science in the way Card is using it in the article.
When you say "theory refers to an explanation for natural events that is supported by the current body of data," it sounds like you're restating this idea of science as story, i.e. there are (a) events observed and an (b) explanation of them.
The line between the two is that events are there for anyone to see. Explanations fill in the blanks. Speciation is observed and reproducable. It's an observable fact. The fossil record is a fact. We can see new types of critters through time. However, it appears we have not observed the evolution between those all those types. Eolving new genuses, it seems, is not a fact of the case, but part of the explanation.
That's all I'm trying to do. I'm not interested in proving or disproving ID or evolution. I just want to see what the facts (observable phenomena) of the case are.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: [QB] Ha ha A retraction. That's cute. Based on an expression of contempt by you. I'm sure he's regretting his every word even as we speak.
I'm sure you're enjoying your sarcasm, but truly, he should be. It is not good to say things that are just plain wrong.
quote:Card isn't denying at all that there are a lot of extremely competent, straightforward, and honest evolutionists who are defending their position in the most forthright, accurate, and responsible way.
You think so? Perhaps you should reconsider the article :
quote:The Darwinist answer was immediate. Unfortunately, it was also illogical, personal, and unscientific.
And he then goes on to list four strawmen and two things that are both true and relevant but which he dismisses as name-calling and politics. If there is any acknowledgement or even awareness of the honest and accurate Darwinists in here, I'm not seeing it.
quote: What he is trying to do is sweep away all the stupid arguments he's seen made by stupid people, so that he can get at the arguments that actually matter and make a difference.
This is certainly a fine idea in principle, but it is not what is actually in the article.
quote:It's a really good argument, it actually works to your side's benefit, and you want a retraction. Wow. Brilliant.
Only of the stupid parts. I think I did mention that the second half of the article is fine. It's the strawman polemics in the first half I object to.
quote:I'm not exactly an expert in the field, but somehow I doubt that all the open or troubling questions about evolution by natural selection have been completely answered and proven.
I did not say 'all the problems of Darwinian evolution', I said 'all the problems the ID-ists have raised.'
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
johnbrown: The trouble is that the idea of the "story" and the "facts" being separate (or, at least, different parts of an overall explanation) is in opposition to scientific thinking. Theories are syntheses of the given facts (read: data), not a method of filling in the holes.
So, we have this massive body of fossil evidence that demonstrates that change in morphology has occurred over time. We look at the genomes of various extant organisms and observe that closely related genuses show closer sequence homology in highly conserved genes than divergent genuses. Evolution in organisms with rapid generation times such as E. coli, budding yeast, and fruit flies can be readily forced in the laboratory. Field researchers routinely observe certain phenotypes sweeping from obscurity to near-ubiquity in populations of animals and plants all over the world. That all of this data, from wildly disparate fields of biology, supports evolution (and, equally importantly, that nothing *contradicts* it) is what allows scientists to state that evolution occurs with serious authority. Evolution happens. That's a fact. But evolution the fact is NOT the same thing as the theory of evolution, which states that evolution occurs *because* of natural selection.
Darwin's theory is an explanation for the "why" and the "how" of evolution- the mechanism through which species have evolved. As OSC points out, the concept of evolution itself predates Darwin. Darwin's great contribution to biology is not change over time, but rather his explanation for how evolution occurs, which can be summarized as follows:
1) Variation in traits occurs within a population. 2) At least some of this variation is heritable. 3) The reproductive success of individuals within a population vary. 4) An individual's reproductive success correlates with its traits.
If all four of these basic points are true, then natural selection HAS to occur. It's inevitable. In the last century, we've demonstrated that all four are true. Genetics accounts for the first two (with some help from maternal contributions of proteins, mitochondria, mRNA, etc.), and careful observation of numerous populations accounts for the latter two.
So can we categorically state that all evolution is, without question, due to natural selection? No, we can't, because one of the basic tenets of science is that theories (explanation for the observed data) do not equal facts. You cannot "prove" a theory, whether it's evolution, relativity, or even gravitation. The IDer claim that "evolution is just a theory" is true in that sense. Where they err is in equating "unprovable" with "untenable." Just because the theory of evolution cannot be stated as fact does NOT mean that it is a poor explanation, or that the data doesn't support it. Quite the contrary: as I said above, there is an absolutely enormous body of evidence that supports it, and nothing that contradicts it. For a scientists, that is enough to accept the theory of evolution as "the best explanation we have for now," which is exactly the same level of acceptance we give to the theories of relativity and gravitation.
Edit: I should also point out that the concepts of "species" and "genus" are nothing more than convenient categories, based on a now-obsolete system of classifcation dating back to before Darwin. If you use the common definition of species, which requires that two putative members be able to generate viable offspring, then how do you account for wide-ranging populatoins in which any two adjacent "groups" can interbreed, but groups from opposite sides of the range cannot? What about species that look and behave in drastically different ways, and which don't interbreed simply because they don't recognize each other as similar, but whose gametes are perfectly capable of forming viable offspring if forced to? Biologists continue to use the terms because we need to name our organisms of study somehow, but we do so with the understanding that species are fluid, and the distinction between "species" and "genuses" is largely a human invention. Reality, unfortunately, cannot be so easily categorized.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The trouble is that the idea of the "story" and the "facts" being separate (or, at least, different parts of an overall explanation) is in opposition to scientific thinking
But then you say:
quote:So can we categorically state that all evolution is, without question, due to natural selection? No, we can't, because one of the basic tenets of science is that theories (explanation for the observed data) do not equal facts.
Either I don't understand you or I believe you're operating with a different definition of science than the one I'm working with. Here's one from wiki:
quote:Most scientists feel that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism, which explains observable events in nature by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
The word "explains" is the key word. There are observable events. Science looks at those and explains them using specific rules and methods. "Events" and "explanation": I don't see how that's substantially different from "story" and "facts." You yourself say that evolution is accepted in the scientific community as the best explanation we have for now. It might change with added observations.
Perhaps you're objecting to the fictive connotation that "story" sometimes carries with it. Or perhaps you think I'm trying to compare evolution to ID. I'm not.
I'm not arguing about natural selection. I already said that's an observable event. What I'm trying to see is the extent of what has been observed. To my knowledge, nobody has observed lizards evolve into birds or E-coli into chimps (or any other equivalent jump). Nobody has seen the drastic morphing you suggest in the fossil record. What they see is the snapshop captured in the fossil record. The evolutionary explanation of those snapshots makes a great deal of sense. But it is an explanation. That's not to say it doesn't have great predictive ability. It's not to say that it's not better than all other explanations out there. It's just saying it's not something observed.
I think it's important to separate events and explanations because good thinking as well as good science depends on it. If we confuse events with explanations, if we bury assumptions and premises, we might blind ourselves to new insights.
So back to my original question--what have we observed evolve? We've observed natural selection, speciation, changes in the complexity of the fossils through time as dated by layers and carbon dating. I think those are the big categories. Or have I missed some?
posted
My apologies, I was unclear. Yes, "theory" and "fact" are different concepts, in the sense that one is an explanation for what we observed and the other is the raw data itself. However, because without data, you cannot formulate a theory, they are inextricable. Good science requires both facts and theories, the latter to provide a model for the former.
quote:I think it's important to separate events and explanations because good thinking as well as good science depends on it. If we confuse events with explanations, if we bury assumptions and premises, we might blind ourselves to new insights.
I agree that we certainly should not confuse explanations with observed facts. A good scientist should be able to distinguish between the two in his mind (and maintain the appropriate skepticism for the former, whether it be evolution or relativity). But I would argue that mixing up the two is far less common mistake than OSC suggests, at least within the scientific community. You cannot confuse theory with fact in a paper without a horde of your colleagues jumping on you, and as a result, there is a very strong impetus for scientists to be *extremely* clear whether they are giving data or explanation in any given statement. That's what leads to the enormously redundant and technical language you see in primary articles these days.
quote:I'm not arguing about natural selection. I already said that's an observable event. What I'm trying to see is the extent of what has been observed. To my knowledge, nobody has observed lizards evolve into birds or E-coli into chimps (or any other equivalent jump). Nobody has seen the drastic morphing you suggest in the fossil record. What they see is the snapshop captured in the fossil record.
Again, you're right that nobody has observed the changes seen in the fossil record firsthand. My point is that such direct observation is entirely unnecessary to create a workable theory- that the indirect evidence we gain from fossils and genetics is just as valid. Remember that a great deal of modern scientific theory can only be derived from indirect methods of observation. For example, nobody has seen an electron or proton or quark, either, but physicists have observed the effects that these particles have on their surroundings with great detail, and from these indirect data infer the particles' existence.
quote:The evolutionary explanation of those snapshots makes a great deal of sense. But it is an explanation. That's not to say it doesn't have great predictive ability. It's not to say that it's not better than all other explanations out there. It's just saying it's not something observed.
Absolutely. We are in complete agreement here.
quote:So back to my original question--what have we observed evolve? We've observed natural selection, speciation, changes in the complexity of the fossils through time as dated by layers and carbon dating. I think those are the big categories. Or have I missed some?
One of the most important new areas of evolutionary research is genetics. We can compare the sequences of genes between species very easily these days. The sequences for genes that are extremely critical to basic survival (such as the gene responsible for the hemoglobin molecule), will not experience a great deal of natural selection. Therefore, most of the variation in sequences between species that we observe is due to genetic drift- undirected mutations that just happen to stick through pure chance. Therefore, species that have more divergence hemoglobin sequences can be inferred to be more distantly related.
Using such genetic data, we can construct massive phylogenetic trees that show when different species, genuses, etc. diverged. Such data by itself would not mean much, since it is based on a certain number of unprovable assumptions (that genetic drift occurs at roughly constant rates, that the gene in question has not in fact encountered significant selective pressure, etc). However, the amazing thing is that the phylogenetic trees we've generated match the predictions given by the fossil record with startling accuracy. Since we do not make any assumptions regarding relatedness between species in generating phylogenetic trees, this is very strong evidence in favor of current models of evolutionary change.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: The scientific community is not attempting to enthrone Darwin.
Sorry to jump back on this, but I gotta say, this is the part of OSC's critique style that bugs the heck out of me. He necessarily makes some assumptions which are probably unnavoidable, (ie the scientific community IS trying to do THIS). He knows and we know that is just shorthand for what he really means, which is a more diplomatic 'some in the scientific community... etc.' That would not an interesting or effective essay make.
I read the article last night, and I read his "belief statment" posted here in november, and I just wish we had a way in our language to communicate the ideas he is trying to give us, in the way he wants to present them (or the way I think he wants to). I see alot of him slamming his head up against some pretty significant assumptions we make as readers and Americans.
He can say something like this above, that the scientific community is full of people who say "shut up I have a PHD" or such like (forgive my generalization of his generalization), and not mean that in a litteral sense, or in a universal sense, but in a personal and private way, which would be, nay is clear in intent to those who read him enough to catch the nuance in his thought.
Because like anyone, and IMO much more-so, OSC is highly aware of how you REACT to what he says, how he can use that reaction to show you how YOU think, and to let you know in turn that he is aware of your thoughts, and you are aware of his. In a way he has to use the visceral anti-religious or anti-iconoclastic (sorry!) reaction, to make us aware of the existance of that tendency in him and in us.
Its a very deep game, its a very tough sell, it may not be worth the price he probably pays in emotional energy sometimes, and I am not completely sold, but I will listen with interest now and in the future.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, if that's the case, then I really *have* lost a certain amount of respect for OSC, since that particular rhetorical tactic effectively amounts to appealing to the emotions because you can't muster up a good enough logical argument. I really hope that isn't true. It's hard to believe I'm saying this, considering what it suggests about the sort of people I work with, but I would actually prefer that OSC's blanket condemnation of scientists as being credentialist and Darwin-worshippers was based on his actual experiences. While unfortunate and completely at odds with my own experience, then at least his stated opinion would have some justification, anecdotal though it may be.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice that Card doesn't say "scientists." He says "Darwinists" and specifically those who are attacking ID for the reasons cited. I am quite sure there are many scientists who do look at the issues raised and don't consider themselves Darwinists and would be happy to change the theory when new data or better explanations come along.
quote:The Darwinists Reply
The Darwinist answer was immediate. Unfortunately, it was also illogical, personal and unscientific. The main points are:
It's true he could have made the distinction between Darwinist and scientist better so that people had to wrench the text to think he was talking of all scientists. Of course, he may be using Darwinist as a substitute for scientist. But I don't think so.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Notice that Card doesn't say "scientists." He says "Darwinists" and specifically those who are attacking ID for the reasons cited.
I've come to believe that this is a rhetorical trick Card often uses. Frequently, in his political articles, he will define a group as (and I'm deliberately not using a specific example here, to avoid branching this thread) "people who think that marriage should be outlawed" and then build an elaborate argument against this relatively rare position. He'll then go on to criticize "Democrats" or the "meek sheep who follow the crowd" on this issue, or something along similar lines -- thus making it possible for him to initially direct his scorn at a real group of wackos, but then broaden the brush to strike (and, IMO, deliberately offend) a much larger audience.
It's necessary to do this with arguments about evolution because the basic position is pretty much unassailable, so you need to invent an equal and opposite equivalent to the ID movement if you're going to present an article that wishes to criticize the extremes as if the extremes were equivalent. In this case, that "equivalent" is a nebulous group of "Darwinists," basically defined as bad scientists who want to eliminate religion. The problem of course is that very little mention is made of good scientists, meaning that evolutionary scientists reading the article are -- deliberately, again, IMO -- forced to confront the possibility that they are "Darwinists," and thus bad scientists. And unfortunately the only cogent reply possible is "I am not," which sounds pretty petulant and childish and doesn't respond to the debate.
So it's a pretty effective rhetorical device, even if it's a regrettable one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
[of course, don't want to turn this into an ID thread, but I found it interesting when considering how religions are painted with the same broad brushstrokes in the debate]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I guess I've read enough OSC novels to figure that when he says something that looks like a straw man argument he knows that the situation is more complex and he's simply trying to make us think. If he were just some random pundit I'd probably dismiss his columns more easily.
I agree with him in that the intelligent design/evolution debate doesn't really settle the important religious questions. As people have suggested above, even if the entire physical universe just came into existence, we evolved totally at random, and (on a slightly different subject) consciousness is nothing more than biological brain processes looked at from a special perspective, there still could be, say, an immensely powerful creature who also happened to come into existence, who knows what would make us happier now and after our bodies die, and who wants us to follow him freely. I just don't think that God as conceived by Christianity really could be the source of everything that I "know" enhances my life.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My issue with ID is that it isn't science. Science is the process of figuring out how things work using ideas based on purely naturalistic explanations, experimentation to quantify those ideas, and then an honest peer-reviewed evaluation of the results to see if the ideas are validated, disproved, or unaffected by those results. The key word is 'naturalistic.' All ID is saying is that 'this doesn't seem to make sense, so we'll just invent some fundamentally untestable, non-repeatable thing to fit in here.' That isn't science. Frankly, it's superstition. Q: "How does it rain?" A: "Well, we don't understand, but it appears to be pretty complex, so we'll have to assume God does it."
Q: "Why do things fall downwards?" A: "Well, different things fall in different ways. Light fluffy things fall slowly, heavy dense things fall fast, and birds don't fall at all. Obviously, there must be an intelligence governing which things fall and which things don't. So God does it."
Dropping back and punting the second you find something that you can't explain by saying "Oh, well -- God does it," is not science.
And it is no coincidence that the two groups that are most in support of ID are traditional religious fundamentalists and UFO worshippers.
Disclaimer 1: I know "God did it" isn't the official position of ID, however, 'unofficial' statements by several of the more prominent supporters of ID have made it clear that "God did it" is pretty much the goal of the movement.
Disclaimer 2: I actually believe in a kind of theistic evolution (which is a form of ID, when you boil it down). However, I understand that the 'theistic' part is completely un-provable and completely based on faith and faith alone. I would never, ever, EVER insist that it be taught as science because it is not based on science but rather faith. Faith is not proof and it cannot be proved.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I guess I've read enough OSC novels to figure that when he says something that looks like a straw man argument he knows that the situation is more complex and he's simply trying to make us think.
How is this different from trolling?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how when, in one of the highest profile ID cases - the Dover, PA case - the ID movement was easily shown to be just creation science with a different name - done by the same people, even using the same material, just with "Creationism" taken out and replaced with "Intelligent Design", saying that this is the case is name calling.
I also know quite a few scientists in the biological bent. I'm not entirely sure what OSC means when he calls people "Darwinists", but based on his descriptions, none of the people I know fit it. I mean, they don't like ID, but that's pretty much because 1) it has no scientific merit and 2) it's part of the anti-intellectual movement by religious people against responsible epistemology because the picture of reality this gives us doesn't look like what they want it to.
Do "Darwinists" (whatever that actually means) actually exist? If they do, is it in any sort of significant numbers? Because I don't see them out there, trying to enshrine Darwin or rabidly bent on destroying religion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
johnbrown, I'm pretty sure I don't agree with your limited definition of "observation". What appears to be speciation has been observed in the fossil record. It doesn't have to be contemporaneous to be an observation. Observation does not mean "we're really sure this happened". That's not the case even for closely controlled experiements. Observation is always intrinsically imperfect.
There are always alternative explanations of how things could have happened. When you're talking about causative processes, the best you can really do is infer causality based on what is observed.
There are an infinite number of possible explanations for what was seen in the fossil record. However, there are likewise an infinite number of possible explanations for what we now call gravity. Quite possibly the most important part of scientific epistemology is the established methods by which we determine whether a given explanation is plausible and how plausible it is.
There is no absolute certitude in science. Anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken. The best we can do with science to say that a given explanation is really, really likely to accurately predict future events. It's not everything, but given the alternative of proof through the application of force, which seems to be the ID movements MO, I think it's not bad.
posted
MrSquicky, I don't see any contradiction in what I've stated and what you have. So I don't know what it is that you don't agree with.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, this wasn't intended to be a thread about ID. Only what we've been able to observe of evolution. I think I'll start another thread on ID for those comments.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
jb, I'm taking issue with what seems to me to be your overly limited defintion of "observed". It's perfectly fine to say that speciation can be observed through the fossil record. It doesn't have to happen right in front of your to be observed.
edit: For example, most high level physics nowadays deals with things that cannot be directly observed, but only inferred to have happened based on changes in other things. Or, for example, when I flip a light switch, I don't directly observe the electric current flowing into that circuit, but I can reasonably infer that it does, because the light goes on.
Taking a given fossil record of macroevolutionary changes, say those linking land mammals to whales, we can be said to observe this change with a certain degree of confidence. It's not as high as if a species of big fat land pig metamorphasized into an aquatic mammal directly in front of us, but the differences is one of degree, not of kind. It's still an observation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no argument with using indirect evidence or observation for a theory. Sometimes indirect evidence is exceedingly compelling. But indirect evidence requires us, as you just said, to *infer* connections.
What I want to know is the facts that are being brought together and explained by the story. We haven't observed dramatic evolutions. We have observed dramtic changes in the fossil record (a record that does not show us progression in neat little yearly or decade packets; there are monstrous gaps in time). We infer evolution between the snapshots. I'm not seeing what the issue is with saying this.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But indirect evidence requires us, as you just said, to *infer* connections.
The problem is that this is also true for direct evidence. Causality is always inferred, never observed. Indirect observation introduces additional sources of error or noise, but does not change the fundamental nature of things.
For that matter, theoretically there really is no such thing as "direct" observation. Any observation you make is not though the thing itself, but rather it's effect on your recording equipment and in final analysis, your sensory organs. We don't directly observe the temperature rising (which doesn't actually happen, temperature is just the name we give to the average vibrational motion of environmental molecules), we see the mercury expand or our temperature sensing organs change the pattern of electrical signals they send.
You're trying to turn indirect and direct observation into different types of things, when in fact they are the same type of thing with different degrees of confidence associated with them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see your argument now. I think it's a good point. It shows how much is explanation and the limits of what we can observe. Certainly a cause for humility and caution. On the other hand, it doesn't change the fact that observing a process happen is substantially different from seeing isolated snapshots and having to then tie them together. This is why in courts of law and even in scientific journals there's a different weight given to direct evidence.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
jb, It helps that I'm in a field (social research) where much of the observation must be done indirectly and that I've had the epistemology associated with this drilled into me.
I totally agree with the different weights thing. But consider a sort of Bayesian analysis situtation where direct observation only yields a probablistic result. Say a postive result gives you a 70% chance that the thing tested for occured. In final analysis, this is no different from an indirect method of observation with the same probabilistic validity due to the error engendered because of the indirect nature of the observation. Which was pretty much my whole point; they may have different weights, but, extending the metaphor, 10 pounds of direct evidence is equivilent to 10 pounds of indirect evidence.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anti-evolutionists (moreso the Creationists) have been forced to accept speciation because it has been repeatedly observed in agriculture, microbiology, and entomology. This led to the coining of a new term -- "micro-evolution." The current Creationist position (or as it was a couple of years back, at least) is that speciation is possible within "kinds" but cannot result in a new "kind." I have not seen any recent refutations regarding speciation.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to reiterate several of King of Men's points stated above. (This reply was posted originally here.) Responses along the lines of "I found [the article] to be insightful" or "I thought OSC wrote an excellent essay on ID/evolution" are at once disheartening and frightening. The essay is laughable - every point it makes is almost a textbook strawman. He summarizes the "Darwinist" response to ID as follows:
1. Intelligent Design is just Creation Science in a new suit (name-calling). How is this name calling? The Dover case especially went into incredibly thorough detail to make this superficial redressing obvious. Card clearly hasn't done his research here.
2. Don't listen to these guys, they're not real scientists (credentialism). I've never heard a rebuttal to ID that relied on this argument. Of course, if you're Michael Behe, I'd imagine you'd interpret a lot of responses this way. 0 for 2.
3. If you actually understood science as we do, you'd realize that these guys are wrong and we're right; but you don't, so you have to trust us (expertism). Similarly, no scientific rebuttal to ID that I've heard has ever been even partially reliant on an appeal to authority. Although I suspect that when ID proponents hear "ID isn't science" they tend to twist that to mean "you don't know what you're talking about because we're smarter than you." Of course, in the same way as before, that's just observer bias. 0 for 3.
4. They got some details of those complex systems wrong, so they must be wrong about everything (sniping). He goes on to say that "When Darwinists do seem to explain, it's only to point out some error or omission in the Designists' explanation of a biochemical system." Really? You've researched the whole of the "Darwinist" response to ID and this is how you characterize it? Completely disingenuous. Even 10 minutes of Google time proves this wrong. Further, this claim of "one detail is wrong, so the whole thing is wrong" is one of the main thrusts of the ID argument against evolution - and is equally as invalid there.
5. The first amendment requires the separation of church and state (politics). He goes on: "It comes to this: If you question the Darwinist model, you must be religious; therefore your side of the argument is not admissible in the public arena, and certainly not in the public schools." Seriously? Skipping for the moment that the Dover case, again, pretty explicitly illustrated how ID is thinly veneered religious creationism, this is the Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter style of debate. It doesn't come to that - that's not even close to a reasonable conclusion. I just feel bad for the guy if he thinks this is a compelling argument. And doubly bad for anyone that buys it.
6. We can't possibly find a fossil record of every step along the way in evolution, but evolution has already been so well-demonstrated it is absurd to challenge it in the details (prestidigitation). Card takes this to mean that evolution doesn't cover how life began. But this is obvious, and by design (heh). That evolution doesn't enter into the realm of abiogenesis is not argument for ID, nor against evolution.
7. Even if there are problems with the Darwinian model, there's no justification for postulating an "intelligent designer" (true). Uh... okay. Batting 1 for 7.
Card closes by saying that "An understanding of good science is always enough to sweep away the overclaiming of those "scientists" who, as the religious fanatics they are, wish to impose their faith on everyone." I don't know how any objective person can look at the ID "debate" and come away with the impression that zealous scientists are trying to push evolution on our children for any of the same reasons, or with any of the same motivations, that Christians are trying to introduce ID. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail; I suspect that to Card, and to the audience who would digest this article as "truth," being trained religiously and dogmatically in approaching life's bigger questions shapes their (quite incorrect) perceptions of others' non-dogmatic attempts to do the same. It's evident when you "boil down" your opponents' arguments to something that bears no actual resemblance to what they're actually saying.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, mark me one for OSC's article being another case of a widely flawed attempt at anti-intellectual demogoguery, for pretty much the same reasons that KOM and levine pointed out. Sometime I wonder how ridiculous and blatantly false OSC's assertions have to be before people will stop praising him for them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When OSC says, "Darwinists say X" and you answer with "well, I personally have never heard a Darwinist say X therefore OSC is creating strawmen", is that really a legitimate blow to his argument? Who is the arbiter of what claims are actually made and which are only (mistakenly) ascribed to others?
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ehhh...in this arena, the onus of support lies on the person who made the claim. The arbiter, as far as I'm concerned is me, as I consider myself reasonably well-informed and connected in regards to this issue. Also, the Dover thing is pretty blatant and OSC has a history of making false claims of an anti-intellectual basis.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the leader of the National Association of Darwinists gets to make that call. Let's ask him. If we can't find him, I'm sure the elected president of the U.S. chapter of the Charles Darwin Fan Club (Motto: "Only we are allowed to do science") would do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rohan: When OSC says, "Darwinists say X" and you answer with "well, I personally have never heard a Darwinist say X therefore OSC is creating strawmen", is that really a legitimate blow to his argument? Who is the arbiter of what claims are actually made and which are only (mistakenly) ascribed to others?
First, as TomDavidson so rightly deadpans, there is no such thing as a "Darwinist." Nor is there such a thing as an "evolutionist," any more than there is a "gravitationist" or "Newtonist." The terms were created by ID proponents who, unable to separate objective scientific observation from dogmatic theological canon, wanted to couch science in the language of religion. It's subtle wordplay that reveals, to some degree, the purposefully disingenuous motives of its user.
Second, you're right in saying that my lack of observation alone is not enough to discredit a claim. But, as MrSquicky rightly notes, the burden of proof is on the claimant. I've been reading articles, editorials, opinions and essays like this for a long, long time now, and while the ID proponents are always quick to generalize that "Darwinists" do this or that, they universally fail to provide convincing evidence to back those claims up. And when evidence exists to the contrary of their assertions (as it does, in spades, on certainly every point that I brought up in my previous post) their attacking that manufactured generalization is a genuine strawman fallacy. If you want to catch me on this, by all means -- find me a scientist who, in arguing against ID, fell back to "credentialism" or "expertism" as a lynchpin in their discussion. Further, prove that this fallacy exists generally among all scientists who argue against ID. I'll bet you won't be able to do it, because it's simply not happening. And, as someone mentioned earlier, anyone who would try to make such an argument from those grounds would be rightly shunned by the scientific community, because it's not a reasonable or appropriate argument to make.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: there is no such thing as a "Darwinist." Nor is there such a thing as an "evolutionist," any more than there is a "gravitationist" or "Newtonist."
Why not? There used to be atomists.
Personally, I'm a quarkist. And you can tell, cuz I'm charming. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect that to Card, and to the audience who would digest this article as "truth," being trained religiously and dogmatically in approaching life's bigger questions shapes their (quite incorrect) perceptions of others' non-dogmatic attempts to do the same.
Ooops, it appears someone has slipped and in their deconstruction of Card substantiated at least one of Card's claims. Be gone, ad-homeniem, be gone.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I have not analyzed the merits of the Dover case, so I will not comment directly on that.
However, I do want to chime in on the subject of ID.
I'm not a big fan of ID.. I do believe, as Card does, that the basis of ID does not advocate any religious stance, rather, it just proposes a set of questions which create issues with Darwin's method.
HOWEVER, Intelligent Design has been widely adopted by the religious community, and instead of following up on the fair questions regarding issues with evolution as we now understand it, as an advocate of a reasoned debate on the issue, it is instead used as an "alternative" to evolutionary theory.
This is something I don't buy into.
For those above who say "I don't know of any "Darwinists"" I invite you to go into many high schools in America. The problem isn't just "Darwin" but it's also most things taught at the elementary and high school level, which is done as a matter of rote rather then reason. As a result, age-old biological charts (monkey to man) reside in classrooms nationwide and it is only given the brush of "this is how it is".
This, also, is not good science. For those kids who go to college, and study biology, while we still advocate the central core of evolutionary theory, alternative methods and thoughts come into the game - like punctuated evolution or macro-evolution, etc.
These exist also as alternative theories to explain problems within the evolutionary context as it is previously known. And these are theories not advocated by crack-pots; Macro-Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium have serious scholarly works published behind them. But, as theories, they too conflict and connect at points.
Darwin, as it is often taught in texts, raises none of these issues - in fact, bringing up serious, scholarly concern with Darwin at the High School level is equated as being religious biogotry - even if your observations have nothing to do with faith.
If I went into a HS and said "I have a real problem with the idea of (evolution) as it is being taught here, because we seem to know now that Gradualism as Darwin advocates would be difficult to occur within a free-flowing environment, as the dominant, more agressive species would be preferred over the lesser species.. this would indicate that something like Punctuated Equilibrium, Macro-Evolution, or newer Environmental-Burst evolutionary theories may be more realistic" Do it, schools own't want a reasoned debate on it, they will simply say "you're just trying to give Darwin a bad name, and refute whatever we say.. " (if you doubt this, I know exactly where this has happened, to someone who was a smart-ass, but also definitely not religious in the mainstream sense).
The problem with the ID debate is that ID as a scientific critique is a valid one; as an alternative theory, it isn't much of a theory as a whole.. it just doesn't stand on it's own. But even spit-ball criticism of a theory, as a means to improve and refine a theory are warranted. (A good example of this is the measures to rocketry; when NASA made some attempts that were no good, it was simply a janitor who asked the question "how do you keep the engine from overheating" It sent bells off in the minds of the engineers and thus.. Apollo.. btw, great series "From Earth to the Moon" for that one).
I have no problems with the teaching of Darwin. It should be taught. I also think that kids at the HS level are bright enough that someone could say:
"Now that we know the basics of Darwin's theory, it is reasonable for us to look at the criticism of this theory. Stephen J. Gould and others have argued that Darwin's theory has some issues with Validity due to sudden "booms" in evolution and long lapses; he calls this a theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium. Gould's theory is a refinement on Darwin's base idea"
etc.
Now, back to ID; On one level, even Darwin basically must concur with part of ID.. we all participate in "Intelligent Design" every day. When we marry and have children, we make an open decision, both conciously and unconciously, to chose our mate and determine the genetic makeup of our outcome. This is not some blind throw-together in which the species breeds only based on availability. As we've observed from other species, most higher animals breed based on many different factors, which is on almost every level an outcome determined by the concious decision.
So, every day, our society "evolves" a bit by producing different outcomes based on the intelligent choices of it's members (ie, I am a white male, married to a Chinese female, our outcome is a mix, etc.)
Now, this isn't exactly the "intelligent design" that most think of, but it allows us to study evolution "closer to home" by looking at the intellectual input on the outcome and observe that our species changes based on decisions made by the populous.
While birds, lizards, etc. do not have quite the reasoning ability that individuals do, they do have the ability to attract and lure mates. National Geographic and Science magazine have done complex articles on the nature of attraction amongst animals, mating rituals, etc. What all of these tell us is that movement within a species is largely directed by the consent and encouragement within that group.
Now, this doesn't in any way upset Darwin's outcome of gradualism, nor does it upset the idea of punctuated equilibrium. What it does propose is that the species in question are not solely directed by their genetic makeup to "mate" etc.
In the end, we may find that the intelligent designer, the "mover" so to speak, is us; and the other animals/species/etc. which have a literal input into their outcome.
Darwin, Gould, and others had written about the necessary outcomes based on communal needs and survival of the species. The longer we observe species, we understand that isn't always the way (look at Pandas, incredibly difficult to breed and picky about mates, even though their species depends on it)..
ID is not a "Theory" in and of itself, and I don't believe it should be taught quite that way. But I do think kids in HS should have the critical thinking skills to reason and debate potential problems with Darwin's theory, and alternate theories proposed, etc. If some kid wants to propose Creationism, fine, he can get heckled, but if someone wants to ask "literally, how do we get from X to Z, because it seems as though their are spurts/extinction/etc. which wouldn't be conducive to the base idea"
Even if a class debates it and backs Darwin or Macro or Punctuated 100%, it serves them well to debate the arguments.
"Another theory holds that Darwin's basic premise
Posts: 202 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Regarding Darwinists in high schools: I'll match your hearsay and raise you a personal anecdote. The high school I attended, in the mostly-liberal Bay Area of California, made every effort to avoid mentioning the E-word. Our biology teacher even issued a disclaimer at the beginning of the evolution section of the course. Far from being a cadre of hard-core "Darwinists," our faculty were terrified of being attacked by parents who didn't want their kids learning about evolution. They ultimately did the right thing and taught it anyway, but even then, Darwin was never made out to be anything more than the originator of the concept.
Incidentally, I don't think the presence of out-of-date materials can be causatively linked to some Darwin-centric curriculum. It seems more likely that public high schools simply don't have the necessary funding to buy the necessary modern materials. It's not unusual to find 35 year old textbooks being used in classrooms regularly; that the old "monkey to man" posters are still being used just shows how decrepit our primary educational system is. But that's another debate entirely.
Now, as far as your assertion that ID serves a similar purpose to theories such as punctuated equilibrium... well, this is just silly. Punctuated equilibrium is a modification of gradualism, not a replacement nor a rival to the theory of evolution as a whole. It is, in fact, an excellent example of how evolutionary biology works AS science: one part of the old theory appears to be falsified, so biologists are tweaking it to fit the new data, using the concept of puncuated equilibrium. Obviously, there are still kinks to work out, but the appropriate scientific response is to gather more data, not to throw the whole damn thing out. After all, the old theory still explains speciation, population genetics, and all the other stuff we've been discussing in this thread perfectly well.
Therein lies the fundamental difference between punctuated equilibrium and Intelligent Design. The former is an explanation formulated to fit the facts as they are now understood, whereas the latter is the scientific equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and giving up. A good scientist looks at a hole in the cumulative knowledge base and says, "Ah! I cannot make ANY conclusions about this until further data has been collected." And if he's a really good scientist, he'll go off and try to collect that data. But ultimately, scientists are agnostic in any subject in which the data do not support one hypothesis over the others. A concept that is fundamentally based on lack of data, such as ID, therefore has no place in scientific discourse. It is not a theory at all, much less an "alternative theory."
Lastly, consciousness in humans and other organisms has nothing to do with the ID/ evolution debate. The "intelligent designer" of Behe isn't choosing a mate. He/she/it is creating species. Your connection between the two is akin to saying that yeast can design new types of bread just because their biochemical reactions are responsible for the release of carbon dioxide into rising dough.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
That said, there is plenty of fossil evidence demonstrating a continuity of species morphology over time. This link describes just a few:![[Smile]](smile.gif)
A retraction. That's cute. Based on an expression of contempt by you. I'm sure he's regretting his every word even as we speak. Shaking in his boots, as it were.
