Finally, I beat Jason Spaceman to an anti-evolution article
Steven J.
Wrench."
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8514
To start with the last point first, the Discovery Institute does not list
"hundreds of scientists who now regard [Darwinism] as in intellectually
bankrupt theory." What it has is a list of hundreds of people, not all
scientists (and most of the scientists are not in fields relevant to
evolutionary theory) who agree that "I am skeptical of claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the
complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory
should be encouraged." Charles Darwin (who thought natural selection was
the principle but not sole mechanism of evolution) could have signed that
statement. Richard Dawkins could have signed it (if he didn't suspect the
motives of the people gathering signatures); after all, like any modern
biologist he's heard of genetic drift. The statement does not say that
"Darwinism" is "intellectually bankrupt," or that humans do not share
ancestry with monkeys (and mushrooms), or that the causes of evolution are
"supernatural" or require intelligent guidance, or that mutation and natural
selection do not, after all, account for a very great deal of the complexity
of life. There are signers of the statement who hold to any or all of these
positions, but it would hardly be reasonable to infer either that all the
signers subscribe to any of them, or that those who do have scientific
reasons for rejecting these aspects of evolutionary theory.
There are, certainly, some people with scientific credentials who dispute
"Darwinism" (an interesting choice of terms, which both personalizes and
treats as a political ideology -- like "Marxism" -- whatever it is they
dispute, and can encompass anything from "humans are related to chimpanzees"
to "there is no God" (the latter claim is not, strictly speaking, part of
any scientific theory, including modern evolutionary theory). This is not
the same as saying that they have an actual scientific case for their
dissent. In general, the "case against Darwinism" is a laundry list of
unsolved problems with evolutionary theory or cosmology, with the
implication that a "god of the gaps" should be invoked to, not solve those
problems (such a "designer" neither answers the question of why the universe
has these features rather than others, or provides any hint of how the
"designer" caused it to have these features), but at least a label to paste
over a handwave.
Richard Sternberg, object of the Discovery Institute's sympathy, bypassed
normal peer-review processes to publish a paper that had next to nothing to
do with the actual subject of his journal (in a journal dedicated mainly to
taxonomy, Meyers published a review article claiming that "Darwinism" cannot
explain the Cambrian explosion). This might reasonably be expected to raise
some eyebrows, and some heated objections, especially if the article misuses
sources.
It is entirely false that "Darwinists" are trying "to prevent the teaching
of any concepts besides random variation and natural selection" (although it
should also be noted that these phenomena apply to life that already exists
in a universe that already exists, so if "Darwinists" are indeed limited to
these ideas, they are not promoting any ideas about the origins of life and
the universe). As noted, even quite conventional evolutionary theorists
accept the idea of genetic drift (changes in gene frequencies not involving
selection), and many are open to more outre ideas. The objection of the
Discovery Institute, properly stated, is that "Darwinists" insist on
naturalistic explanations (although they are hardly, as a group, bigoted
about what sort of naturalistic explanations), and rule out
supernaturalistic ones.
But this to me seems a very sensible limitation on science. "Naturalistic,"
in this context, refers to causes which have some humanly-discoverable
nature and act according to that nature. One can predict, to some extent,
the effects these causes will produce, and see whether those effects
actually exist. One can test naturalistic hypotheses. If a cause is beyond
human comprehension -- if one can have no idea of how it might work or what
effects it might produce, if it is consistent with any observable outcome --
then that cause cannot be the basis of a theory and cannot actually explain
anything (that is, it cannot say why a phenomenon has the characteristics it
does, rather than other imaginable characteristics).
Dissidents against "Darwinism" have a series of arguments, consistently bad
(although not necessarily consistent in any other respect).
Michael Behe argues that mutation and natural selection cannot build what he
calls "irreducibly complex" molecular systems. This argument depends on the
assumptions that mutation can only add new components, not delete or modify
already-existing components (although mutations that do both are known), and
that the function of a system cannot change over time. Neither assumption
is remotely sound. Behe claimed, at one time (perhaps still does) that no
serious attempts had been made to reconstruct the evolution (by mutation and
selection) of any complex molecular system, ignoring papers that did
precisely that published before his book _Darwin's Black Box_.
William Dembski hopes to identify "design" by identifying systems that meet
some "specification," and ruling out either simple regularities of nature
("law") and complex contingent combinations of regularities of nature
("chance") as explanations. This depends on the would-be detector of
intelligent design being omniscient, or at least on knowing all the laws of
nature and all the possible ways they might interact, which seems unlikely
to be the case. Dembski, in practice, resorts to assuming that if a
scenario, sufficiently detailed to satisfy him, has not been produced for
the evolution of some biological structure, no such explanation is possible
even in principle. This is, of course, the classic argument from ignorance,
and is not a serious critique of "Darwinism." There might indeed be
mechanisms, or even Agents, undreamt-of by current evolutionary theory at
work in the history of life, but arguments like these will never uncover
them.
Perhaps the most noteworthy aspects of these arguments is that they assume
both that "designers" are inherently supernatural (although ID proponents
are not averse to arguing that scientists in fields outside biology are
willing to consider design -- but only by natural agents with understandable
methods and motives), and that one can detect design without having any idea
of how the designer thinks or works either before or after the design is
detected. Finding an arrowhead tells you something about the maker's
abilities and goals, but apparently (if Phillip Johnson's relegation of all
concern about the Designer's design philosophy to "theology" is an
indication) finding that the bacterial flagellum and the human immune system
tells you nothing about the Designer (e.g. that He can't decide whether to
make us sick or keep us healthy, or that there is more than one designer, or
that "Darwinism" is the Designer's method of implementing design). The
opponents of "Darwinism" want the first scientific theory in history that
has no tiniest clue as to how its proposed cause actually operates, or what
effects it might be expected to produce.
Jonathon Wells argues against "Darwinism" by pointing out that, e.g. genetic
comparisons put crocodilians closer to birds than to lizards, and sea
urchins and starfish closer to vertebrates than to other invertebrates.
That these results merely confirm phylogenies inferred before genetic
comparisons were possible (i.e. that they support at least the part of
"Darwinism" that deals with common descent and relationships among living
groups) seems to elude him entirely. Note, by the way, that Wells denies
not merely the efficacy of mutation and natural selection, but shared
ancestry of humans and other species; Dembski and Behe do not do this
explicitly. None of these people deny outright that humans have nonhuman
ancestors, although most seem happy to provide aid and comfort to those who
do deny this.
And that, of course, is the whole point of the case against "Darwinism." It
is not a scientific case (or at least, it is a very, very bad one); it is a
god-of-the-gaps apologetic for whichever variant of old-fashioned "I don't
come from no monkey" creationism one happens to favor. It's principle
purpose is not to foster research or provide new directions for scientific
inquiry, but to provide political support for inserting creationism and/or
removing evolutionary theory from the schools. There's a perfectly good
reason for scientists and science teachers to give it neither respect nor a
place in the curriculum: it isn't science. Yes, a few scientists embrace
it; are you, of all people, going to insist either that every position taken
by a scientist is scientific? You certainly cannot argue consistently that
scientists cannot confuse ideology with actual theory or evidence.
-- Steven J.
Mike Dunford
this one is definitely a keeper.
--Mike Dunford
John S. Wilkins
Mike Dunford wrote:
> Damn, but I hate doing this during months when I've been nominated, but
> this one is definitely a keeper.
>
> --Mike Dunford
>
>
> Steven J. wrote:
> > This is in response to George Neumeyer's July 29, 2005 article, "The Monkey
> > Wrench."
> >
> > http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8514
> >
Seconded
Mike Dworetsky
news:1122619068.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Damn, but I hate doing this during months when I've been nominated, but
> this one is definitely a keeper.
>
Commiserations.
Seconded. I also encourage Steven J. to submit it for publication as a
reply.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Mike Dworetsky
news:11ejhh5...@corp.supernews.com...
For a moment, until looking at the link, I worried that this was an article
in the British Spectator, a highly respectable weekly magazine (respectable
except for the extramarital antics of the editors, currently the subject of
an amusing bedroom farce on the London stage).
Fortunately, I did not have to worry.
It would be most interesting to see if they dare to print Steven's reply.
Give it a go, SJ.
The American conflation of hard line right wingers and creationism is both
worrying, and at the same time confirms everything I have ever believed
about them.
Jason Spaceman
after I sent a post to TO about it. My news server has been acting
weird lately.
Great reply though, :-)
J. Spaceman
catshark
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Mike Dunford" <dunf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1122619068.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Damn, but I hate doing this during months when I've been nominated, but
>> this one is definitely a keeper.
>>
>
>Commiserations.
>
>Seconded. I also encourage Steven J. to submit it for publication as a
>reply.
While submitting it is worth a try, I wouldn't hold anybody's breath, given
that an ad on the page is for a t-shirt with the "C" in "ACLU" replaced
with a sickle and hammer.
If the editors or their readership can't get past beating the spot in the
grass that a horse died on over a decade ago, they aren't likely to be much
interested in getting beyond Neumayr's cliches.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
You have the right to remain stupid.
Everything you say can and will be ignored.
Ron O
I have to admit that I kind of like the ad layout (They'd probably sell
more posters than tee shirts). It kind of puts the proper twist on
"conservative" products. You have to wonder if these guys would sell
their own mothers (or their relgious beliefs) to make a buck or push
their political agenda. They'd never do something like that, right?
Ron Okimoto
Steven J.
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dcck45$160$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "Mike Dunford" <dunf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122619068.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Damn, but I hate doing this during months when I've been nominated, but
>> this one is definitely a keeper.
>>
>
> Commiserations.
>
> Seconded. I also encourage Steven J. to submit it for publication as a
> reply.
>
"Letter to the Editor" link, composed this, and then decided to re-post it
here on the grounds that the article would be of some interest and I might
as well send the reply somewhere where it would be appreciated. *Then* I
noticed that I bollixed up one of the parentheses.
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
> (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
>
>
-- Steven J.
noctiluca
Well done. Regardless of the deaf ears it might fall on at the AS.
Also, couldn't help notice the makers of those conservative t-shirts
aren't above a little pulchritudinous purveyance.
Robert
>> -- Steven J.
catshark
[...]
>Well done. Regardless of the deaf ears it might fall on at the AS.
>
>Also, couldn't help notice the makers of those conservative t-shirts
>aren't above a little pulchritudinous purveyance.
Good ol' American free porn^H^H^H enterprise.
>
>Robert
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
People who are anti-evolution are working
very hard for some excuse to be against it.
- Charles Townes -