Bogeyman Coming after Evolution
david ford
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Berman012604.htm
which has a link to a PDF of the original article.
johac
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Thanks. That was a good article. I agree with Berman.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
The last paragraph is a good summary:
The ID movement wants to bypass scientific peer review and
go directly into public school science classrooms. But ID
includes no theory other than The Designer Did It. No scientific
article promoting ID has ever been published in any mainstream
peer-reviewed scientific journal. Nevertheless, they argue that
it is legitimate science. To the ID supporters, supernatural
interventions should be part of science. They want the scientific
community to accept miracles as part of the scientific method, the
exact antithesis of natural explanations of natural phenomena. But
as we have seen, their objections to evolution are merely the wedge
to ultimately completely overhaul all science, and eventually our
culture. That is the real threat. Recognizing the threat is only
the first step. All scientists, as well as teachers, parents, and
citizens need to get involved in local and state efforts to develop
strong, unequivocal science standards, to ensure high-quality
textbooks, to improve science education at all levels, and to
engage in politics as the need arises.
I'm confused as to why David posted a link to this. I saw no obvious
rebuttal.
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
SIUE Dept. of Biological Sciences
who...@siue.edu
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
Glenn
"Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." <postm...@hoxnet.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc2e9fl.q...@hoxnet.com...
Steven J.
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com...
quite real with real political effects (whether or not their goals are so
drastic as the author fears), and bogeymen are purely imaginary constructs
with no effects outside the imaginatations of the naive and impressionable.
Now, the ID "theory" that that is offered to replace evolutionary theory,
on the other hand ....
-- Steven J.
Bobby D. Bryant
You refer, of course, to ID itself.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
Hey Ford, this is the first sensible thing I've ever seen you psot.
Did you do it by accident? Or didn't you read it first?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
C. Thompson
Despite the fact that you "do not advocate a scientific theory of
creationism or ID"?
So then what's the problem with this article?
Chris
Chris Krolczyk
> Thanks. That was a good article. I agree with Berman.
It probably wasn't *intended* by Ford to be a good article,
but there is this telling quote:
"Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of
Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the
overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.
Bringing together leading scholars from the natural
sciences and those from the humanities and social
sciences, the Center explores how new developments
in biology, physics and cognitive science raise
serious doubts about scientific materialism and
have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic
understanding of nature."
The Discovery Institute needs to find a more adept
editor-in-chief if they're going to come off as
being less blatant about their biases. It doesn't
even amount to sucessful window-dressing.
-Chris Krolczyk
R.Schenck
he seems to be implying that evolutionists have made creationism out
to be 'the sum of all fears' or something. as time goes on the public
in this country (er, the us for all ya uitlanders) is required to make
more and more scientific decisions. they ufortunately aren't making
informed decisions and can not act scientificly, so they can't even
evaluate the evidence. ask most people what they think science is and
they wont give a satisfactory answer, let alone if you ask them how it
operates, if it can 'prove' anything, and why one study can contradict
another. yeesh. so in this case the bogey man is real. thats the
wendigo for ya canadians or the bun-yip for the aussies.
david ford
> david ford wrote:
>
> > Marshall's "Intelligent Design Creationism: A Threat to Society - Not
> > Just Biology"
> > http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Berman012604.htm
> > which has a link to a PDF of the original article.
>
> Hey Ford, this is the first sensible thing I've ever seen you psot.
Why, thanks. I guess....
> Did you do it by accident? Or didn't you read it first?
Glenn's comment was right-on. I read the PDF version first. Much
like I read these messages before posting them:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233254.17288E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Popper
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990701213746.698847A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970823005119.585H-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001407.19794B-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001049.19794A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
BTW, thanks for your encouragement that I continue posting.
johac
chrisk...@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote:
> johac <jha...@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
> news:<jhachm-43BDC0....@news-60.giganews.com>...
>
> > Thanks. That was a good article. I agree with Berman.
>
> It probably wasn't *intended* by Ford to be a good article,
> but there is this telling quote:
I was just being my little old sarcastic self. ;-)
>
> "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of
> Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the
> overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.
> Bringing together leading scholars from the natural
> sciences and those from the humanities and social
> sciences, the Center explores how new developments
> in biology, physics and cognitive science raise
> serious doubts about scientific materialism and
> have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic
> understanding of nature."
>
> The Discovery Institute needs to find a more adept
> editor-in-chief if they're going to come off as
> being less blatant about their biases. It doesn't
> even amount to sucessful window-dressing.
I'd like one of these guys to show me a cite of an article in an
accepted peer-reviewed scientific jounal which describes those "...new
developments in biology, physics and cognitive science <which> raise
serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case
for a broadly theistic understanding of nature." I'm not holding my
breath though.
>
> -Chris Krolczyk
Chris Krolczyk
> In article <c743abb.04020...@posting.google.com>,
> chrisk...@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote:
>
> > johac <jha...@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
> > news:<jhachm-43BDC0....@news-60.giganews.com>...
> >
> > > Thanks. That was a good article. I agree with Berman.
> >
> > It probably wasn't *intended* by Ford to be a good article,
> > but there is this telling quote:
>
> I was just being my little old sarcastic self. ;-)
It's t.o. How could you not be? >:)
> >
> > "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of
> > Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the
> > overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.
> > Bringing together leading scholars from the natural
> > sciences and those from the humanities and social
> > sciences, the Center explores how new developments
> > in biology, physics and cognitive science raise
> > serious doubts about scientific materialism and
> > have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic
> > understanding of nature."
> >
> > The Discovery Institute needs to find a more adept
> > editor-in-chief if they're going to come off as
> > being less blatant about their biases. It doesn't
> > even amount to sucessful window-dressing.
>
> I'd like one of these guys to show me a cite of an article in an
> accepted peer-reviewed scientific jounal which describes those "...new
> developments in biology, physics and cognitive science <which> raise
> serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case
> for a broadly theistic understanding of nature." I'm not holding my
> breath though.
Of course not. Once you get over the handwaving in the
above paragraph concerning this newfangled "broadly
theistic" Whatchamahoozle, the only thing the DI
seems to be saying is that *they* have doubts, and
that those doubts constitute proof of the usual
Paleyisms concerning a divine watchmaker and
no other possibility. So much for the fallacy of the
excluded middle.
-Chris Krolczyk
johac
chrisk...@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote:
They don't understand how science works. Of course there are
controversies and doubts about the precise mechanisms of evolution,
classification of fossils, paleobiology, and many more topics. In
science, nothing is written in stone, and everything is open to
question. Scientists love to argue. I know because I am one. Does that
mean that science is weak? No that is science's strength. By questioning
and challenging, weak theories are discarded and stronger ones take
their place. In many ways, the development of scientific theory
parallels evolution.
There may be controversy about the details, but mainstream science does
not dispute that evolution happened. The data overwhelmingly support it.
Chris Krolczyk
> > Of course not. Once you get over the handwaving in the
> > above paragraph concerning this newfangled "broadly
> > theistic" Whatchamahoozle, the only thing the DI
> > seems to be saying is that *they* have doubts, and
> > that those doubts constitute proof of the usual
> > Paleyisms concerning a divine watchmaker and
> > no other possibility. So much for the fallacy of the
> > excluded middle.
> They don't understand how science works.
In a way, that's the least of their problems - it's
the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy concerning
their religious motivations that are far worse, IMHO.
> Of course there are
> controversies and doubts about the precise mechanisms of evolution,
> classification of fossils, paleobiology, and many more topics. In
> science, nothing is written in stone, and everything is open to
> question. Scientists love to argue. I know because I am one. Does that
> mean that science is weak? No that is science's strength. By questioning
> and challenging, weak theories are discarded and stronger ones take
> their place. In many ways, the development of scientific theory
> parallels evolution.
True, but people who insist on knowing *all* the answers
*at once* seem incapable of understanding scientists (or
anyone else, for that matter) who are patient enough
to understand a more incremental approach. In a way,
it's almost like the tendency for spoiled kids to
want everything their way - and RIGHT NOW! - has
survived into adulthood and taken a strange new
emphasis on whining and bitching about minor
scientific controversies in order to bolster
a prefabricated theological argument.
> There may be controversy about the details, but mainstream science does
> not dispute that evolution happened. The data overwhelmingly support it.
Well, yeah, but keep in mind that most IDers are hardly
backers of science in the first place. That's largely
what motivates Johnson's or Dembski's kvetching about
"materialism" - it isn't that it's bad science, but
that it doesn't support their particular breed of
theologizing.
-Chris Krolczyk
johac
> johac <jha...@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
> news:<jhachm-02AD04....@news-60.giganews.com>...
> > In article <c743abb.04021...@posting.google.com>,
> > chrisk...@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote:
>
> > > Of course not. Once you get over the handwaving in the
> > > above paragraph concerning this newfangled "broadly
> > > theistic" Whatchamahoozle, the only thing the DI
> > > seems to be saying is that *they* have doubts, and
> > > that those doubts constitute proof of the usual
> > > Paleyisms concerning a divine watchmaker and
> > > no other possibility. So much for the fallacy of the
> > > excluded middle.
>
> > They don't understand how science works.
>
> In a way, that's the least of their problems - it's
> the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy concerning
> their religious motivations that are far worse, IMHO.
Religion: blind faith in incomprehensible impossibilities.
>
> > Of course there are
> > controversies and doubts about the precise mechanisms of evolution,
> > classification of fossils, paleobiology, and many more topics. In
> > science, nothing is written in stone, and everything is open to
> > question. Scientists love to argue. I know because I am one. Does that
> > mean that science is weak? No that is science's strength. By questioning
> > and challenging, weak theories are discarded and stronger ones take
> > their place. In many ways, the development of scientific theory
> > parallels evolution.
>
> True, but people who insist on knowing *all* the answers
> *at once* seem incapable of understanding scientists (or
> anyone else, for that matter) who are patient enough
> to understand a more incremental approach. In a way,
> it's almost like the tendency for spoiled kids to
> want everything their way - and RIGHT NOW! - has
> survived into adulthood and taken a strange new
> emphasis on whining and bitching about minor
> scientific controversies in order to bolster
> a prefabricated theological argument.
That was always the 'god of the gaps argument'. What science can't
explain today in three sentences using words of two syllable or less,
must be due to their god.
>
> > There may be controversy about the details, but mainstream science does
> > not dispute that evolution happened. The data overwhelmingly support it.
>
> Well, yeah, but keep in mind that most IDers are hardly
> backers of science in the first place. That's largely
> what motivates Johnson's or Dembski's kvetching about
> "materialism" - it isn't that it's bad science, but
> that it doesn't support their particular breed of
> theologizing.
It's hard to argue with those whose minds are set in 3,000 year old
stone. They have made up their minds, and will resort to any lie,
deception, omission, or exaggeration to bolster their beliefs.
>
> -Chris Krolczyk
I Am Your Clayton, Luke!
>
> What science can't
> explain today in three sentences using words of two syllable or less,
> must be due to their god.
>
Seconds?
Tink
Seconded. Beautiful.
--
"There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher-
the clergyman." [Victor Hugo]
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
Greg G
<SNIP>
> stone.
No, the stone is 6,000 years old. Only the engravings are 3,000 years
old.
--
Greg G.
There are now more human babies born each day -- about 350,000 -- than
there are individuals left in all the great ape species combined,
including gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans. --Richard
Cincotta, ecologist and senior researcher, Population Action
International
johac
turkana...@yahoo.com (Greg G) wrote:
> johac <jha...@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
> news:<jhachm-DBB521....@news-60.giganews.com>...
> <SNIP>
> > It's hard to argue with those whose minds are set in 3,000 year old
> > stone.
>
> No, the stone is 6,000 years old. Only the engravings are 3,000 years
> old.
I sit corrected. :-)
*nemo*
Tink <kjg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I Am Your Clayton, Luke! wrote:
>
> > "johac" <jha...@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
> > news:jhachm-DBB521....@news-60.giganews.com...
> >
> >
> >>What science can't
> >>explain today in three sentences using words of two syllable or less,
> >>must be due to their god.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Seconds?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Seconded. Beautiful.
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
david ford
Chris Krolczyk <chrisk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course not. Once you get over the handwaving in the
> > above paragraph concerning this newfangled "broadly
> > theistic" Whatchamahoozle, the only thing the DI
> > seems to be saying is that *they* have doubts, and
> > that those doubts constitute proof of the usual
> > Paleyisms concerning a divine watchmaker and
> > no other possibility. So much for the fallacy of the
> > excluded middle.
>
> They don't understand how science works.
How unfortunate.
> Of course there are
> controversies and doubts about the precise mechanisms of evolution,
Tell me something I don't know. Compare with [Lull]"We are not so
sure, however, as to the _modus operandi_" of evolution:
R. Morris and G. Johnson, Shermer, Goodwin
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310210019270.25956-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
did Gould lie for Darwin?; Gould notes that there is continuing
controversy about _how_ blindwatchmaking can occur
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709000645.26045D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
> classification of fossils, paleobiology, and many more topics. In
> science, nothing is written in stone, and everything is open to
> question.
I disagree. The "fact" that biology is the product of mind-less
processes is written in stone. The "fact" that life came from
non-life totally apart from any input of intelligence is written in
stone. These "facts" aren't open to question.
> Scientists love to argue. I know because I am one.
I hope you're enjoying the present discussion.
> Does that
> mean that science is weak? No that is science's strength. By questioning
> and challenging, weak theories are discarded and stronger ones take
> their place.
Do you agree with Coyne that the field of evolutionary
biology [Coyne]"is not self-correcting"?
If "yes," do you think creationists serve a useful role in
pointing out areas in the field of evolutionary biology
needing correction?
Citation in
Coyne: classic peppered moth story "is in bad shape, and, while not
yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230510.519fe8a1%40posting.google.com
Do you think Darwin's theory of natural selection is a strong theory?
Do you think it is a weak theory? If "yes," do you think it should be
discarded?
Do you think that no matter how weak a theory is, a weak theory should
be discarded only if there is a stronger one to take its place?
Is it OK for scientists to say, "We don't know the answer. We don't
have a solution."?
> In many ways, the development of scientific theory
> parallels evolution.
Theories in the world of science develop as a result of intelligent
human minds pushing the theories' development. Many individuals say
that "evolution" is a mind-less process. A mind-less process differs
in a very important respect from a mind-driven process.
> There may be controversy about the details, but mainstream science
> does not dispute that evolution happened. The data overwhelmingly
> support it.
What is meant by [JH]"evolution"?
=================================
Standen, Anthony. 1950. _Science is a Sacred Cow_ (New York: E. P.
Dutton & Co., Inc.), 221pp. About the author:
ANTHONY STANDEN was born in England, and he graduated from Oxford
University with a First Class Honors degree in Chemistry. This was
followed by Chemical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. From 1930 to 1939 he was a chemist with Imperial Chemical
Industries. Mr. Standen was on the faculty of St. John's College,
Annapolis, Md. from 1942 to 1946 and is now with Interscience
Publishers as assistant editor of the Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology.
Paragraphs on 100-108:
By far the most sweeping, and by far the best, of the great
generalizations of biology is the Theory of Evolution, if it can be
called a theory that has by no means been tested by experiment. It
would not be possible, of course, to go back into distant geological
ages to find out what actually did happen, and so the theory is only
susceptible of a very limited kind of testing, anyway, by seeing what
happens _now_. Biologists have been breeding _Drosophila_ (banana
flies, their favorite creatures for this kind of work) for thousands
and thousands of generations; they have made flies with red eyes,
short wings, hairless, dwarfed, stunted, and in other ways so modified
as to be hardly like flies at all, and they have never succeeded in
evoluting Drosophila into a fly of a different species, much less into
any more distant creature. But scientists have been saying, to
themselves and to the outside world, "Scientists always test their
theories by experiment," so often that by sheer dint of repetition it
has come to be believed by everybody else, and even by the scientists
themselves.
What is the theory of evolution? It is very easy to find out in a
vague way, but very difficult to find out in a precise way. This is
because it is really two theories, the vague theory and the precise
theory. The vague theory has been abundantly proved, with an
overwhelming mass of evidence, so much that it cannot possibly be
doubted. The precise theory has never been proved at all. However,
like relativity, it is accepted as a faith.
Vague evolution is rather difficult to formulate, because it is vague,
but it is extremely easy to see. Any book on biology is full of it,
and it has been so thorougly [sic] popularized that there is hardly
any-body who is not aware of it. It points to the striking
similarities, in every detail, between the bodies of men and of the
apes; to the slightly more distant resemblances between men and other
mammals, to the duck-billed platypus, which Huxley called "a museum of
reptilian reminiscence," to the reptiles themselves, to the fish, both
bony and cartilaginous, and so on and so on, as can be found in many a
fine book. It points, too, to the development of the embryo,
"climbing up the family tree," and to the record of the rocks-- there
were fish before there were reptiles, reptiles before mammals.
Whatever this proves-- and it would seem to prove that all forms of
life are connected in _some_ way-- is indisputable.
But in what way? To answer this question, we need a precise theory.
The precise theory of evolution is that all forms of life on the earth
today came from some original form of life by a series of changes
which, at every point, were natural and _explainable by science_.
Now, as G. K. Chesterton has pointed out, the reason why evolution has
always inspired such intense popular interest ever since the days of
Darwin is that it is not a purely scientific theory, but one that
involves morals, that is, human behavior. It is quite different from,
say, the theory that the earth revolves round the sun or the sun round
the earth, because, in the last analysis, it is of very little human
importance which goes round which. The question at issue with the
precise theory of evolution is whether God gave things a sort of
evolutionary shove every now and then (or perhaps all the time), or
whether He just wound things up in the beginning and let them rip.
God is involved in either case, unless you can believe that things
wound themselves up, but the important point is whether God
"interferes," as it were, with what goes on on this earth, or whether
He leaves it alone. Biologists never talk about God (or at least only
on Sundays, when they are off duty) for it is considered unseemly for
a scientist to do so. With this limitation they can never discuss the
implications of evolution properly, and by mixing up the vague theory
of evolution with the precise theory, they give the impression that
both have been proved, whereas the precise theory is much further from
being proved than men are from flying to the moon.
As regards the evidence for precise evolution, since evolution is a
very touchy subject, it is best to let biologists speak for
themselves. Here is Professor Bateson. "It is easy to imagine how
Man was evolved from an Ameba, but we cannot form a plausible guess as
to how _Veronica agrestis_ and _Veronica polita_ were evolved, either
one from the other, or both from a common form. We have not even an
inkling of the steps by which a Silver Wyandotte fowl descended from
_Gallus bankiva_, and we can scarcely even believe that it did."^* [*:
_Concerning Evolution_, by J. Arthur Thomson (New Haven: Yale
University Press). Reprinted by permission.] To the grand and
glorious viewpoint, evolution is as easy as can be, but on getting
down to actual details, difficulties begin.
Professor J. Arthur Thomson put it this way: "Many of the genealogical
trees which Haekel was so fond of drawing have fallen to pieces. Who
can say anything, except in a general way, regarding the ancestry of
Birds or even Vertebrates? _The Origin of Species_ was published in
1859, but who today has attained to clearness in regard to the origin
of any single species?"^* [*: _Ibid_.] And yet the more this
scientist comes to the conclusion that he knows nothing precise about
evolution, the more firmly he is convinced of it, "as a modal
formula," he is careful to point out, as if that meant anything more
than a smoke screen behind which to have things both ways. The
genealogical trees intended to show how modern animals were evolved
are familiar enough. If they show any animal as descended from any
particular animal (except in a very few restricted lines), they are
fudged. Animals are not descended from actual animals, only from
hypothetical "ancestors." The trees will show a number of branches,
and on the tips of the branches will be man, the great apes, the other
mammals, and perhaps if it is a comprehensive tree there will be
birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and possibly other things. There
ought to be a whole series of animals, going up the main trunk, and
out along all the branches, up to the tips where the modern animals
are to be found. There aren't any. Haekel's trees have indeed fallen
to pieces, for the wood that should support them was all hypothetical
wood. And yet they keep on making their appearance, in book after
book intended for instruction.
J. Arthur Thomson also discusses the question of how life began. He
examines various ideas, such as that it came from another world (which
begs the question), or that it started of itself. Also another--
which he thinks is a different one-- namely, that God made it. Or as
he puts it, quoting from some would-be spinner of magic words,
"protoplasm is a handful of dust that God enchants." He recoils from
this in horror, because he thinks it "implies a premature abandonment
of the scientific quest."
Professor W. R. Thompson is a biologist who has a lucidity based on a
scholarly knowledge of the much-despised Aristotle. If he used the
word "modal" he would certainly know what it means. "That evolution
has been gradual and continuous," he says, "is an induction based on
certain particular cases, such as the horse and the elephants; it does
not clearly emerge from the paleontological record taken as a whole."
Also, "The Darwinian doctrine has thus been used, not as a working
hypothesis, in the strict sense of the word, but rather as an
explanatory principle which it is sufficient to illustrate by example,
rather than to verify."^* [*: W. R. Thompson: _Science and Common
Sense_ (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., Inc.). Reprinted by
permission.]
To quote just one more biologist, R. S. Lull, Professor of
Paleontology at Yale: "Since Darwin's day, Evolution has been more and
more generally accepted, until now in the minds of informed, thinking
men there is no doubt that it is the only logical way whereby the
creation can be interpreted and understood. We are not so sure,
however, as to the _modus operandi_, but we may rest assured that the
process has been in accordance with great natural laws, some of which
are as yet unknown, perhaps unknowable."^* [*: _Organic Evolution_, by
R. S. Lull (New York: The Macmillan Company) (c) 1929, 1947, Reprinted
by permission.]
And so biologists continue to "rest assured." But one may be tempted
to ask, if some of the great natural laws are as yet unknown, how do
we know that they are there? And if some are perhaps unknowable, how
do we know that they are "logical"?
It is not fair to blame biologists for the phrase "the missing link";
reputable biologists have always disapproved of it. It is a most
misleading phrase, be-cause it suggests that only one link is missing.
It would be more accurate to say that the greater part of the entire
chain is missing, so much that it is not entirely certain whether
there is a chain at all. With every new discovery of a fossil man or
subman, the genealogical tree gets more complicated until it begins to
resemble chain mail, with a great many links still missing. Any
prudent, unprejudiced layman would conclude, "It may be that the
biological origin of man will eventually become as clear as that of
the horse, or the elephant, or it may be that it will not. Let us
wait and see." Biologists are not so cautious. They have an
unshakeable faith in What Science Is Going To Do Some Day.
A curious change in tone has taken place since the days of Darwin and
Huxley and Herbert Spencer. These nineteenth-century giants spoke in
terms of "survival of the fittest," an expression which is played down
nowadays. This is done partly for legitimate technical reasons; the
early Darwinians had over-emphasized it, and there are other factors
that must be taken into account in evolution. But it is also played
down for hidden reasons. "Survival of the fittest" led to the concept
of "nature red in tooth and claw" and this is not sufficiently
wishy-washy for modern scientists. They prefer to express themselves
in milder terms-- certain mutations have "survival value," or, to make
it still more long-winded, "have positive survival value." In any
case those survived who were the fittest to survive, so that the
meaning of this is the survival of the fittest all over again, but
without sounding so harsh. The word "value" is greatly prized by
scientists on account of its ability to put the reader off the scent--
but more of this in later chapters.
=================================
For Further Reading
"they have never succeeded in evoluting Drosophila into a fly of a
different species, much less into any more distant creature"
1970 Mayr on organisms' observed resistance to change
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309181335410.2863259-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
Rensberger, Alberch
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8bepfm%24h45%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
fruit flies, Hampton Carson, Koestler
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8dbdpj%24p14%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
[Thompson]"That evolution has been gradual and continuous... is an
induction based on certain particular cases, such as the horse"
the fraud known as the fossil horse series
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980816003836.28616B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
"the precise theory is much further from being proved than men are
from flying to the moon"
Compare the Apollo missions that put men on the moon.
"The precise theory has never been proved at all. However, like
relativity, it is accepted as a faith."
1919 experiment and the theory of general relativity
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970808020249.13466K-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
"The genealogical trees intended to show how modern animals were
evolved...." through the end of the paragraph.
Macbeth on phylogeny trees
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990126225603.790598A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1980 Gould on the tips and nodes of trees
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970901005523.14415B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
a little rhetoric about 1977 G&E on diagrams and the uninitiated
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960722001816.872M%40umbc8.umbc.edu
"the important point is whether God 'interferes,' as it were, with
what goes on on this earth, or whether He leaves it alone"
J. Huxley, Stebbins, Simpson, and Dawkins on materialistic processes
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980315232328.21172B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Dana Tweedy
> John Hachmann <jha...@ixpresremove.com> on 11 Feb 2004:
> Chris Krolczyk <chrisk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of course not. Once you get over the handwaving in the
> > > above paragraph concerning this newfangled "broadly
> > > theistic" Whatchamahoozle, the only thing the DI
> > > seems to be saying is that *they* have doubts, and
> > > that those doubts constitute proof of the usual
> > > Paleyisms concerning a divine watchmaker and
> > > no other possibility. So much for the fallacy of the
> > > excluded middle.
> >
> > They don't understand how science works.
>
> How unfortunate.
Isn't it though. Instead of trying to learn, they try to change the rules
of science.
>
> > Of course there are
> > controversies and doubts about the precise mechanisms of evolution,
>
> Tell me something I don't know. Compare with [Lull]"We are not so
> sure, however, as to the _modus operandi_" of evolution:
> R. Morris and G. Johnson, Shermer, Goodwin
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310210019270.25956-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
> did Gould lie for Darwin?; Gould notes that there is continuing
> controversy about _how_ blindwatchmaking can occur
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709000645.26045D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
>
> > classification of fossils, paleobiology, and many more topics. In
> > science, nothing is written in stone, and everything is open to
> > question.
>
> I disagree. The "fact" that biology is the product of mind-less
> processes is written in stone. The "fact" that life came from
> non-life totally apart from any input of intelligence is written in
> stone. These "facts" aren't open to question.
Sure they are. Just show some evidence of an intelligent being, capable of
creating life, and affecting biology. Appeals to the supernatural are
inherently unscientific, but appeals to known intelligences, using
observable processes, are not.
>
> > Scientists love to argue. I know because I am one.
>
> I hope you're enjoying the present discussion.
>
> > Does that
> > mean that science is weak? No that is science's strength. By questioning
> > and challenging, weak theories are discarded and stronger ones take
> > their place.
>
> Do you agree with Coyne that the field of evolutionary
> biology [Coyne]"is not self-correcting"?
If Coyne said that, I'd disagree.
> If "yes," do you think creationists serve a useful role in
> pointing out areas in the field of evolutionary biology
> needing correction?
Creationists serve no useful function, as they are objecting on purely
religious grounds.
>
> Citation in
> Coyne: classic peppered moth story "is in bad shape, and, while not
> yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention"
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230510.519fe8a1%40posting.google.com
>
> Do you think Darwin's theory of natural selection is a strong theory?
I think it's updated versions are quite strong.
> Do you think it is a weak theory?
no
> If "yes," do you think it should be
> discarded?
N/A
> Do you think that no matter how weak a theory is, a weak theory should
> be discarded only if there is a stronger one to take its place?
Show me specific instances.
> Is it OK for scientists to say, "We don't know the answer. We don't
> have a solution."?
Certianly, as long as it's followed by, "But we're still looking".
>
> > In many ways, the development of scientific theory
> > parallels evolution.
>
> Theories in the world of science develop as a result of intelligent
> human minds pushing the theories' development. Many individuals say
> that "evolution" is a mind-less process. A mind-less process differs
> in a very important respect from a mind-driven process.
How?
>
> > There may be controversy about the details, but mainstream science
> > does not dispute that evolution happened. The data overwhelmingly
> > support it.
>
> What is meant by [JH]"evolution"?
>
I'll let JH answer that.
DJT
Floyd
> > Theories in the world of science develop as a result of intelligent
> > human minds pushing the theories' development. Many individuals say
> > that "evolution" is a mind-less process. A mind-less process differs
> > in a very important respect from a mind-driven process.
>
> How?
You know, that may be the single most important unanswered question in
the entire debate! So what do you say, david ford? Do you have an
answer for this question? What, when we come right down to it, *are*
the differences between "mindless" and "mind-driven" processes? Can
you offer an archetypal "mindless" process, and explain what makes it
mindless, so I can compare that to other observed processes of unknown
degrees of mindfulness, to determine whenther they are mindless or
mind-driven? Or failing that, can you offer at least a general rule
by which mind-driven processes can be differentiated from the other
kind? That is, how would I recognise a "mindless" process when I saw
one? I know it's impossible to define the supernatural, and I
wouldn't ask you to do so, but it should at least be possible to
define the natural world, right? So if your could provide an example
of a processes that was completely mindless, we could build from
there. I look forward to your detailed response; thank you.
johac
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> John Hachmann <jha...@ixpresremove.com> on 11 Feb 2004:
> Chris Krolczyk <chrisk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of course not. Once you get over the handwaving in the
> > > above paragraph concerning this newfangled "broadly
> > > theistic" Whatchamahoozle, the only thing the DI
> > > seems to be saying is that *they* have doubts, and
> > > that those doubts constitute proof of the usual
> > > Paleyisms concerning a divine watchmaker and
> > > no other possibility. So much for the fallacy of the
> > > excluded middle.
> >
> > They don't understand how science works.
>
> How unfortunate.
Yep.
>
> > Of course there are
> > controversies and doubts about the precise mechanisms of evolution,
>
> Tell me something I don't know. Compare with [Lull]"We are not so
> sure, however, as to the _modus operandi_" of evolution:
> R. Morris and G. Johnson, Shermer, Goodwin
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310210019270.25956-100000
> %40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
> did Gould lie for Darwin?; Gould notes that there is continuing
> controversy about _how_ blindwatchmaking can occur
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709000645.26045D-100000%40u
> mbc9.umbc.edu
The articles seem to center around the question: "Is evolution
falsifiable?". I would say yes. Evolution says that fossils of modern
humans should never be found in the same geological strata a dinosaurs.
If a modern human fossil is found in strata laid down earlier than the
earliest primates, I would say that evolution is falsified.
None of the authors give evidence for a 'designer' or creator.
>
> > classification of fossils, paleobiology, and many more topics. In
> > science, nothing is written in stone, and everything is open to
> > question.
>
> I disagree. The "fact" that biology is the product of mind-less
> processes is written in stone. The "fact" that life came from
> non-life totally apart from any input of intelligence is written in
> stone. These "facts" aren't open to question.
The fossils are a fact. How we characterize them and draw relationships
between them is open to question.
>
> > Scientists love to argue. I know because I am one.
>
> I hope you're enjoying the present discussion.
Somewhat, but I get tired of hearing the same old arguments from your
side over and over again.
>
> > Does that
> > mean that science is weak? No that is science's strength. By questioning
> > and challenging, weak theories are discarded and stronger ones take
> > their place.
>
> Do you agree with Coyne that the field of evolutionary
> biology [Coyne]"is not self-correcting"?
> If "yes," do you think creationists serve a useful role in
> pointing out areas in the field of evolutionary biology
> needing correction?
I disagree. Science is self correcting. It seems that every week, a new
fossil is reported in Science or Nature. Based on that many earlier
hypotheses have been discarded.
Creationists are free to comment, but I put more trust in what science
discovers.
>
> Citation in
> Coyne: classic peppered moth story "is in bad shape, and, while not
> yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention"
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230510.519fe8a1%40posting.googl
> e.com
It's amazing how people keep on picking on the poor old peppered moth.
Even the scientists themselves admit that it may not be the best model:
http://www.nmsr.org/text.htm#moth
The pictures were staged to show the difference that camouflage makes.
Natural selection still would explain the shifts in populations of the
lighter and darker moths.
> Do you think Darwin's theory of natural selection is a strong theory?
> Do you think it is a weak theory? If "yes," do you think it should be
> discarded?
> Do you think that no matter how weak a theory is, a weak theory should
> be discarded only if there is a stronger one to take its place?
> Is it OK for scientists to say, "We don't know the answer. We don't
> have a solution."?
There are many examples of natural selection.
Some are given in:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
For many years, it was believed that natural selection was the main
driving force behind evolution, but more recently more attention has
been paid to genetic drift. I have no problems with alternate
naturalistic mechanisms for evolution, if they are supported by fact. I
object to the invoking of a creator or a designer, because I see no need
for such a hypothesis, nor any evidence supporting it..
>
> > In many ways, the development of scientific theory
> > parallels evolution.
>
> Theories in the world of science develop as a result of intelligent
> human minds pushing the theories' development. Many individuals say
> that "evolution" is a mind-less process. A mind-less process differs
> in a very important respect from a mind-driven process.
Many 'mindless' processes occur naturally. Water doesn't need a mind to
tell it to flow downhill. Chemical reactions are 'mindless'. Why does
biology need a mind?
>
> > There may be controversy about the details, but mainstream science
> > does not dispute that evolution happened. The data overwhelmingly
> > support it.
>
> What is meant by [JH]"evolution"?
There are many definitions. I would say inheritable genetic changes in
populations which lead to the diversification of species.
A longer answer that I like is given by Futuyma:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is
all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The
ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual
organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered
evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material
from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or
substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the
proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those
determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the
earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
<articles snipped for later reference>
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in