« America Houses of Modernity | Main | Reasonable Without God »
August 20, 2007
The 167 Steps
Cameron Wybrow reviews Michael Behe's new and generally-savaged book, The Edge of Evolution in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution, provides some hard numbers, coupled with an ingenious argument. The key to determining the exact powers of Darwinian evolution, says Behe, lies with fast-reproducing microbes. Some, such as malaria, HIV, and E. coli, reproduce so quickly that within a few decades, or at most a few millennia, they generate as many mutations as a larger, slower-breeding animal would in millions of years. By observing how far these creatures have evolved in recent times, we can estimate the creative limits of random mutation.
In the case of malaria, the creative limits appear quite low. Over the last few thousand years, several thousand billion billion malarial cells have been unable to develop an evolutionary response to the sickle-cell mutation, which protects its human bearers from malaria. On the other hand, malaria has proved able to develop Darwinian resistance to the antibiotic chloroquine. This resistance is based upon two simultaneous mutations affecting a malarial protein. Yet this rare double mutation has occurred fewer than 10 times since chloroquine was introduced 50 years ago, during which time a hundred billion billion malarial cells have been born. If this indicates the typical rate of occurrence of double mutations, then the Darwinian transformation of our pre-chimp ancestor into homo sapiens, which would have required at least some double mutations, would have taken at least a thousand trillion years, a time span greater than the age of the universe.
Perhaps so. I would expect someone could point out that what may be true for particular microbes may not be true for other life forms or species, however. Maybe man evolved from the chimp or whatever it was via more mutations coming faster than they would for a microbe. Or maybe not.
I think it about this way: How much has homo sapiens evolved in 6,000 years? I use that number for, roughly, that's how long our "history" is, in the sense that everything else is literally prehistoric. For the last 6,000 years, we have a Man that basically looks like ourselves in 2007. Let me enumerate a few things that occur to me:
1) He's concerned about death and buries his dead and make plans for his own burial.
2) He wears clothing. The women wear jewelry.
3) He is prone to crime and murder, but also punishes offenders.
4) He thinks about himself and his origins.
5) He looks at the stars to determine meaning and grander purposes. (SETI, anyone?)
6) He passes on memory to others and devises stories that secure memory.
7)
He is basically monogamous (other arrangements obtain under unusual
circumstances, e.g., men of peculiar wealth might have more wives, but
not your average guy, obviously)
8) He is a fabricator of devices
and tinkerer with technology. This includes particularly buildings for
burial (number 1 above), and is evident in the high level of
intelligence, many moons ago, of the Egyptian pyramid builders, and
even the builders of the mega-lithic tombs of northwestern Europe
(which predate the pyramids). Those guys were pretty smart, and had
ways of communicating measurements and other bits of information that
still are in use today.
When we read the oldest texts available, we are reading minds that
are recognizably human. Even cave art is distinctively human and
sometimes a cut above things I've seen hanging on walls of contemporary
museums of art.
So in this historic period, just how much evolution in homo sapiens has occurred? I don't know the definitive answer to this, but as far as I am aware, zilch. (And I would expect to have read about it were it otherwise.) So, if in 6,000 years we're basically the same, how much change can we extrapolate backwards to say, one million years, to some unnamed hominid?
Nobody expects clear evolution in a bare 6,000 years--that, of course, has always been a required non-expectation because you have to explain a non-occurence that is already a fact on the ground. Instead, you simply say "there hasn't been enough time" and talk about "millions of years" for human beings.
But wait a minute: 6,000 years, really, isn't that small a slice of a million, is it? Say that one evolution "step" takes place every 6,000 years just for the sake of argument. That would mean that our ancestral hominid living in 998,000 BC could take 167 mutationally-driven evolutionary steps over the next million years to become me typing at this computer. Is that a large number of steps or is it large enough to bridge the huge gap between me and the ape? Perhaps so, but has this been proven?
How far can a hominid evolve in 167 steps? But this is assuming
these evolutionary steps occur often enough--on average every 6,000
years--for that figure of 167. I am not aware that there is a
significant evolutionary difference between me and the chief engineer
building one of those pyramids, so may maybe, given Behe's and others
work on microbe mutations, even a million years isn't near long enough,
but more like "a thousand trillion."
Wybrow concludes:
The Edge of Evolution makes a serious, quantitative argument about the limits of Darwinian evolution. Evolutionary biology cannot honestly ignore it.
Let's see who can answer such questions. I find them simply fascinating.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 02:20 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/234392/20963451
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The 167 Steps:
Comments
What's even more fascinating is that the Inquirer review is the first one from a major paper that I've read that even mentions the nature of Behe's argument, rather than either taking retrospective pot-shots at Darwin's Little Black Box or just going straight to the ad hominems. Well done, Inquirer!
That said, the article makes me wonder whether Behe's postulated malarial mutation rate is based on the sample size of all malarial cells on earth, or just on the number observed by scientists to have mutated or not. It seems possible that more than 10 of the double mutations have occurred, but they haven't all been observed. Could it be possible for a population to develop and pass on the mutation without being repeatedly exposed to chloroquine, or does it confer a survival disadvantage in other environments?
Of course, these are the sort of substantial questions that it would take reading the book to answer, so I doubt Richard Dawkins et al. will take them up.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Aug 20, 2007 3:18:43 PM
Mr. Kushiner, your argument is reminiscent of Haldane's Dilemma. Did you have this in mind when you posted?
Googling Haldane and Walter ReMine turns up a bunch of interesting stuff of whose validity I'm not qualified to judge. I do presume to recommend it, though.
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 20, 2007 4:15:03 PM
Strictly speaking, Behe's arguments can't prove anything about the probabilities of successful mutations. Every mutation is unique, depending as it does on the ways in which the particular proteins, etc., fold into themselves and into each other, and whether some matching folds happen to produce positive effects for the organism in which the mutation takes place. The likelihood of one mutation (or combination of mutations) doesn't say much about the likelihood of another.
That being said, it seems sensible that the probability of positive mutations occurs exponentially less frequently in more complex organisms, since it only takes one fatal error to kill the entire organism. If so, the "creative limit" of evolution acting on microbes is a maximum for all life.
Moreover, arguments against Behe may frequently expose the vulnerabilities of modern Darwinism. Behe's inferences concerning mutation statistics contain several logical glosses. (That's not to say they aren't plausible, only that they're not truly proven.) Some of these glosses happen to be structurally similar to the glosses Darwinists invoke to justify the claim that truly random mutation fuels the evolutionary process. Watch Behe's critics closely: You may be able to turn their arguments around on them.
Posted by: DGP | Aug 20, 2007 4:58:35 PM
The Edge of Evolution makes a serious, quantitative argument about the limits of Darwinian evolution. Evolutionary biology cannot honestly ignore it.
Let's see who can answer such questions. I find them simply fascinating.
Evolutionary biology will almost certainly ignore this book, not because the questions are taboo, but because they've been answered many times over. The rate of mutation for eukaryotes has been studied extensively, and it is more than enough to account for the observed genetic distance between humans and apes. Let's make a quick order-of-magnitude estimate:
(# of human genes) x (# of generations) x (mutations per gene per generation) =
10^4 x 10^5 x 10^-5 =
10^4 mutations
The actually genetic difference between apes and humans is about 1% of the genome, or 10^2 genes. By our estimate above, the actual mutation rate is 100 times greater than the rate needed to provide this level of difference!
And recent human evolution? Here's
one with a significant impact on human history that's happened twice independently in the last 10,000 years.
I adamantly believe in one God, the maker of all things visible and invisible. But I don't it when that position is made synonymous with ignorance of His creation.
Posted by: JS Bangs | Aug 20, 2007 5:08:18 PM
To DGP,
An altered amino acid doesn't necessarily have to affect the gross shape of the protein (though it certainly can). It could be a simple charge difference that attracts (or repels) a water molecule that makes a difference in catalysis.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Aug 20, 2007 5:29:37 PM
(# of human genes) x (# of generations) x (mutations per gene per generation) =
10^4 x 10^5 x 10^-5 =
10^4 mutations
JSB,
I can't see how this equation has a chance of being valid. The third term assumes something like that each mutation become fixed in the genome for all individuals of that (or the subsequent) generation. What's the likelihood that any random mutation will prove so advantageous as to "conquer" an entire generation? I think Behe's numbers are likely to be closer.
This is, if I understand the Haldane argument correctly, a key point in his eponymous dilemma.
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 20, 2007 5:53:23 PM
I should add that we're talking about humans here: social, intelligent (even selfless) animals among whom a relatively benign mutational advantage or disadvantage will not likely confer massive reproductive advantage.
"Becaus he makes me laugh" (Cf. "Who framed Roger Rabbit?")
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 20, 2007 5:56:16 PM
JS Bangs: I think that the article you referred to regarding the disabling of genetic timer that turns off the lactase gene, does not have any force against Behe’s argument. The deletion of an existing feature (such as the timer) is generally recognized as an easy evolutionary step, which can usually be accomplished by any of a variety of single mutations, none of which is terribly improbable. On the other hand, if the creation of a new feature requires multiple mutations, each of which convey no benefit on their own (as in the case of chloroquine resistance in malaria), it is vastly more unlikely that random mutation and natural selection will be able to create that feature.
In fact, I’d say that the article you reference actually provides indirect support for Behe’s argument. The fact that such an easy and evolutionarily advantageous mutation as the elimination of lactose intolerance has only happened a few times in human history shows how difficult it is for even simple useful mutations to evolve. How much more difficult must it be, then, for an organism to evolve complex features, which require many mutations before any advantage is conveyed to the organism.
Posted by: Ralph Wagenet | Aug 20, 2007 5:59:03 PM
It may be that the 1% stat is about 1% true
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 20, 2007 6:06:27 PM
An altered amino acid doesn't necessarily have to affect the gross shape of the protein (though it certainly can).
No, you're right. And there are still further considerations, such as manufacturing pathways, that can have enormous impact. But you take my point: Talk of true randomness is virtually impossible here, as everything depends upon a bewildering away of structural issues already embedded in the problem. Whether differentiation of species can be attributed to truly random events at the genetic level (together with natural selection) is a question that cannot be answered on the basis of current scientific knowledge.
Posted by: DGP | Aug 20, 2007 6:07:11 PM
On a much more prosaic level, last year the Phila. Inquirer was purchased by Brian Tierney, owner of a very successful ad agency in Phila. that had the Phila. archdiocese on its client list. Tierney organized the 2000 Republican convention in Phila. and got an invocation by Cardinal Bevilaqua on national television during the convention. With Tierney as CEO, the Inquirer has had many staff changes and so no surprise here that they would print a positive review of Dr. Behe's latest.
Posted by: Neil Gussman | Aug 20, 2007 9:01:08 PM
"And recent human evolution? Here's
one with a significant impact on human history that's happened twice independently in the last 10,000 years."
Is lactose tolerance/intolerance really a good example of an evolutionary step? It seems to me simply an adaptation to milk and that there could be hundreds of such variations in humans, ranging from allergies to new pollens and intolerance to newly encountered foods when a population moves to a new environment. I can't see how 167 of such steps would have the power to slowly make a monkey into a man.
Posted by: Jim Kushiner | Aug 20, 2007 10:31:36 PM
ERV & HIV versus Behe. Behe loses.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv_hiv_versus.html
Posted by: Cedric Katesby | Aug 21, 2007 4:05:30 AM
"How much more difficult must it be, then, for an organism to evolve complex features, which require many mutations before any advantage is conveyed to the organism."
Right. How many 'wrong' steps are taken for every one of the 167 'right' steps? And wouldn't the multiplication of the bad or indifferent mutations have a cumulative effect over and above the occasional positive mutation? I know this is an oversimplification but the whole thing seems to go against common sense. The probability against man evolving seems astronomical.
Posted by: Rob Grano | Aug 21, 2007 6:17:43 AM
Behe loses
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 21, 2007 8:00:59 AM
Maybe not?
What??
Casey Luskin is going to do some science now with the the 'new information' provided by Behe?
Or is he just going to reel off more opinion pieces like a broken record?
ID has produced .... nothing.
No science. No research. No hard work.
NOTHING.
Just coffee table books like "No Free Lunch" and "Edge of Evolution" to sell at bible study meetings.
They have money. Millions of dollars.
They've had time. At least fifteen years or more.
They've had "700 scientists who 'dissent from Darwinism". (whatever thats supposed to mean).
And the result?
See below...
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php
Their own 'scientific' journal. Run by their own people.
And the last issue was November 2005.
November 2005.
The ID people have done no science. None. Zippo.
Plenty of blog sites and op-eds and crappy books.
No science.
Stop flogging the dead horse.
It's not going to move.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby | Aug 21, 2007 10:22:50 AM
Cedric,
What are you getting so agitated about? If there is nothing to ID, as you assert, then these folks are just wasting their lives while proving your point. I would guess most, if not all, of the money for their research comes from proponents, who, if you are correct, are wasting their money while proving your point. It cost none of your time or money. If you are correct, these poor slobs are just working to prove they are wrong and you are right.
The only reason I can see for you to be so agitated is because you are afraid that the ID researchers may be on to something, that their working hypothesis makes sense, and that they have exposed some real, potentially fatal, problems with the prevailing theory of evolution. I smell fear in your posts.
Posted by: GL | Aug 21, 2007 10:39:09 AM
I must admit I also found the scientific arguments in Cedric's most recent post deeply uncompelling. Simply because they were non-existent.
Is he complaining that Luskin quoted a scientific paper by Klaus Strebel which apparently has the force of refuting Smith's argument?
What else should one do to critique an argument?
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 21, 2007 11:30:31 AM
I know that my guesstimate could be attacked on multiple grounds. It wasn't meant to be a thorough debunking, just a cursory examination of what the numbers reveal. The conclusion is that it doesn't take a lot of mutation to create a large apparent change in an organism, and that the rates of mutation are within the range they should be.
I also notice that y'all are moving the goalposts for recent evolution. James said, "Nobody expects clear evolution in a bare 6,000 years--that, of course, has always been a required non-expectation because you have to explain a non-occurence that is already a fact on the ground." I pointed out that non-evolution isn't a fact on the ground, invalidating the premise of that line of argument. The responses have been along the lines of saying that lactose tolerance is an unimpressive kind of evolution. That's completely besides the point: it only takes two or three little steps to add up to one big step, and all we'd expect to see in this timeframe is a handful of little steps.
Bonobo, thanks for that fascinating link about the 1% genome difference. My take-away from that is, "There's a whole lot we don't understand about evolution." I don't think there's a scientist alive who would disagree with that.
But I reject the creationist's corollary: "That which we don't understand now can only be explained by God." That's the God of the gaps, a weak and unimpressive deity with the embarrassing tendency to be overthrown. Instead I just reject the supposed dichotomy between scientific description and theistic explanation. I believe the standard medical description of gestation, but I still know I was formed by God in my mother's womb; likewise I believe the general scientific account of evolution, but I still know that God created the heavens and the earth.
Posted by: JS Bangs | Aug 21, 2007 11:37:25 AM
JSB,
You're welcome.
I have no idea whether God's existence can be proven scientifically.
I like the intelligent design paradigm because it serves the useful purpose of critiquing the overweening pretensions not merely of darwinist biologists, but of those who stray out of their domain and pretend to expertise in atheology on the basis of a biological theory for which there is surprisingly little evidence.
As you said: "There's a whole lot we don't understand about evolution." Including, I would suggest, whether it indeed occurs as has been speculated by darwinists.
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 21, 2007 11:58:33 AM
JSB,
I don't really have a dog in this fight (maybe a bad analogy the day after Vick's NFL career was ripped to shreds), but I don't believe Behe is offering a God in the gaps theory. He is saying, these irreducibly complex phenomena have the characteristics of things which have been designed, therefore, perhaps they were designed. He says nothing about who the designer might be or even whether the designer is personal or impersonal, only that the design reflects intelligence. It is a hypothesis and, despite what Cedric said, we are in the *very, very* early stages of exploring the hypothesis. It may lead nowhere. I'm one who doubts that science will ever be able to prove God -- that is, not until the Son returns in all His glory. I second Bonobo: the primary useful function of ID is to highlight the inherent limitations in the explanatory power of the prevailing theory.
Posted by: GL | Aug 21, 2007 2:05:59 PM
JS Bangs and Cedric Katsby illustrate a point I've made before: Scientism is a popular religion that makes a creed out of evolutionary details, and it raises these details to an indefensible level of importance.
JSB:
>>But I don't it when that position is made synonymous with ignorance of His creation.<<
Well, I am ignorant about lots of vital, *vital* facts of pure mathematics, history, medicine and so on. Nobody would call me uneducated. I'm a Ph.D. studnet in physics. But what if I had "ignorance of His creation"? Suddenly that's intolerable! Why?
>>But I reject the creationist's corollary: "That which we don't understand now can only be explained by God." That's the God of the gaps, a weak and unimpressive deity with the embarrassing tendency to be overthrown.<<
If I were God, what would make me feel unimpressive and embarrassing? If I created free creatures to love me but they rebelled against me instead, I'd feel grieved that I had made them... maybe unimpressive and embarrassed for myself too. That's a human arguement of course. But JS Bangs sets up a different criterion. If I'm God and my creative activity can be attributed to natural means, now THAT makes me an embarrassing failure of a God! But what grounds does Bangs have for that crietrion?
Cedric:
>>ID has produced .... nothing.
No science. No research. No hard work.
NOTHING.<<
Cedric evaluates logical arguments not on the grounds of whether the hypothesis lead validly to the conclusions, but instead, on grounds of whether the purported conclusions are of such a nature that they (if true) would in principle write the detailed history of a biological species.
Some of us are scrambling and sweating. Meanwhile, GL can relax. He says, "I don't really have a dog in this fight ... It may lead nowhere." ID may be true, it may be false, no problem. Those who reject the creed of scientism are a lot less jumpy, aren't we?
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 21, 2007 5:33:32 PM
In his most recent book, John Polkinghorne takes a very long view noting that physics has had 300 years to cool down, first from the excesses of the followers of Newton --the fully determined universe--then from all that followed Einstein. Polkinghorne thinks that in 50 years modern biology will find its limits, settle down and be more humble. But right now the track from T. Dobzhansky (synthesis of evolution and genetics) to Watson and Crick to the biotech revolution only goes back to the 1940s.
Right now ID has no problem (as far as I understand ID) with the current state of physics and Michael Behe has focused the ID-Evolutionary Biology disagreement on random mutation. Polkinghorne could be right and in 50 or more years both sides will understand the mechanism of evolution to the same extent. Like physics, the non-believers will still be hunting for a mechanism that leaves out God, but evolution with God at its inception will be as well accepted as the Big Bang.
I live in hope.
Posted by: Neil Gussman | Aug 21, 2007 6:15:39 PM
"...you are afraid that the ID researchers may be on to something, that their working hypothesis makes sense, and that they have exposed some real, potentially fatal, problems with the prevailing theory of evolution. I smell fear in your posts."
Yeah, perhaps I'm afraid. That makes sense. :)
Now about the science...
"What else should one do to critique an argument?"
Well, perhaps you could ...maybe...present SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?
(It's a novel idea, I know, but it would be a heck of a lot more convincing that your hand waving.)
"It is a hypothesis and, despite what Cedric said, we are in the *very, very* early stages of exploring the hypothesis."
Oh, so ID is not a 'theory' it's just a 'hypothesis' now?
And... you're in the early stages of exploring the hypothesis?
Fine! I'll take you at your word.
Demonstrate that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis please.
Exploring? Who's doing this exploring?
Bloggers? Housewives? Retired engineers?
Scientists certainly aren't.
Or perhaps you have a peer-reviewed paper with the words "Intelligent Design" somewhere lying around?
(insert sound of crickets chirping)
"Scientism is a popular religion that makes a creed out of evolutionary details, and it raises these details to an indefensible level of importance."
Reminds me of a joke I once heard.
Q: How do you make an ID supporter talk about the Theory of Evolution?
A: Ask him to produce scientific evidence for ID.
(Thank you, thank you.)
"Cedric evaluates logical arguments not on the grounds of whether the hypothesis lead validly to the conclusions, but instead, on grounds of whether the purported conclusions are of such a nature that they (if true) would in principle write the detailed history of a biological species."
Some of us are scrambling and sweating."
Utter hogwash.
I don't give a fig for pretty arguments.
I'm after the science.
You run ahead of yourself talking about 'conclusions to a hypothesis'.
You have yet to demonstrate that you actually have a working scientific hypothesis.
Don't put the cart before the horse.
(Even though it's dead)
"Some of us are scrambling and sweating."
Ok, now theres an image I don't need.
Scramble all you like. Sweat free and be proud.
Where the work?
Novemember 2005. Remember that date.
Seriously people, doesn't it bother any of the ID supporters here that you've gone off and bought all those books and yet there's no actual scientists doing actual scientific work?
Keep your religion. It's a free country.
Yet this ID stuff is just smoke and mirrors.
For those of you who perhaps don't really understand what a hypothesis or a theory is, please check out this article.
Why “Intelligent Design” (ID) is not science,
and why, therefore, it should not be taught in a science curriculum."
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html
Science. Where is your science?
Posted by: Cedric Katesby | Aug 21, 2007 7:08:00 PM
Cedric,
I am not a supporter of the ID movement. I do believe we were created by God in his image, but I also believe in evolution, nay even macro-evolution. Yet by listening to the ID folks, I've found they have at least one point. To some, evolution becomes an answer to everything.
For instance, on the question of love, they would say it is simply a biochemical reaction in the brain and it exists simple because is has survival value. I am sure you see this answer is not adequate. Yet it is out there.
Bobby
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Aug 21, 2007 9:46:35 PM
Yet by listening to the ID folks, I've found they have at least one point. To some, evolution becomes an answer to everything.
For instance, on the question of love, they would say it is simply a biochemical reaction in the brain and it exists simple because is has survival value. I am sure you see this answer is not adequate. Yet it is out there.
And that certainly is not science. Nor is Dawkins' bold assertion that science proves there is no God science. Pseudo-science is not the exclusive preserve of ID proponents as Cedric appears to believe.
Posted by: GL | Aug 21, 2007 9:51:54 PM
>>I don't give a fig for pretty arguments. I'm after the science.<<
Pretty or not, how do you, Cedric, tell good ideas from hogwashed ideas if *you* do not evaluate them with arguments?
Don't throw stones in glass houses. Science works precisely because it is good logical argumentation. Here's a quotation I like about what kind of argumentation it takes to get published in my field:
"Consider how real-world science gets done. Suppose you have a novel scientific claim. You do some research on it. You then submit an article to journals. The journals send it out to idiots called peer reviewers, and those idiots tell you why you’re wrong, and then you have to fight with them and tell them why they’re idiots, and it goes on and on. "
- Lawrence Krauss, The Back Page, *APS News*, Vol 15, No. 4 (April 2006)
[The article quoted is anti-ID, but is fair enough that it deserves to be read.]
>>Why “Intelligent Design” (ID) is not science, <<
I am with Bobby and GL on cautious skepticism toward the truth of ID. That said...
Purported facts are "true" or "false." I.e., "Science" or "not science" is not a worthwhile distinction. The right use of the mind is to believe what is true.
Your most recent post says in many ways that ID should be distinguished from science. You may be thoroughly right. All I have to add is that whether X is science or non-science has no bearing on whether X is true. As whether a literary specimen is biography or journalism has no bearing on whether it is fact or fiction.
Logical argumentation is in the service of all truth.
By the way, Cedric, you should know that the bloggers here believe in Jesus Christ because we have found Him to be rationally and even, I dare say, scientifically* true, not because it's a "free country." We'll tell you more about that if you like.
*E.g., textual criticism is properly classified as a science.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 21, 2007 11:37:52 PM
(Shocked Pause)
Honest comments?
(Even longer second pause)
You'll have to excuse me. I'm more accustomed to hand-waving and evasion.
I must confess, I'm impressed.
:)
"I do believe we were created by God in his image."
You are perfectly entitled to your belief.
"Pseudo-science is not the exclusive preserve of ID"
Oh, but I agree. Astrology, homeopathy, palm-reading, Theraputic Touch, Breathairianism, Perpetual motion machines...the list is endless.
One of my favourite sites is www.randi.org.
Their archives have a wealth of information on pseudo-science, quackery, flummery and charlatanism.
Recommended reading.
"Pretty or not, how do you, Cedric, tell good ideas from hogwashed ideas if *you* do not evaluate them with arguments?"
Good quote. In the same spirit, I'm sure you'll appreciate this one.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." Feynman.
If you're cautiously skeptical about ID, then that's a relief.
Though perhaps if I was going to quibble, I'd ask that Christians in general be a tad more robust in their skepticism.
Thanks again for letting me have my say and your refreshingly open commentry.
I'll be sure to look in on your site from time to time.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby | Aug 22, 2007 12:48:39 AM
>>I'll be sure to look in on your site from time to time.<<
Don't do us any favors.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Aug 22, 2007 5:38:26 AM
"I don't give a fig for pretty arguments. I'm after the science."
As numerous scholars, both pro- and anti-evolution have pointed out, science is never done in a vacuum. There are always philosophical ideas at work, because no human being is able to set aside completely his presuppositions and work in a completely objective fashion. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself. Hence, the philosophy does matter. Note also that it is almost always the pro-Darwinian, anti-ID crowd that wants no discussion of the philosophy of science. This would be fine if all these scientists were the equivalent of Mr. Spock -- all logic, no emotion. Last time I checked, they aren't (although a lot of them seem to think they are -- delusion upon delusion!)
Posted by: Rob Grano | Aug 22, 2007 6:00:23 AM
One of my favourite sites is www.randi.org.
Their archives have a wealth of information on pseudo-science, quackery, flummery and charlatanism.
Recommended reading.
Great. Thanks. Where do they record Dawkins' claim to have proven that there is no God?
You are skeptic about everything except science. Scientific knowledge you worship and men like Dawkins are your high priests. You are not nearly the skeptic you think you are. Perhaps you should extend the range of your skepticism just as you enjoin us to extend ours.
Posted by: GL | Aug 22, 2007 7:51:32 AM
Great. Thanks. Where do they record Dawkins' claim to have proven that there is no God?
I haven't bothered to go to the site. Do they mention the famously "evolved" Peppermoth, Haeckel's forged embryo drawings, Piltdown man, the ever-changing ancestries of horse, giraffe and homo sapiens and all the other evolutionary quackeries that have been foisted on students and laymen over the last 100+ years?
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 22, 2007 8:07:30 AM
Cedric,
I suggest that you might find Rodney Stark's "The Victory of Reason" an edifying work. Stark is a well-credentialed sociologist of religion who got his academic start using economic concepts and applying them to the religious life of humans.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Aug 22, 2007 9:46:12 AM
"Don't do us any favors."
Sorry, I don't follow.
Do you have a problem with me posting on this site?
If you don't want me to post here, then....I'll not post here.
Fair enough?
"Scientific knowledge you worship and men like Dawkins are your high priests."
I worship science and Dawkins is my high priest?
Golly, I didn't know I did that. You learn something new over the Internet from complete strangers every day.
"...Peppermoth, Haeckel's forged embryo drawings, Piltdown man,..."
You neglected to mention the Second Law of Thermodynamics thingy, lack of transitional fossils, fossils being out of place, Darwin recanting on his deathbed, Archeoraptor was faked, sea fossils being found on mountaintops, soft tissue found in T-Rex bones, zircons contain too much helium for an old earth, varves can form in less than a year and Saturns rings are unstable.
Here's a site perhaps that's more to your taste.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC300
Enjoy.
Not sure what you mean by quackery but here's the definition I use...
Quackery: How Should It Be Defined?
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html
Seems to have more to do with medicine that evolutionary biology, but hey, opinions vary.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby | Aug 22, 2007 9:50:49 AM
"The Victory of Reason".
I'm nowhere near an English language bookshop, but I'll keep it in mind.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby | Aug 22, 2007 9:53:35 AM
Dictionaries define quack as "a pretender to medical skill; a charlatan" and "one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed."
This fits Dawkins and his ilk precisely when they leave the world of what the data and necessary inferences therefrom reveal and enter the world of declaring that science proves there is no God. Again, I am one who believes that science, to date, has insufficient evidence to declare either for or against the existence of God and believe it will likely never possess such evidence until He choose to reveal Himself in all His glory on the Last Day. (By the way, I doubt that *all* life on earth shares a common biological ancestry. I am not, however, a young-earth creationists who believes that no evolution has occurred. Both extreme views seem to me to ignore some pretty high evidentiary problems and both say more about the metaphysical world-views of their proponents than about what the evidence so far established says about the origins of life in general and man in particular.)
Cedric,
My remark about your worshiping science is based upon your apparent lack of skepticism about anything the neo-Darwinists have to say about natural selection and evolution. If you have such skepticism, your sharing it might help us better understand where you are coming from. If you have none, then I stand by my remarks.
Posted by: GL | Aug 22, 2007 10:12:39 AM
Darwin recanting on his deathbed, Archeoraptor was faked, sea fossils being found on mountaintops, soft tissue found in T-Rex bones, zircons contain too much helium for an old earth
Where, O Cedric, did I give the impression that I'm a young-earth creationist? Darwinism has thrown up quackery all on its own without any help from creationism.
Just a suggestion: keep your comments shorter. You come across as tediously emotional.
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 22, 2007 12:15:47 PM
Not going to jump into this fray again. I'm too busy reading Behe's new book. Whether you agree with Behe or not, he is a very entertaining writer!
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 22, 2007 12:32:26 PM
Dear Cedric,
Regarding the Victory of Reason, you're as "far away" from it as I am, thanks to the fruit of reason called the Internet. Incidentally, Stark is *not* a Christian. At least, he wasn't the last time I checked.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Aug 22, 2007 12:59:49 PM
>>"Don't do us any favors."
Sorry, I don't follow.
Do you have a problem with me posting on this site?
If you don't want me to post here, then....I'll not post here.
Fair enough?
<<
Oh, post all you please, but it seemed from your tone you thought you would be adding to this site's diversity. Rest assured the evolution side has been covered. Some of us have grown tired of it, as it is the same stuff over and over. There is a lot more heat than light generated.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Aug 22, 2007 2:15:23 PM
>Don't do us any favors.
Who's "us" fella?
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 22, 2007 2:21:40 PM
Cedric,
To clarify, we are not offended that you post here. We exist for that purpose.
(Not that I'm one to represent MC, but I hope my above clarification is in the spirit of who we are.)
One problem with Scientism is that it this bug can infect Christians just as easily as it can infect athiests. It and its belief system live as a benign parasite upon creedal Christianity.
I can find one example in Lee Strobel's *The Case for a Creator.* Now, Lee Strobel is a good writer. To the extent that I approach him as a critic, I hope I am a construtive critic.
Lee confesses that while in high school, "I just intuitively knew that the theories of Darwin gave me an intellectual basis to reject the mythology of Christianity that my parents had tried to foist on me through my younger years" (p24). Now, after his adult investigation into Christianity, he decides to become a Christian. He decides to ask more about "Science vs. God" as he understood it. Now here is the shortcoming: he continues to frame the discussion as, "in which direction -- toward Darwin or God -- is the current arrow of science now pointing?" He continues, "Maybe you too have wondered whether belief in a supernatural God is consistent with what science has uncovered about the natural world" (p28).
The Scientism is still visible here. It's still supposed that a God whose acts could be attributed to natural means is an embarrassing God. We wouldn't all agree with that. If you really want to know about God, says Strobe's unconscious presupposition, what do you consult? Do you pray? Do you go to a prophet? Do you repent of your sins? Sure, you can do all that, but you gotta consult evolution too - see if nature wants to use its veto power or not! That's scientism. It's raising the details of nature to a level of theological importance that is understandable in our age, but really can't be defended. And atheists do it too (it's worse for them).
Of course, Lee can't be faulted for his investigation. I am merely suggesting one step further and deeper that it could go.
In this form, it can spur on a healthy interest in the ID sort of inquiry, which is good in so far as it is in the service of the truth. But when it goes unchecked, that's when we get militant anti-evolutionists. These are the guys who are "hand-waving" because they feel trapped. They feel that the details of nature MUST shape your understanding of God, so on that basis they hope to dispute scientific findings.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 22, 2007 2:44:46 PM
>that's when we get militant anti-evolutionists
No, that is more often produced by God centered thinking rather than rationalistic excuse making and a desire to blend in to one's environment on a hot button issue.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 22, 2007 2:51:30 PM
>>>Don't do us any favors.
Who's "us" fella?
<<
I've e-mailed you.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Aug 22, 2007 4:29:24 PM
That's a very good post, Clifford. As one who generally experiences bemusement at the importance given to the evolution debate by both sides, you've given me something to contemplate.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Aug 22, 2007 5:01:36 PM
Ethan,
Thanks for your support. If there are problems in my views, it'd be wonderful if they come out in a forum like this.
For the record (so that I might respond to David about ducking the issue), what I believe about the factual matter of origin of species is contained just in what one might call "fossil facts." One sees lines of similar skeletons. Sometimes there is not much surety about where the lines begin and end - evidenced by the recent revision the lines of H. habilis and H. erectus - but one may have his reasonable guesses.
Now, that is the data we have to work on. Some observations:
- What kind of creatures they are (their skin, their intelligence, their adaptations) is unknown. Who knows whether those things change at the same time as the skeletons?
- Linking up the lines into one continuous tree amounts to an epistemological acid trip. Oh, but philosophical naturalism is the recreational drug of our time.
- One should not think of the collection of lines as fanning out from a common starting point. Far as I know (which I admit is not very far) they just don't *look* like that.
With that, you may draw whatever conclusion seems reasonable and germane. In summary, I take an extremely practical approach to the history of biology. I don't see why this isn't enough.
I do treat human origins *specially*, now taking account of what C.S. Lewis called "inside information" (from *The Problem of Pain*). E.g., we know for psychological reasons that human baby could not be raised by an animal mother; this would destroy the human; how then could a human descend from an animal? So a special creation is expected. That's the general idea of my view, but there's not room left in this post.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 22, 2007 9:06:43 PM
"I am one who believes that science, to date, has insufficient evidence to declare either for or against the existence of God."
No argument here.
Yet I would argue that I don't 'worship' science.
All science is tentative.
So why would I want to worship something tentative?
"You are skeptic about everything except science."
On the contrary, how is it possible to do science without skepticism?
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made."
Feynman
"Just a suggestion: keep your comments shorter. You come across as tediously emotional."
I do? Well, opinions vary.
"Some of us have grown tired of it, as it is the same stuff over and over."
Please understand that I'm not here to convert anybody.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions and beliefs.
I do, however, want to know why some people take ID seriously and even call it a 'theory'.
I have the same curiosity with YECism, but for slightly different reasons.
I'm not here to troll. Just tell me to go and I'm gone.
Really.
I was honestly surprised that nobody here saw ID as a science. When I posted my initial comment, I expected a very different reaction.
Indeed, for all I knew, my post would just mysteriously disappear like postings in general often do at uncommondescent.com.
"Do you pray? Do you go to a prophet? Do you repent of your sins? Sure, you can do all that, but you gotta consult evolution too - see if nature wants to use its veto power or not! That's scientism."
So, scientism is science encroaching on the realm of faith?
If a Christian, because of their interpretation of their faith believes in "X", but science says "actually it's Y", then there are a limited number of options.
The Christian can re-interpret their faith to acommodate "Y".
The Christian can adopt and compartmentalize both "X" and "Y" and not focus on the contradictions.
Or the Christian can stick to "X" and simply reject "Y".
Corrections or clarifications cheerfully accepted.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby | Aug 22, 2007 9:14:27 PM
We are after the truth, we are not all in exact agreement what that is, but the truth is what we are after.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Aug 22, 2007 9:21:45 PM
I'm very elusive.
;-)
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | Aug 22, 2007 11:59:51 PM
Cedric, scientism is science operating outside the bounds of its own epistemology -- i.e., science encroaching on the realm of philosophy. Nobody has any problem with science that keeps its conclusions within the bounds of its own premises.
Scientism enters the picture when it is postulated that nothing that stands outside the investigative methods of science can affect rational conclusions about the universe (or can even be known to exist, in the most strident formulations). It is because of this that scientism is fundamentally irrational; after all, science requires a scientist. If there were no subject inquirer whose consciousness stands apart from the natural universe, the premise that rational inquiry can discover the nature of the universe refutes itself. Atomic motions cannot draw rational conclusions about other atomic motions. The very first thing anyone knows is his own conscious existence.
The Catholic understanding of faith and reason goes something like this:
A. God is rational.
B. God created the universe.
A+B. Therefore the universe is rational.
C. God created man in His image.
A+C. Therefore man is rational.
A+B+C. Therefore man can use reason to understand the universe.
D. God revealed Himself to man through Scripture and Tradition.
A+D. Therefore S&T is rational.
A+B+D. Therefore S&T and the universe cannot contradict one another, correctly understood.
Christians need not retreat from science, neither should they worry that it will destroy their articles of faith. Benedict XVI touched on all this in the main point of his Regensburg lecture, which was missed or ignored by the yellow journalists of al-Reuters et al. who focused on his supposed "diss" of Islam.
Posted by: craig | Aug 23, 2007 4:56:28 PM
Craig, that's pretty cool. I like what you diagrammed out a lot.
I would nuance one important thing.
The doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin.
Because of the Fall, man is oftentimes sinfully irrational.
But other than that small suggestion, great outline of an argument! And including my nuance, it explains why scientism is so badly flawed.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 23, 2007 5:02:38 PM
Craig,
Thanks. I completely agree with your picture.
>> I'm very elusive. ;-) <<
Our four-initialed friend, you might be warned this story: "In Europe, so also in Islam, side by side with the theoretical philosophers were to be found the mystics ... It must be admitted that many of them used language that seemed blasphemous to their co-religionists: al-Hallaj (died 921), for example, cried out in ecstasy 'I am the Truth! I am He' and was executed for his audacity."
[Quoted from a book of medieval philosophy that I'm studying. ;-)]
>>I do, however, want to know why some people take ID seriously and even call it a 'theory'.
I have the same curiosity with YECism, but for slightly different reasons.<<
For the first one, the best place to go might be the Discovery Institute's own web-page . They make their own case nicely. In earlier posts on this thread, I've given what I suppose to be the reasons why a few people take it *too* seriously. Generally speaking, I think people are drawn to ID because, well, it's *reasonable.* For instance, just above here, I expressed myself about not believing in the descent of man from an animal. (Which was the head of this thread, by the way.) Since nobody objected (not even you) I suppose I can say that that's a reasonable point of view. Unless I'm wrong and you would want to object.
As for the ~10,000yo cosmos, one key point to understanding this, is that the scientific consensus of 13.7 billion years (for the cosmos) or ~4 billion years (for certain rocks found on Earth) is cutting-edge recent. Just in our parents' lifetime the numbers were all pointing in that general direction but they were not quite consistent. (Errors were found, and the situation cleaned itself up. E.g., the oldest stars appeared to be uncomfortably older than the running estimate of the age of the cosmos via the cosmic background radiation.) Just 100 years ago, Albert Einstein (in his early days) and his contemporaries believed that there was only one galaxy in the universe, and nobody knew how old it was. Infinite was the standard assumption.
Scientific cosmology is a newbie. You have to contrast that with 1000 years of Christian philosophy. Tradition is just going to have some inertia.
>>If a Christian, because of their interpretation of their faith believes in "X", but science says "actually it's Y",<<
You'll have to give me an actual case of this of any importance. Scientific literature and the literature of our faith are talking to entirely different realms of inquiry. E.g., the cosmology that is expressed in the Bible is actually *metaphysics* - and that very word "metaphysics" is put-down in scientific circles. Scientists just refuse, incorrigibly, to ever talk about it.
That's not to say that they *can't* overlap. Only when they do, either it is in the marginal areas of both sides, or a plain mistake. Age of the earth? That was indeed thought to be a fact, *but* it was never a centerpiece of anybody's creed *most of the time* (remember I'm talking about 2000 years, not the last 200 when Christians are bitten by the scientism that the atheists were doing first). Furthermore, practical-minded scientists have no use for that number themselves. It doesn't cure AIDS or build a faster computer. Except they do use it, when they wish to hoodwink you into deriving the Meaning of Live out of the Story of Evolution ... bad idea!
And the descent of man? That's a plain mistake, because fossil evidence really doesn't tell you (with much precision) when these species came, when they overlapped, what they were, and Who made them.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 23, 2007 8:23:15 PM
Clifford Simon writes: "Our four-initialed friend, you might be warned this story: "In Europe, so also in Islam, side by side with the theoretical philosophers were to be found the mystics ... It must be admitted that many of them used language that seemed blasphemous to their co-religionists: al-Hallaj (died 921), for example, cried out in ecstasy 'I am the Truth! I am He' and was executed for his audacity."
[Quoted from a book of medieval philosophy that I'm studying. ;-)]"
Yo Clifford! That al-Hallaj dude really believed he was the Truth!
I *know* I'm not! So I'm safe!
So return that medieval philosophy book back pronto to the library. And instead, go rent the movie that Ethan C. heartily recommends called "The Fountain" starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. That movie will give you something to chew on in regards to metaphysics and philosophy.
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | Aug 23, 2007 8:55:49 PM
"Nobody has any problem with science that keeps its conclusions within the bounds of its own premises."
That's fair.
However, science is always going to ask questions about the natural world around us. Since we are part of that natural world, the questions like "Where did we come from?" or even "Where is that butterfly from?" are going to pop up, and some people will get upset with the findings.
I'd like to mention a quote by Daniel Dennett that I found while looking up the word 'Scientism'.
It's not meant to bait anybody or cause offence.
""when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
I mention this because the YEC people seem to do this an awful lot.
They are happy to abandon all the physical sciences to protect their own special interpretation of the bible.
"...just above here, I expressed myself about not believing in the descent of man from an animal."
Many people have this belief.
(Though Behe says he accepts common descent, but I digress...)
I'm not going to try and make you or anybody else here think otherwise.
Yet I would like to ask you what is the basis for your belief?
Is it religious or do you truely believe that it's scientific?
The Discovery Institute claims to be doing science. They claim that ID is a theory.
This is something that is demonstrable.
Either something is a valid theory or it's not.
Dembski's "Explantory Filter" is either a mathematical method of detecting whether or not a particular thing is the product of design, or it's not.
This claim (specifically, Dembski's maths) is demonstrable.
If somebody has objections to Evolution on religious grounds then that's their business.
Your religious beliefs are your own.
If somebody wants to believe in the press releases made by the Discovery Institute because of philosophical reasons then...fine.
Your philosophical beliefs are your own.
Yet when somebody says "ID is science" or "ID is a scientific theory", then that is something that is demonstrable...scientifically.
Science (especially mathematics) belongs to everybody.
So far, all the Discovery Institute has is tons of money, tacit support from millions of Christians who just don't like 'Darwinism",
endless streams of press releases, non peer-reviewed books and some web-sites.
...And that's it.
The science is missing.
When the Discovery Institute claims to be doing science, they are...well...not exactly telling the truth.
So, I just don't see why a good Christian would buy into the whole ID thing.
I would hope that Christians everywhere would be the very first ones to call the Discovery Institute's bluff.
To their credit, some are.
Yet others...
P.S.
I would really appreciate it if readers did not take this post as some kind of insult or blasphemy. I don't want anybody to get defensive or angry.
I know that this is a very sensitive topic for some people.
I'll go back into 'lurk mode' now and give the regulars here the last word but I would be very interested in any reasoned responses.
Thanks for your hospitality.
Posted by: Cedric Katesby | Aug 24, 2007 8:13:15 AM
>>> Yet when somebody says "ID is science" or "ID is a scientific theory", then that is something that is demonstrable...scientifically.
...
The science is missing.
When the Discovery Institute claims to be doing science, they are...well...not exactly telling the truth.<<<
I haven't read all the comments above. But what's the commonly accepted definition for science, if there is a commonly accepted definition?
Then we just compare this commonly accepted definition of science with what the folks at Discovery Institute (or ID proponents elsewhere) are doing to see if they meet the definition of science or not.
If they are not, then your assertion is correct.
If they do meet the commonly-held definition of science, then your assertion is false.
Does that seem reasonable?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 24, 2007 3:25:44 PM
>>If a Christian, because of their interpretation of their faith believes in "X", but science says "actually it's Y",<<
The faith says: Human nature is fallen.
Science says: Actually, human nature is in open parabolic, or hyperbolic orbit.
The faith says: Our Rescuer Jesus is consubstantial with his Father.
Science says: Jesus is *combustable* with his Father.
The faith says: There is one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.
Science says: There are two +/- 0.17(sys) +/- 0.14(stat), holy, catholic, apostolic churches.
Ohmygaw, whatever shall I do? Shall I re-interpret the faith to accommodate? Shall I compartemtalize? Or, shall I simply throw out the X's and keep the Y's?
----
Cedric,
We appreciate your humility and forthrightness here. I do very best to respond to you in kind, so I know you will not take me as insulting or persecuting you, either. And in truth I am not.
>>"...just above here, I expressed myself about not believing in the descent of man from an animal."<<
>>Is it religious or do you truely believe that it's scientific?<<
I think that I, and Jim Kushiner, and others posting here, have outlined our belifs substantially enough that an uninformed reader would be able to follow our reasoning. Yet you still don't know whether we gave you "scientific" stuff or "religious" stuff or some of both.
And does it make a difference? If I make a case for some purported fact, and then I and add as a footnote, "By the way, that was X" (where X is either science or religion), the footnote CANNOT POSSIBLY alter the force or the validity of what I was trying to say. Why not? Because the whole content was already there before the footnote came along. That would be like if Leo Tolstoy got to the last page of writing *War and Peace*, and then he added, "By the way, that was novel" - to allay the confusion of any readers who mistakenly thought it was the classified section of a newspaper, who were not able to enjoy it on that account. The point is, Tolstoy would not have to do such a thing. Readers would know what it is by looking at it. Likewise with the arguments that you see on this blog.
Your problem is, "religious" to you is a disqualifier that trumps any validity that an argument might have on its own terms.
In other words, you make yourself do the following:
* First, look at the argument and determing whether it's a good argument or not.
* Second, inquire INDEPENDENTLY whether the goodness of that argument was RELIGIOUS.
* Third, if it was religious, that makes it unfit to be believed in as the truth, so you must contort yourself to turn off your brain to the goodness of the argument.
>>Your religious beliefs are your own.<<
This is the cause of the said contortions.
You have a philosophy of subjectivity about religious beliefs. A philosophy of objectivity about religious beliefs is the superior philosophy. But many people (myself included) who begin in your shoes have an initial hard time understanding the latter position. That's not your fault.
>>When the Discovery Institute claims to be doing science, they are...well...not exactly telling the truth.
So, I just don't see why a good Christian would buy into the whole ID thing.<<
Is DI a deceiver? Let's try to put our character flaws in the proper order.
Here are claims of DECEPTION:
* Medical quackery
* That a solar eclipse was done at the bidding of the chief of your primitive tribe (when in fact it was predicted by his secret class of astronomer-priests - all in order to keep the igorant peasants in worship of him)
Here are claims that are not deception, but yet, are strictly speaking false, in a "not quite" sense:
* Tomato is a vegetable
* The National Enquirer is a newspaper
* 15-year-olds are children
* The works of Arnold Shoenberg are music
Which category is appropriate for "ID is science"? (I'm giving you the benifit of the doubt that the claims made by ID are not, strictly speaking, to be classified as scientific, which you haven't proven, but let that pass, it's reasonable enough. You are just using your "religious disqualifier" rather than a well-defined methodology of what constitutes a "theory" in the scientists' sense.)
The answer depends on just one thing: whether ID reasonable enough to be possibly true. Which, as I've said before, has nothing to do whith whether it's science or non-science.
Suppose the claims they put forward are reasonable enough to be possible true. In that case, I don't feel much compelled to call the bluff of adults who decieve children by calling tomatos "vegetables" - or musicians who deceive the listening public by calling modern music "music" - or people with reasoned philosophical claims about darwinism who call it "science". See?
Cedric, it's been good and exciting having you on board here. Perhaps we are all tired. :) But we exist on the web for this purpose. If you ever come back and want to hear some more reasoned responses, if I can be of service to you, my email address is under my every post (as for all of us)... Good talking with you.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 24, 2007 4:36:56 PM
I'm sure James can provide a better definition but I'll bite:
Science is dedicated to the testing of observable Truth. The currently accepted Scientific Method is to propose an idea, test that idea, and then report the results of that testing. Testing need not have a control as is usually assumed (Archeology). Nor do any of the steps have to be performed by the same person or group. That is A can propose and B can test.
Now to respond to Cedric, if there is a proposal (Evolution) and ID proposes tests, such as Behe's current mathematical models (be they correct or not), then he has done science.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 24, 2007 5:46:49 PM
Dear Clifford,
Sorry, but your swipe at Arnold Schoenberg is off target. I actualy once presented a paper at an academic conference on Schoenberg's "Moses und Aron" and Hindemith's "Mathis der Maler" as presenting two contrasting visions from Weimar Germany of the role of the artist in society. Much of Schoenberg's music is not to my taste, but even in a 12-tone idiom he produced some very listenable works. I once heard a brilliant broadcast performance of his Piano Concerto that clearly showed it to be a successor of the two by Brahms. And try giving a listen to his choral work "Friede auf Erden" (Peace on Earth).
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 25, 2007 7:01:09 AM
Your odds with Schoenberg are better than with Webern but far too much of his talent was wasted. Your odds are better still with anyone prior to the 20th century.
Posted by: David Gray | Aug 25, 2007 7:08:27 AM
I'll take up Nick's gracious suggestion and offer my two bits' worth.
"Science" of course comes from the Latin "scientia" and originally means any organized and systematic discipline of study. In that sense, economics, history, the fine arts, and even theology constitute "sciences".
In the modern sense, "science" -- i.e. natural science -- refers to the systematic investigation of natural phenomena -- i.e., matter and energy. There currently is much dispute in the academic world as to whether the natural sciences do in fact have a distinct methodology, as opposed to a distinct subject matter, that distinguishes them from other disciplines. But, to assume a "yes" answer to that question, and what might be termed the "classical" model for the sake of simplicity, science is distinguished by a methodology that includes the following elements (this is not necessarily an exclusive or exhaustive list):
- A combination of inductive methods of gathering data and observations, and deductive methods of interpreting these according to established theories.
- Use of hypotheses, or provisional explanations of previously unexplained or insufficiently understood phenomena, and of theories as well-founded and verified explanatory ideational frameworks.
- use of hypotheses and theories to pose questions for investigation of unknown or unresolved problems. (Contrary to the "vulgar Baconianism" of many popular conceptions, science does not simply operate by empirical fact-gathering until theories are inductively derived from a sufficient mass of data. Rather, existing theories act as heuristics, or directive principles that both tell scientists what to look for, and how to interpret what they find.)
- A criterion of corroboration or "verisimilitude" (Karl Popper), in which theories receive increasing or decreasing degrees of substantiation from data.
- A criterion of "falsifiability", in which a theory also sets forward grounds on which it can be proven false, and tested accordingly by "crucial experiments" (Popper again).
This last point is very controversial. It is generally agreed that a theory can never be proven absolutely true -- the so-called "black swan" problem of perfect knowledge of all relevant instances. But it is hotly debated whether a theory can ever be proven absolutely false (Popper said yes, most oflks today would probably say no). It is therefore also hotly contested whether science in fact subscribes to any "falsifiability" principle. (Popper held that this principle was what demarcated science from pseudo-sciences such as astronomy, alchemy, and Freudian psycho-analysis. Late in his long life (he lived into his 90s) he became briefly invovled in a major controversy when he suggested that evolutionary theory was inherently tautological and did not meet the falsifiability criterion of true science. After a chorus of criticism he decided he was wrong. This in turn led anti-evolutionists to try to claim that Popper had somehow been brow-beaten or black-balled into his retraction -- a proposition ludicrous to anyone who knows what a curmudgeonly SOB Popper was. (Popper was so notorious for his tyrannical treatment of colleagues and graduate students that a standing joke in academia was that the correct title of Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies" was "The Open Society and One of its Enemies".)
On the other side, many people also have a misconception that a "theory" is simply a high-falutin' guess. On the contrary, theories are complex explanatory networks that operate at various levels. Some theories are highly specific -- e.g. a viral theory of cancer. Others, which might be terms "meta-theories", are global in scope; examples of these are atomic theory, Einsteinian relativity, and evolution. The latter cannot be simply refuted (hece the challenge to the "falsifiability" criterion of scientific theories) because they fucntion at a level far above immediate interaction with individual data, to organize all understanding in far more comprehensive ways. Abandonment of such meta-theories invovles a profound change in Weltanschauung (world view) by both science and culture as a whole.
With respect to the ID-evolution controversy, folks familiar with my posts on MC know that I take a critical view of both sides, but have serious doubts as to the claims of ID to be "science" in the modern sense. I think it is a metaphysical critique of science and scientific methodology rather than a scientific theory. As such, it is perfectly legitimate, since on the other side most proponents of evolution uncritically assume that natural science "proves" certain metaphysical propositions (e.g. that all evolutioanry occurrences are "random" in an ontological and teleological sense, as well as an imminent sense of statistical distribution or intentionality by the organisim in question).
The proponents of what is sometimes termed "scientism" make the totally illogical and illegitimate leap of thinking that because scientific methodology has proven extremely reliable and powerful within its particular context (the investigaiton of certain phenomena of matter and energy), that therefore that its methodology is ipso fact omnicompetent for all contexts, and that its own context is the only context that exists. In short, these proponents have incredibly naive views of epistemology, logic, and metaphysics. They may be right in dismissing ID as not being science; but they are blind to how much of what they assume is equally not scientific.
It should also be noted that, as a sideline consequence of scientism, apologists on both sides also seem to have trouble grasping the very elementary point that a bad scientific theory is still a genuine scientific theory. The criterion for a theory to be scientific cannot be the idiotic tautology that it is correct. The Ptolemaic astronomical system and phlogiston are but two examples of genuine scientific theories that were quite wrong.
I haven't read Behe's latest book, so I can't comment on it. But he may well have a scientific theory, even if it is a bad one. At least it deservves a hearing on those gorunds rather than being rejected out of hand.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 25, 2007 8:00:22 AM
"Sorry, but your swipe at Arnold Schoenberg is off target."
Agreed, even if only for the lovely "Transfigured Night."
Posted by: Rob Grano | Aug 25, 2007 10:41:42 AM
Let me say, as someone who's been ranting about the utter horribleness of ID creationism since the late 90s (as my poor wife just recently reminded me, after Wybrow's review set me off on another tirade), this is an impressively civil and openminded discussion here. Cool. A few things:
"So in this historic period, just how much evolution in homo sapiens has occurred? I don't know the definitive answer to this, but as far as I am aware, zilch. (And I would expect to have read about it were it otherwise.) . . . But wait a minute: 6,000 years, really, isn't that small a slice of a million, is it? . . . Is [167 'steps' over a million years] a large number of steps or is it large enough to bridge the huge gap between me and the ape?"
I have to mention - as far as we've been able to figure out - chimps and people shared a common ancestor somewhere around 6 million years ago, give or take. Go back a mere million years and you run into Homo erectus (and possibly some other fellow(s), but we dunno), who would appear to be either our ancestor or perhaps more along the lines of a great-aunt/uncle. You wouldn't want an erectus to marry your sister, but if one did, at least he'd be able to make rather complex (and pretty!) stone tools, probably hunt a wide range of animals fairly successfully, and possibly would have started mastering fire (or would, one day). Granted, he likely wouldn't have anything like modern human language, but honestly, when you think of some guys today, well . . . . : )
In terms of recent evolution - well, earlier this summer a Cornell study suggested that "natural selection has caused as much as 10 percent of the human genome to change in some populations in the last 15,000 to 100,000 years . . . the researchers identified 101 regions of the human genome with strong evidence of very recent selection. These regions include genes that control proteins that help muscle cells attach to surrounding cells (mutations of this gene lead to muscular dystrophy), receptors that relate to hearing, genes involved in nervous system function and development, immune system genes and heat shock genes. The gene scan method also detected selection in a gene involved in digestion of lactose, an enzyme found in milk." [that last confirming previous research, which JSB already mentioned]. Even earlier, last year "University of Chicago researchers found more than 700 genetic variants that may be targets of recent natural positive selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution . . . the top 16 categories that had the strongest signals, includ[ed] olfaction (the sense of smell), reproduction-related processes and carbohydrate metabolism, which includes the lactase gene. Other processes that show signals of selection include genes related to metabolism of foreign compounds, brain development and morphology.".
If we make the (wildly unwarranted, yes, but for convenience's sake) assumptions that 400 of these variants arose in the last 6,000 years, and that this rate's been constant, then we would end up with 400,000 steps between the common ancestor and us - and since chimps have been evolving as well, with an even greater difference between chimps and us. Since H. sapiens emerged maybe 250,000 years ago, then there would be 50,000 steps between erectus and more-or-less us (although there's a debate over how much more or less . . . ).
Of course, these specific calculations don't have any relation to reality (unless I just happened to make an incredibly lucky and unfounded guess), but I think it might give a better sense of what's being claimed then the 167 steps figure.
Both teams of scientists basically agree - up to a point - with Jim's analysis about "population[s] mov[ing] into a new environment". A lot of these changes seem to have to do with moving into new areas (skin color, etc.), adapting to vast dietary upheavals involved in agriculture, and possibly dealing with dense, settled agricultural populations (some of the immune system stuff may be the result of dealing with diseases that leaped from herds of animals (increasingly kept in large numbers & at close quarters) and spread through groups of people (who likewise increasingly lived in large numbers & close quarters) - although this isn't mentioned in either link). After all, that's what an increasing % of the world's population has been doing over the last 10,000 years. It's an excellent point.
The only problem would be to assume that this somehow doesn't count, or that we haven't faced changing environments (both naturally, and increasingly also as a result of culture, as here with the development of agriculture) for the last six million years. Especially recently, we've been able to turn much more to rapid cultural evolution - otherwise, we might have seen even more marked physical changes, and possibly 'racial' differences that were far more pronounced - but at the same time, over the last few million years, this growing ability has exerted its own selective pressures. (It's been suggested, for example, that the development of greater intelligence quickly became to some degree a self-sustaining process, as proto-humans got involved in a kind of arms race (although we would be talking both love and war, in a sense).
. . .. Anyway, whatever the exact % difference between humans and chimp DNA (it varies depending what exactly one looks at, but it's pretty small), it's possible that some of the steps involved on our end over the last 6 million years may have been small but rather mighty. A study that came out just this month finds that "The striking differences between humans and chimps aren’t so much in the genes we have, which are 99 percent the same, but in the way those genes are used . . . In two major traits that set humans apart from chimps and other primates – those involving brains and diet – gene regulation, the complex cross-talk that governs when genes are turned on and off, appears to be significantly different."
- re: Behe's major point about mutations and changes in protein folding (and the vast improbability of one leading to the other in most circumstances) - well, that already was seen as contradicted by existing evidence, but there's another paper out this month which (if, of course, it holds up) basically takes this argument, crumples it up, eats it, digests it, and - well, you get the picture. Basically, as part of ongoing research on the evolution of the glucocorticoid receptor over 400 million years, they reconstructed seven steps, the first two (iirc) of which were absolutely necessary for the next five, but didn't really affect anything else. The important point here (again, if this holds up) is that they've reconstructed how all these steps could have evolved, with each step being neutral or beneficial on its own - instead of having to all magically happen at once just perfectly right (an improbability that might reasonably be considered 'miraculous). Minus the (wonderful, important) details, Behe's making the same argument as the last go-round -
Behe: In order to evolve, this [thing] would have had to appear in its full, modern, and perfect essence, in one simultaneous and wildly improbable leap with no possible intermediaries of form or function! Evolution's just not up to snuff.
Biologists: Er, sorry, no - this is how [thing] could have evolved through successive, incremental steps, each functional (although sometimes for something else!) and providing an advantage. (And in many cases, with modern day analogues bolstering such reconstructions, and in any case showing that no, a less complex system could also work, if not as perfectly).
And of course, it's really the same as the last go-round -
Various, all together: But what good is half an eye?!
Reply: All the better to frantically flee the sudden shadow that might have been a predator swimming over you, ready to pounce! (With half an eye understood as a light sensitive spot, and later as a crude thing that could also detect motion, then maybe some vague sense of shape, etc . . .)
Of course, the differences are real, and very important; these are valid questions, and evolutionary biology has moved forward by (at least partly) answering them. And there's no reason why such questions couldn't be raised by folks doing quasi/fringe/non/etc.-science (although my impression is that this hasn't happened in this case - ie, the various lines of research refuting Behe's claims ('Black Box' and Edge-era) *seem* to be pre-existing, and not in response, but I can't say for sure.)
Posted by: Dan S. | Aug 25, 2007 2:51:47 PM
I hope I haven't had the last word here! - but if anyone's still reading, I hope you don't mind a bit more:
"E.g., we know for psychological reasons that human baby could not be raised by an animal mother; this would destroy the human; how then could a human descend from an animal? So a special creation is expected.
There's a theological issue here that I can't really speak to, but setting that aside (if I may), let me note that all known examples of this sort of thing involve modern human babies/young children mostly raised by wolves or dogs- but anyway, by animals that mostly aren't even apes. This isn't the kind of difference we really expect to have occurred - there wouldn't have been a chimp-like mother giving birth to a modern human baby, but far more gradual changes.
"I think [ID] is a metaphysical critique of science and scientific methodology rather than a scientific theory. As such, it is perfectly legitimate, since on the other side most proponents of evolution uncritically assume that natural science "proves" certain metaphysical propositions . . ."
I'm neither the clearest nor most succinct thinker, and really trying to address this would probably take pages and pages of mind-numbing and confused babbling. But short version, I think we really have to pay attention to whether things stay in the appropriate domain. Scientism held and understood as a metaphysical commitment may be judged simplistic, deeply confused, horribly wrong - but it's not in the wrong place, so to speak. Same with attempts to take religious beliefs/practices as scientific data, and explain them using science - might be judged unproductive or unwelcome, but it's science on its own turf. Someone who holds scientism as a specifically scientific belief, on the other hand, is making the ideological equivalent of a category error - or something.
A religious critique of 'scientism,' or metaphysical/philosophical naturalism more generally - I might disagree, but it's certainly appropriate. Even "a metaphysical critique of science and scientific methodology" seems fine, as a metaphysical critique - pointing out, for example, that the various assumptions - for example, that mutations are 'random' (like 'theory', you shouldn't be read as everyday English; this 'random' is completely governed by physical laws), which given our knowledge is on par with saying that chemical reactions are non-intentional - are just that. The issue is that the ID movement hasn't contented itself with that, but has made an impressive attempt to invade science - specifically, to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.."
This also speaks to GL's question to Cedric - basically, 'why are you getting all upset? You must think they have a point!' The folks on '- sigh - this side aren't afraid of ID creationism's stunning scientific insight - which, from all we can see, is on a par with astrology or belief in vampires (and I'm stressing the the ID and scientific bits to try to make clear that this is what's being compared; as you know, saying that ID is garbage pseudo-science isn't at all the same as saying religious belief is garbage). We're afraid that ID creationism as a cultural/legal/political movement is going to cause even greater damage to science education. A Lysenkoist-like purge of American scientists at the hands of ID-supporting politicians that leads to the gross stagnation of progress - as happened with Soviet agriculture - that seems wildly unlikely (though granted, perhaps a little bit less so these days, given claims from gov't scientists about their treatment re: global warming, endangered species, etc.). But it doesn't take anything at all like that. All it needs is to keep the teaching of modern biology in (mostly) high school at its current largely dismal level (partly though not entirely the result of previous creationisms), and to further inculcate religious fear, hatred, or just mislead dismissal of evolutionary biology, even at the college level. The best analogy I've ever seen (wish I could remember where!) compared it to Olympic sports - only a very few people from each country make it to the Olympics, but they arise from a vast pyramid of people, ever more at each level, until you get down to the vast base of folks in, say, high school track and field. If most schools dropped their track and field programs, or had only the most perfunctory programs, we'd still have some folks who found their way into the upper levels, but . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | Aug 25, 2007 8:44:25 PM
This also speaks to GL's question to Cedric - basically, 'why are you getting all upset? You must think they have a point!' The folks on '- sigh - this side aren't afraid of ID creationism's stunning scientific insight - which, from all we can see, is on a par with astrology or belief in vampires (and I'm stressing the the ID and scientific bits to try to make clear that this is what's being compared; as you know, saying that ID is garbage pseudo-science isn't at all the same as saying religious belief is garbage). We're afraid that ID creationism as a cultural/legal/political movement is going to cause even greater damage to science education.
So like Pharaoh, are you proposing that ID should be killed in the cradle lest it prove a threat to "real" science. And how does this differ from what the Catholic Church is accused of doing to Galileo? If you oppose high schoolers being taught ID, I can accept that -- though even here I doubt the merits of high schoolers not being told of the flaws in neo-Darwinism which ID theory exposes. Do you also oppose university professors (men and women with PhDs) researching and teaching their adult students about it? So much for free speech, academic freedom, and democracy. That apparently all gets thrown out the window if it threatens the citadel of neo-Darwinists.
Again, I have no dog in the fight over ID, but I do believe its proponents should be able to research and teach at the college level their theory. Call me a liberal, but I believe in free speech and academic freedom.
Posted by: GL | Aug 25, 2007 9:05:46 PM
"Again, I have no dog in the fight over ID
Although if you get one, make sure not to buy it from Michael Vicks . . . .
Sorry, that's all I can manage right now, at least without more sleep. (Although I should stress that I certainly wouldn't want to see - for example - Behe tried, forced to recant, placed under house arrest, and his offending works banned; indeed, I'd have to oppose such actions, which luckily have no chance of happening. Nor would I even want to see him being not allowed to teach, losing tenure or getting fired from Lehigh - and again, there doesn't seem to be any risk of this - though his department's onlinedisclaimer seems appropriate, more or less.)
Perhaps the Mosaicide/Galileo references are a bit overblown?
"Call me a liberal"
Ok - Liberal!
Sorry. Getting rather punchy. More tomorrow, maybe. Well, today, I guess, since it's an hour ahead of the comment's timestamp over here . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | Aug 25, 2007 11:56:33 PM
Friends,
Thanks incedentally for your commonts on Shoenberg... he's just more than I understand. Well, now I know that normal people actually and frequently like him. That must count for something. Glad to see you here, James.
---
Last time I checked, there was no natural history in the creeds.
"...born of the Virgin Mary, and born therefore of a monkey, suffered under Pontius Pilate..."
or "...not born of a monkey..."
---
Related to the above: If Mr. Lewis doesn't mind, I'll add a character to *The Great Divorce.* He built a creation museum on earth. When he gets off the bus in Heavenly country, an angel speaks to him like this:
GHOST: Ah. Now it is time to receive my reward for bearing all this shame from my fellow men. I would like to finally hear the truth behind these creation matters.
ANGEL: That truth? Oh. I'll tell you. I don't know.
GHOST: What?!
ANGEL: Well, I could find it out. If you need it. It would certainly be easy to find it out. It's right at our fingertips of course. But - as you'll see - there's just never a dull enough moment up here. That's why nobody knows, you see.
GHOST: Oh dear. Don't tell me those scientists have won. But it couldn't be, it couldn't be. If man descended from an animal, then we men are automatons, the spiritual world would be false and we wouldn't be here to see it! There, that settles it. Perfectly clear. Isn't it?
ANGEL: Perhaps if we weren't talking about it, I would be showing you the way up the mountains...
---
Dan S.,
>>let me note that all known examples of this sort of thing involve modern human babies/young children mostly raised by wolves or dogs-<<
So you've refuted me with "I don't know." That's all right. Ethan C. once refuted me with a wheelbarrow and chickens... (except that Ethan stood a chance of being right on that particular point...)
Those wolf-babies didn't do such a bad job establishing the Roman Empire anyway. So I guess you can get away with animal-babies when the animal is a pre-human ape, likely without modern language, but at least who makes pretty stone tools, probably hunts and possibly controls fire. And - best of all - it sure darn does *look* like me with its homonoid skeletion. Just what a boy needs in a father, isn't it? Because of those fatherly qualities in our ancestors, that's why made it to the moon. Yeah, I wouldn't let my sister marry one either.
Or, maybe *that's* why the Roman Empire was so morally filthy. I fear for the moon.
---
Speaking of how much % of DNA we share with chimpanzees, I've heard that men and male chimps, also women and female chimps, have more DNA in common than men and women. This should silence the radical egalitarian feminists.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 26, 2007 2:58:43 AM
Just so I can get this clear, what makes neo-Darwinists' claims that evolution explains the irreducible complexities which Behe and others have identified any more scientific than his claim that an intelligent designer explains them? What *evidence* do neo-Darwinists have that these complex systems evolved?
Is there evidence for evolution? Yes. Does that *evidence* explain *all* the known facts? No. Natural selection and random mutations serve as the "god in the gaps" to explain phenomenon for which the neo-Darwinists *lack* evidence in the exact same way that they claim God serves as the "god in the gaps" for ID proponents? If both sides were honest, they would both admit that as to those phenomenon which ID proponents highlight, no hard evidence exists to support either side's theory. But then where would we get the heated polemics and pontifications.
Posted by: GL | Aug 26, 2007 8:00:06 AM
Just popping in for a second, but - GL, you might be interested in Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.
Popping out again, back later.
Posted by: Dan S. | Aug 26, 2007 9:19:06 AM
About *The Great Divorce* again: Same comments apply to the Kenneth R. Miller type. This sort of modernist-Christian is largely in the right, strictly speaking, about natural history factoids. Meanwhile God only knows if he's doing Christianity any bigger favor than his creation-museum-building counterpart. Seems to me they are both doing Scientism the same favor, however.
---
Boy, this sure is a hot thread. One thing I appreciate here. When it comes to evidence vs. speculations, people are - yes! - at least saying which is which. Put the word "possibly" before you say anything about if H. erectus controls fire [and incidentally, of all the things that make men importantly different from animals, I confess I don't see what you can say about the importance of fire in this regard]. Put up some arithmatic that would be devestating, but then follow it up with, "I know this guesstimate could be attacked on multiple grounds."
This is good. It's equally possible for both sides to fail to do this.
Only problem: Just *saying* it ain't good enough.
If things are "possibly," even "probably," then one should be perfectly confortable with people not believing it. But, somehow, that's the *opposite* of the common definition of "science education." When a poll says, "x% of Americans do not believe y," people call it the failure of science education.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 26, 2007 2:01:51 PM
So like Pharaoh, are you proposing that ID should be killed in the cradle lest it prove a threat to "real" science. And how does this differ from what the Catholic Church is accused of doing to Galileo?
Galileo was opposed by secular scientists of his day: men who deserved the title scientist in their day as much as any does in ours (however grotesquely misguided).
Galileo's chief mistake with regard to the Catholic Church was to draw conclusions from his research in the area of biblical interpretation. BTW, you do know what the CC did to Galileo? Mutatis mutandis, about the same as Behe's university has done to him.
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 26, 2007 8:25:29 PM
Bonobo,
Note the words I used: "what the Catholic Church is accused of doing to Galileo."
Posted by: GL | Aug 26, 2007 8:34:43 PM
True. All depends what accusation you meant :)
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 26, 2007 9:41:37 PM
I just have a few minutes - and trying to comment quickly tends to go all horribly wrong for me, and isn't enough time to properly address or even acknowledge and of the interesting remarks above, but:
Clifford - bit confused about the fire comment - slow today - you're stressing the importance of fire, or?
And H. erectus as prehuman ape - the problem is that words have such different connotations. The way science looks at it, we're apes in some sense (also humans, and quite remarkable in many ways), as well as mammals and animals - all an uncontroversial matter of classification. Say that in a different context, and they can be heard as a horrifying denial of morality, meaning, and purpose. If we found some remnant population of H. erectus, it seems rather unlikely that most folks would regard them as "apes," given what we can guess of their nature - although almost certainly not as fully "human". And erectus wouldn't be given birth to a modern human baby either; if they were on the line of descent to us, there still seems to have been several 100,000s of years - possibly over half a million - of perhaps two or more species that for simplicity's sake could be lumped together as 'archaic Homo before we get to somebody that's anatomically recognizable as a fully modern human - and we don't know for sure if that person's brain was quite the same as ours.
Erectus does seem to have been pretty similar to us below the neck, though - you're right about that.
About uncertainty - really, that's a good part of what science is, a highly formalized and institutionalized set of methods for keeping uncertainty, in a sense; also for countering our tendencies to see what we want, to take the easy way out, to ignore unpleasant data, to unknowingly fall victim to a hundred kinds of cognitive bias, etc. It's the empire of error bars. Not perfect, but extremely useful. On the other hand, in some ways, ID is all about taking the easy way out . . .
"When a poll says, "x% of Americans do not believe y," people call it the failure of science education.
If a poll said that 100% of American said they believed in, say, evolution, it's quite possible that that would be a failure of science education. (You didn't phrase it with the 'in', but that's how it's always phrased. People shouldn't be believing in evolution, for example, they should know what it is, why it's considered the cornerstone of the life sciences, why it's regarded as such a tremendously successful and powerful explanation. But not one that's perfect, unchangeable, or that explains everything - in other words, it's just like every other scientific theory, like gravity or germ theory.
A lot of the unknown gets ironed out in popular accounts, and for decades people have been criticizing this, pointing out that it makes the incredibly exciting enterprise of scientific discovery sound like merely the memorization of long-done accomplishments of famous men. But all of this is often wildly foreign to some other ways of thinking. It's easy to think, well, why should I believe this, it's only a probably! But it's not about faith, about believing - it's more about a hierarchy of likelihood, ranging from things are very tentative to things that are very well supported, built on a mountain of evidence and observations, having survived a constant series of tests and having proved their worth in understanding new things about the world - but even here, not absolutely certain . . . If religion is in some ways an arrow going straight to a center, science is more of a constant circling, a constant series of course corrections that gets ever closer, but never quite reaches (although in some ways that also characterizes religion, I think, but those ways are very, very different.)
GL: "what makes neo-Darwinists' claims that evolution explains the irreducible complexities which Behe and others have identified any more scientific than his claim that an intelligent designer explains them?"
This is a very good question and one that, I think, James Altena probably could give a much better answer to - but my rushed and extremely simplistic reply would be that this specific ID claim simply isn't scientific - it's not even a matter of more or less. It's like saying 'abracadabra!". There's no there there. It's as if the theory of evolution was: special creation doesn't explain biodiversity, instead "Evolution" explains it - with "Evolution" almost totally unspecified - nothing about how it could work, what testable predictions could be drawn from it, etc., etc.. Or alternately: imagine that there was a movement arguing that our understanding of weather was warped by runaway materialism, enforced by an oppresive Bjerknesist scientific establishment, which insisted that weather could only be scientifically understood within natural laws. They insisted, for example, that all this stuff about "low pressure systems" and such like, while ok up to a point, is far from sufficient, there were things that we couldn't completely explain at the moment, that there were gaps in the theory . . . and that that these gaps should be filled by - indeed, they proved - Intelligent Thundering - that there was an unspecified Intelligent Thunder (maybe aliens, or 'Gaia' - (but not Zeus, why on earth would you think that?!) who made storms, in some completely unspecified manner, etc.
Scientific? Hmm.
There are other issues here: irreducible complexity, for example, doesn't seem to work, but that would require a lot more typing . . . And of course, not even the most doctrinaire evolutionary biologist imagines that random mutation and natural selection alone are anything like the whole story, but recognizes a number of other things involved in evolution (genetic drift, etc.), and would be rather unsurprised to find even more. But regardless, these are in the same category as the various natural laws and forces that meteorologists use to understand and predict weather, or engineers the behavior of structures, or chemists the nature of chemical reactions, or astronomers the movements of planets, or etc. There are countless cases where it's going to turn out that we didn't get everything quite right, and new discoveries that will make us come up with bigger and broader explanations - but it does no-one any favors to insist on some sort of quasi-paganism (I don't understand this natural phenomena, so it must be a god) tarted up in science drag . . .
Whether there's something else (Something Else) besides natural laws and all is an entirely different question, and one that isn't in science's job description. If one is ok with a world where storms & lightning, earthquakes, hurricanes, and all are the result of natural laws - whether or not there's a Natural Lawgiver - then evolution shouldn't be a problem, unless it stops being supported by the evidence (or is revealed as more limited than previously thought). Among a whole host of other claims, ID says it shows this. The rest of the scientific community doesn't agree. Doesn't mean they're wrong about that - but then one should have a reason for thinking that they're on the right track on those genuinely scientific questions. And one should realize that they don't offer any competing scientific explanation.
Bonobo writes:"BTW, you do know what the CC did to Galileo? Mutatis mutandis, about the same as Behe's university has done to him.
Er . . . they put up a notice on St. Peter's saying that they respect Galileo's rights to his views, but certainly don't endorse them?
Posted by: Dan S. | Aug 26, 2007 10:17:16 PM
Dan,
I want to take some time to understand you. Maybe tomorrow night or the day after, I can get back.
Let's forget my comment about fire since it was just a parenthetical, and more important things are brought up, and effort is limited.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 27, 2007 1:11:58 AM
All of this is just incredibly stupid and tiresome. Science should not presume to make epistemological or metaphysical claims. Religion should not presume to make scientific claims. The debate today is really about each side trying to claim supremacy in the other's field. The facts of evolution are just the facts of evolution. They say nothing at all about God, human teleology or any other area which is the proper realm of both philosophy and theology. The debate about intelligent design, the implacable animosity of many evolutionists towards religious belief of any sort, actually says more about the participants in the debate than it does about the validity of the claims on either side.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 27, 2007 6:31:44 AM
Dan S,
My point about Galileo wasn't of great weight, but let's be clear about what I said. "Mutatis mutandis" can be roughly translated "elsewhere at the time, he'd've been dead". For calling the local monarch a fool, for one.
Posted by: bonobo | Aug 27, 2007 9:12:25 AM
>>All of this is just incredibly stupid and tiresome. Science should not presume to make epistemological or metaphysical claims. Religion should not presume to make scientific claims. The debate today is really about each side trying to claim supremacy in the other's field. The facts of evolution are just the facts of evolution. They say nothing at all about God, human teleology or any other area which is the proper realm of both philosophy and theology.<<
Right on, Stuart. If I have any support for ID, it's only to answer, "Just what are the facts of evolution?"
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 27, 2007 1:31:26 PM
>>then evolution shouldn't be a problem, unless it stops being supported by the evidence (or is revealed as more limited than previously thought).<<
Dan S., yes, that's exactly the right question. Though certain other things you've said strike me as urgently problematic, I think we basically want the same thing.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Aug 27, 2007 1:38:46 PM
Okay Dan, forgive me for calling you "urgently problematic." That resulted from my initial misunderstanding while I was digesting your post. It's not true. I retract my hasty words.
So I think what you are saying is: Evolution is an "organizing principle." I've only heard this *twice* (could you tell me more about it?), and it seems to mean, we don't really know *anything* positive about what connects one line of fossils to another, but we see this pattern in the fossils and it organizes our thinking. I actually like that position. It's a good fallback. I'd like to see it carried all the way to its logical conclusion.
Now, some minor comments within that:
>>It's easy to think, well, why should I believe th