September 9, 2005
THAT ONE'S GONNA LEAVE A MARK... (via Timothy Goddard):
Why Do We Invoke Darwin?: Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology (Philip S. Skell, 8/29/05, The Scientist)
Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils - even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures - but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000. "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one." [...]
Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.
They don't comprehend the difference between evolution and Darwinism and then they wonder why even real scientists don't take them seriously? And the paradigm keeps slipping away....
MORE:
-The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr: The preeminent biologist, who just turned 100, reflects on his prolific career and the history, philosophy and future of his field On July 5, renowned evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr celebrated his 100th birthday. He also recently finished writing his 25th book, What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline [Cambridge University Press, in press]. A symposium in Mayr's honor was held at Harvard University on May 10. Scientific American editor and columnist Steve Mirsky attended the symposium and wrote about it for the upcoming August issue. On May 15, Mirsky, Brazilian journalist Claudio Angelo and Angelo's colleague Marcelo Leite visited Mayr at his apartment in Bedford, Mass. (Scientific American, 7/06/04)
Claudio Angelo: What is the book about?Posted by Orrin Judd at September 9, 2005 12:00 AMErnst Mayr: What the book is about. (Laughs.) Primarily to show, and you will think that this doesn't need showing, but lots of people would disagree with you. To show that biology is an autonomous science and should not be mixed up with physics. That's my message. And I show it in about 12 chapters. And, as another fact, when people ask me what is really your field, and 50 years or 60 years ago, without hesitation I would have said I'm an ornithologist. Forty years ago I would have said, I'm an evolutionist. And a little later I would still say I'm an evolutionist, but I would also say I'm an historian of biology. And the last 20 years, I love to answer, I'm a philosopher of biology. And, as a matter of fact, and that is perhaps something I can brag about, I have gotten honorary degrees for my work in ornithology from two universities, in evolution, in systematics, in history of biology and in philosophy of biology. Two honorary degrees from philosophy departments.
Steve Mirsky: And the philosophical basis for physics versus biology is what you examine in the book?
EM: I show first in the first chapter and in some chapters that follow later on, I show that biology is as serious, honest, legitimate a science as the physical sciences. All the occult stuff that used to be mixed in with philosophy of biology, like vitalism and teleology-Kant after all, when he wanted to describe biology, he put it all on teleology, just to give an example-all this sort of funny business I show is out. Biology has exactly the same hard-nosed basis as the physical sciences, consisting of the natural laws. The natural laws apply to biology just as much as they do to the physical sciences. But the people who compare the two, or who, like some philosophers, put in biology with physical sciences, they leave out a lot of things. And the minute you include those, you can see clearly that biology is not the same sort of thing as the physical sciences. And I cannot give a long lecture now on that subject, that's what the book is for.
I'll give you an example. In principle, biology differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don't know exceptions so I think it's probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
Now then you can say, how can you have theories in biology if you don't have laws on which to base them? Well, in biology your theories are based on something else. They're based on concepts. Like the concept of natural selection forms the basis of, practically the most important basis of, evolutionary biology. You go to ecology and you get concepts like competition or resources, ecology is just full of concepts. And those concepts are the basis of all the theories in ecology. Not the physical laws, they're not the basis. They are of course ultimately the basis, but not directly, of ecology. And so on and so forth. And so that's what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
Jeez not one Darwinist took the bait.
What, does Creeper work for FEMA or something?
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at September 9, 2005 12:57 AMJim:
Right, but don't think for a moment our resident darwinists have been shaken one bit by this. It's just that last night they were all meeting to plan their public campaign to keep Orrin Judd out of the nation's science classrooms. They've been delayed because they can't agree on what classrooms he should be in instead.
Posted by: Peter B at September 9, 2005 5:43 AMPeter B: Or it's like Harry's contention that any engineer who doesn't believe in the Second Law of Thermodnamics shouldn't be allowed to practice, even if it doesn't make any difference in his day to day activity.
On the third hand, I'm an engineer who believes in the Second Law, but it has never made any difference in my practice.
Posted by: jd watson at September 9, 2005 6:27 AMI don't get why this article should offend people who believe in natural selection (thats "Darwinism" for y'all out there who fancy derrogatory labels). Did all the "creationists" read the last paragraph of the second article?
Real scientists don't take the "Darwinists" seriously? That's laughable.
I hope I'm not the first to inform the "creationists" that there has been a lot of expansion of the ideas of natural selection that were first laid out by Darwin; actually the principles that Darwin used to state his case for Natural Selection as a means to drive evolution were very simple; and STRANGELY ENOUGH, I have yet to hear one person bring them up on this site and criticize Darwin's actual points.
I think OJ would rather take someone elses word in criticism than actually work it out for himself. Howabout it, OJ, can you state to me your problems with the postulates of Darwin, without giving me a link to someone else who does?
Jude:
Sure. Selection pressure doesn't function at anything like the level Darwin required of it to make his theory work. That's why species vary within themselves rather than speciating into new ones.
Darwin observed that local farmers could breed a bunch of different types of cows, pigs, sheep, etc., noticed that thewre were different kinds of finches on the Galapagos and had the brilliant insight that species develop variations on their own as well as when intelligently designed. He then made a rational leap that ultimately proved quite wrong--assuming that such variation within species might eventually lead to speciation or major morphological change. He failed to recognize that the cows, sheep, and pigs stayed cows, sheep, and pigs, just as the finches stayed finches regardless of the selection practiced upon them in nature or in the lab.
Subsequent observation and experimentation demonstrates that he was wrong, which is why his disciples are always ready to create or fall for any hoax that comes down the pike, from Piltdown Man to Peppered Moths to Archaeopteryx. It's also why the theory is useless to practical science, though a fine philosophy for those who fear a world in which God, Free Will, and Evil exist. It especially appeals to white male Amer-Europeans, because it flatters them.
Posted by: oj at September 9, 2005 9:12 AMMr. Judd:
Perhaps you could explain, then, how it is that, say, birds came about.
Or why penguins are the way they are.
Or, for that matter, how it is they got to be where they are.
Anon:
No. Darwinism fails of itself as science. There is no need for those who point that out to explain how evolution actually works.
Posted by: oj at September 9, 2005 12:29 PMYou still havent explained anything yet, Judd. I'm still waiting. Oh, and by the way, there is some research going on in California where scientists have found two species of walking sticks being formed from one, due to geographic isolation of one of the new species (you should try to google that one).
You really have never taken the time to learn about Darwin, have you, and you trash his name every day. Wow.
Wow. The word decadent was invented just for people to whom it doesn't even occur that we could be right and our enemies could be wrong.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 9, 2005 2:07 PMTwo species of walking sticks out of...(cue orchestra) one species of walking stick? Game's up, eh Orrin?
Wow, anon. Morality and religion disposed of in four sentences. You're good.
Posted by: Peter B at September 9, 2005 2:11 PMMeanwhile, the walking sticks interbreed with no trouble and another example bites the dust.
Posted by: oj at September 9, 2005 2:12 PMMr. Judd:
Yes, there is a need to provide an explantion.
Naturalistic evolution poses the process by which penguins came to be.
Unless you can demonstrate how it is wrong, then the explanation stands.
Posted by: Anon at September 10, 2005 8:30 AMAnon:
No, that's not actually how science works (but then one wouldn't expect a Darwinist to grasp the scientific method). That your theory is wrong is sufficient to defeat it even if no one knows yet what's right.
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2005 8:34 AM"That your theory is wrong is sufficient to defeat it even if no one knows yet what's right."
But that's not what Anon said:
"Unless you can demonstrate how it is wrong, then the explanation stands."
Saying "your theory is wrong" is certainly not sufficient. You don't need to have an alternate explanation, but you do need to have a genuine challenge.
Posted by: creeper at September 10, 2005 9:43 AMcreeper:
Yes, it's wrong, as science, because it doesn't explain scientifically how penguins came about. It does explain it philosophically as a faith should. It's easy enough to offer an equally compelling alternative at that level--God Created them. I don't pretend that's science though.
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2005 9:50 AMOrrin,
"Yes, it's wrong, as science, because it doesn't explain scientifically how penguins came about."
Which part of the penguin's evolution does the theory of evolution not explain? How is the penguin at adds with the theory of evolution?
Posted by: creeper at September 10, 2005 10:06 AMNone.
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2005 10:12 AMOrrin, you really should read up on the theory of evolution one of these days. You spend so much time arguing against it, and at the same time you make it obvious that you know next to nothing about it and are highly misinformed. Of course the theory of evolution explains the penguin, and the subject has been studied at great length.
Unabashedly making clear that you know so little about the subject does very little to bolster your case, and in my opinion is damaging to your credibility. The fact that you simply delete or alter comments that disagree with you make it clear that you are hopelessly out of your depth.
At which point, why not either walk away from the subject... or examine your thoughts and consider changing your mind?
Posted by: creeper at September 10, 2005 10:31 AMYes, I said "none". All that's at issue here is which version of evolution one believes in: ID, Darwinism, or Creationism
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2005 10:42 AM"All that's at issue here is which version of evolution one believes in: ID, Darwinism, or Creationism"
Maybe that's also at issue, but to claim that the theory of evolution doesn't explain the penguin is simply false. If you wish to take issue with the explanation, then bring it on; but don't pretend that it doesn't exist.
Posted by: creeper at September 10, 2005 10:59 AMAnd where in the theory of evolution do we find the philosophical explanation for the penguin?
Posted by: creeper at September 10, 2005 11:00 AMEvolution is a truism. Darwinism exists because he lived in an evolutionist culture. But Darwinism does nothing to explain evolution scientifically.
It is a philosophy which allows adherents to deny God and His consequences and pretend Nature itself suffices to make the penguin.
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2005 11:09 AMThe theory of evolution does explain evolution scientifically; your reluctance to engage it in any honest fashion speaks volumes.
Posted by: creeper at September 10, 2005 11:41 AMMy faith teaches me to believe in evolution, just not Darwinism. Happily, the scientific method likewise requires that we be skeptical of Darwinism. Thus are Judeo-Christianity and reason reconciled in opposition to your faith.
Your refusal to present any contemporaneous observation, evidence or experimentation in support of Darwinism gives away the game. But don't feel badly--if Mayr couldn't come up with any there was no way you were going to. Settle for faith, as he did--it suffices.
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2005 11:45 AM"My faith teaches me to believe in evolution, just not Darwinism."
IIRC, your personal faith teaches you to believe in creationism, because Genesis taken literally is not evolution; as a metaphor, maybe, but you prefer the literal interpretation.
"Happily, the scientific method likewise requires that we be skeptical of Darwinism. Thus are Judeo-Christianity and reason reconciled in opposition to your faith.
The scientific method does indeed welcome honest skepticism, but this has only served to strengthen and refine the theory of evolution over time, not weaken it. The arguments that at this time make up the scientific portion of the intelligent design argument are and have been engaged on proper terms.
A skeptical attitude being part of a scientific approach does not mean that reason opposes the theory of evolution and that the theory of evolution therefore is somehow not reason; on the contrary, a scientific approach requires that both sides make good use of reason.
"Your refusal to present any contemporaneous observation, evidence or experimentation in support of Darwinism gives away the game."
I did not refuse to do so at all; I have presented them, as well as linked to more, as well as drawn your attention to rather easy methods of finding many more. Your refusal to accept any of them without giving any reason why does give away your game, namely that you can not find a genuine challenge and must resort to unsubstantiated and indefensible claims.
"But don't feel badly--if Mayr couldn't come up with any there was no way you were going to. Settle for faith, as he did--it suffices."
Instead of misreading the poor man, you could do him a tremendous favor by actually reading his books sometimes. Mayr said that instead of laws in biology there were concepts; that alone does not make it not a science. And even if experimentation is by definition and in the absence of time machines an inappropriate method to shed light on events that happened long ago, he did say that observation and testing of hypotheses are very clear part of the methodology of evolutionary biology.
For some strange reason you saw fit to delete this portion from one of my comments earlier today, even though this was contained in an article that you yourself had linked to:
During [the past century], a pronounced change in the methodology of biology took place. This transformation was not caused exclusively by Darwin, but it was greatly strengthened by developments in evolutionary biology. Observation, comparison and classification, as well as the testing of competing became the methods of evolutionary biology, outweighing experimentation.Posted by: creeper at September 10, 2005 12:20 PM
Creationism, Intelligent Design and Darwinism are all just versions of evolution and the fact that all are compatible with it simply demonstrates that we still know nothing of the processes that drive it. That explains your failure and Mayr's admission that your task is impossible. As you note in that quote, rather than even attempt to pretend that Darwinism is scientific, "evolutionary biology" just created its own standards (strange that you think being forced to dump the scientific method helps your case).
Darwinism is a concept in precisely the same way Creationism and I.D. are. Adherents of Darwinism and I.D. do make pretenses to science, but aren't taken seriously. Creationists are generally more honest that their theory is simple faith, but that's merely a function of the recognition that reason is subsidiary to faith, a recognition Rationalists are incapable of
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2005 12:28 PM