Posthuman Blues

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant

"'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.' You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called 'The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment' in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom." (Via Sauceruney.)

33 comments:

razorsmile said...: God, vastly superhuman intelligence running us in a matter simulator; interchangeable as far as I'm concerned.; 7:19 PM
razorsmile said...: Agreed. The atheist hordes need to back the fack up :D; 9:34 PM
Mac said...: If someone asks, I tell them "agnostic." Not only is it essentially accurate, it usually scares them off and I don't have to talk with them again. You have to remember: I live a stone's throw away from Kansas.; 10:15 PM
Mac said...: "Intelligent Design (not the same as Creationsm, which believes in the literal truth of Genesis) doesn't argue that evolution doesn't take place, just that it has to be thought of as being "guided" in some sense"

ID is simply a politically expedient label for Creationism. Don't be fooled.; 10:18 PM
razorsmile said...: Neither do I understand the atheists fear of a creator; it doesn't preclude evolution. As for fundamentalists, well there are idiots in every camp; I prefer not to dwell on them.; 1:26 AM
RJU said...: I would agree that the fossil record is not a verification of Darwinism, but the fossil record is a large body of data that is best explained by Darwinian evolution. One of the reasons Darwin felt the need to devise his theory was to explain the fossils that had been found up to that time. Since the time of Darwin the main tenets of his theory have in fact been verified, contrary to what W.M. states. The biggest tenet of Darwin’s theory that has been verified is that we are all made of same stuff that can be incrementally altered to change from one form to another. This tenet was verified by Watson and Crick when they discovered DNA. The mechanism suggested by Darwin for this incremental alteration to occur has been amply verified in a large number of ways. We can see the results of selecting certain traits in every domesticated species, from corn to cows. We can watch bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics. ID and creationists like to argue that yes, these things occur, but you cannot show me where one species has changed into another. This statement only shows the depth of their blindness. The concept of species is simply a man-made convenience that allows us to classify the diversity of life. What Darwin was saying and DNA proves is that we are all made of the same stuff; that all life is part of a continuum, each individual separated by minute changes in the same basic structure. The mechanism for causing these minute changes has been verified. That there is an underlying structure that can be manipulated in this way has been verified. What others main tenets of Darwinism have not been verified? None.; 9:41 AM
Ken said...: Darwin's theory was that biological evolution resulting in physical characteristics (such as the eye) takes place *arbitrarily*, as a means to adjust to the needs of survival (unlike many other evolutionists before him, Darwin very deliberately formulated a theory which left God out of the picture; it was even *antithetical* to any theistic insinuation, implication or hypothesis). Proponents of ID, on the other hand, may accept evolution as a theory - but insist that the physical characteristics which arise therefrom have their source in a higher intelligence of some sort (presumably a supreme being, i.e. "God").

While I am not a theist, I think that natural selection (Darwin's theory of absolute arbitration in the evolutionary phenomenon) is incomplete. Yes, there is *some* randomness involved, but this is just a sliver of the big picture. I won't pretend to know what that big picture is, and scientists should not forget that their "knowledge" is always and only relative to what is already "known" or has been discovered. Once we get a broader view of things, we also find that the accepted "facts" also alter considerably (some may even have to be jettisoned).; 12:00 PM
RJU said...: W.M., I am truly surprised that you give ID any credence because most of your posts are very insightful and intelligent. Your argument that new complex structures cannot evolve in incremental steps because there would be no advantage to the structures until they are completely formed and functional is an old criticism that has been amply addressed over the years. I don’t want to revisit these arguments. There are lots of good books on it that do a better job than I could. I would agree that this aspect of Darwinism has not been verified and cannot be since we are talking about millions of incremental steps over millions of years. Strict Darwinian evolution, which I would define as evolution accomplished only in minute incremental steps, probably cannot explain everything that has occurred in the development of life. Other processes such as symbiotic merging, viral addition to the DNA, should probably be added to the processes driving evolution.

If one finds it difficult to understand how complex structures can form by incremental steps, such as Darwin’s natural selection, how does adding a massively complex structure, such as an intelligent designer solve the problem? You have only moved the same problem somewhere else. How can you explain a massively complex structure such as an intelligent designer? There are only three possibilities: (1) It formed in incremental steps from less complex structures, (2) It popped into the world fully formed, or (3) It has always existed. You have already eliminated the first possibility. If a massively complex structure such as an intelligent designer simply popped into existence, then why could this not happen with the less complex structures we are trying to explain? Clearly this would be the simpler and therefore logically preferred explanation. This only leaves us with explanation number 3; the intelligent designer always existed, but is it again not simpler to postulate that rather than the massively complex intelligent designer always existing, that these less complex forms always existed, that life has always existed. There is no logical need to postulate a massively complex form that cannot be observed and leaves no trace.; 2:42 PM
Mac said...: "Intelligent Design," aside from being simply a new, convenient label for the lame mysticism foisted on us by Fundamentalist Christians, is BS.

Superficially, ID "arguments" can be a little intimidating . . . but in the end they're always founded on selective omission, proven falsehoods (such as the example of the supposedly designed nature of the eye, which has evolved independently many times on this planet alone) and, as always, the need to believe we're somethimg more than "mere" atoms and molecules.

Proponents of Creationism -- er, "Intelligent Design" -- neither need nor deserve apology.; 2:58 PM
Ken said...: Mac & RJU -- I find some examples found in nature, such as instances of biomimicry, to be an *extremely* unlikely result of development out of accidental and arbitrary adjustments to the environment. Nobody here is contesting Darwinian theory on the grounds of development via incremental steps in a general continuum of life. Even many ID proponents will accept that evolution takes place incrementally, diversely branching out from a single origin. The point of contention is whether this change is entirely due to a random process of trial and error as some physical characteristics are passed on while others are eradicated through success/failure in natural selection.

I myself do not advocate ID; all I am saying is that such an argument (i.e., that "God" was/is somehow involved in the development of life) is at least plausible for those who feel that it makes sense. And I think that supposedly "unbiased" scientists (that is, those without "the need to believe"), too, very often fall into the trap of selective omission (albeit in favor of established theories/Darwinian presuppositions). Consider the folks at NASA, for instance. If it can happen there, it can (and does) happen in the field of biology as well.; 6:54 PM
Mac said...: Like Arthur C. Clarke, I suspect religion is a "disease of infancy."; 8:12 PM
razorsmile said...: Mac, mac, mac, you posted this, didn't you? I was actually surprised when you did, seeing as I'm no stranger to your dislike for creationism as a concept.

Just remember, "diseases of infancy" tend to leave behind antibodies.

(They did in my case at any rate.); 10:13 PM
Mac said...: I get irked when I see "ID" used to fill alleged "gaps" in evolution, which appears to function just fine without them. My posts regarding the possibility that the human experience is in some way simulated or engineered aren't meant to supplant evolution, but rather to provide thought experiments. You can read them as science fiction if you want. One of the many differences between me an a typical ID proponent is that I'm not begging to have my ideas presented as doctrine.

And make no mistake: This business in Kansas, to which I have a front-row seat, has nothing to do with "equal time" and everything to do with castrating science.; 10:30 PM
RJU said...: W.M., I understand better now where you are coming from on this issue and agree we should maintain "genuine scepticism" about the theory of evolution and all scientific theories, but to call Darwinian orthodoxy "unverifiable pseudo-science" is not really warranted. Almost any scientific theory has some problems and cannot fully explain everything. Take, for instance, the theory of gravity- it is mathmatically elegant and able to explain the movements of bodies in space, but how gravity is able to act assert itself across time and distance is still not really understood, even given Einstein's contributions. Does this make it pseudo-science? Darwin's theory led us to see life as a continuum with a basic underlying structure. It showed us one way changes in the basic structure can and do occur. There may be additional important ways to change this structure, but these ways cannot invalidate the theory, but only add to it.

The theory of Intelligent design does not actually add anything to our understanding of the nature of life or explain anything. If this theory were in some way accepted, rather than clearing up a lot of questions, it would add more, like: Why vestigal structures? Why does ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny? Why design so many forms and then throw them away? Why begin with less complex forms and move to more complex forms?- If the designer is intelligent could he, she, it not have simply started with the final forms? Why so many imperfections in the final forms?- seems we do not really need the imperfections we see which often lead to a life of suffering. Why suffering? Why insects that bite us? Why must we have pain along with death- could we not just go easy? The questions are pretty endless and cannot be answered by intelligent design, except to say we cannot understand the designer- he, she, it is just so much more intelligent than we lowly humans. But guess what- evolution can answer all these questions and many more. The whole purpose of a theory is to answer questions, not create them, which is why intelligent design is not really a theory at all, but just a crazy idea with nothing to back it up.; 11:57 PM
Mac said...: Creationism fills a perceived psychological need. In the end, I don't think it's about science at all.; 8:20 AM
Ken said...: Mac -- "science" can fulfill a perceived psychological need as well ;). The need simply manifests itself in a more subtle manner there...

RJU -- Am I writing to a fucking wall??! As I said before, there were evolutionists before Darwin, and most (if not all of them) were advocates of ID. Darwin's ultimate contribution was NOT a novel idea that all of life is a continuum, a spectrum of imperfect forms which develop incrementally (in fact, this was not a new idea at all). What WAS his contribution? Answer: He simply put all of his eggs into one basket and came up with the most unified and coherent theory - one which displaced previous theories that were all partial and fragmentary. Darwin's *primary* contribution was the notion that, at every point of development, evolution takes place *randomly*, through an indifferent and impersonal process of trial and error. He DELIBERATELY, ARTICULATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY left God out of the equation -- which is what advocates of ID are concerned about. Most of them (excepting the fundamentalist propents of a literal reading of Genesis 1-3) do not dispute that biological life is a continuum of imperfect forms and that change takes place incrementally.

"The theory of Intelligent design does not actually add anything to our understanding of the nature of life or explain anything."

I beg to differ. The theory of ID can explain many things which we see in nature - and, *depending on what perspective we are coming from*, these explanations maybe just as good as any explanation given from the presupposition that God does not exist - that everything in the cosmos takes place after an impersonal and arbitrary manner. As a former theologian, I can provide an explanation for all of your "why's" - and they will seem plausible or implausible depending on whether or not you believe in God.

Once again, I myself am not a proponent of ID - but carelessly and one-sidely attacking a position which we do not agree with leads to bigotry. In principle, it is the same mentality which we loath in our fundamentalist opponents.; 6:00 PM
RJU said...: >>K.Y.:"I can provide an explanation for all of your "why's" - and they will seem plausible or implausible depending on whether or not you believe in God." I think you are totally wrong about this. The thrust of all my "whys" is that if our world is designed, whoever designed it is not all that intelligent. In fact, I can think of thousands of improvements which I will spare giving you right now. If I can do a better job than the designer, then the designer is no better than me and no one lately has called me God. I would guess any definition you chose for God would have him somewhat superior to me at least on my bad days, but even on my bad days I am sure I could do a better job.

The point is, in case you missed it, if the design is poor we usually do not call it intelligent design, we call it stupid design. So until you can prove to me the design is really so flawless, you cannot claim intelligent design, only stupid design, serving no apparant purpose.

Your not wanting to credit Darwin with giving us the understanding "that all of life is a continuum, a spectrum of imperfect forms which develop incrementally" which is what most of "Origin of Species" deals with and only assign credit to him for a possible mechanism for this: "evolution takes place *randomly*, through an indifferent and impersonal process of trial and error" which he put in at the end of very long book, is little bit ridiculous.

>>"He DELIBERATELY, ARTICULATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY left God out of the equation."

-->If he had it would not have been science, since God by most definitions is a force outside of the natural realm and he was trying to understand nature. Actually, I don't think Darwin was an atheist. His view of evolution most probably was that evolution was the way God carried out his plan. God's direct input in each detail is not needed in this scenario, so God could have created the world and let it run on its own with evolution as one of the driving forces, just like gravity drives the planets around the sun.; 11:41 PM
Ken said...: "The point is, in case you missed it, if the design is poor we usually do not call it intelligent design, we call it stupid design. So until you can prove to me the design is really so flawless, you cannot claim intelligent design, only stupid design, serving no apparant purpose."

When advocates of ID speak of "intelligent" design, they generally do not mean "smart" or "flawless" design vs. "stupid" design. What they mean is that the universe was MINDFULLY DESIGNED - i.e., that there was a mind, a "logos" behind everything that has come into existence. While someone may argue that they can make a thousand improvements upon this "creation" as we know it (assuming that it IS a creation), as a theologian I could respond that we do not know the ultimate purposes of God. Who are you, a mere mortal with finite scope of perception and understanding, to question the way God chooses to do things?? In fact, the New Testament seems to indicate that the present universe is imperfect/incomplete - that God is planning to eradicate the old order of creation and bring in a new one. Why? We are not told - but just because there is no answer provided does not necessarily mean that there is no answer at all. As the apostle Paul puts it succinctly, "Now I know only in part; then I shall know fully."

"Your not wanting to credit Darwin with giving us the understanding "that all of life is a continuum, a spectrum of imperfect forms which develop incrementally" which is what most of "Origin of Species" deals with and only assign credit to him for a possible mechanism for this: "evolution takes place *randomly*, through an indifferent and impersonal process of trial and error" which he put in at the end of very long book, is little bit ridiculous."

It is a documented, historical fact that theories of evolution existed prior to Darwin. What does "evolution" entail? Answer: That imperfect forms develop incrementally over time. Like I said, Darwin merely gave a collective form to hitherto partial, fragmented and incomplete ideas on evolution; he tied it all together and gave the resulting logic systematic shape. In reality, he did not come up with anything new.

"Actually, I don't think Darwin was an atheist. His view of evolution most probably was that evolution was the way God carried out his plan."

Have you ever read Darwin's biography? It is the story of a man to whom the idea of "God" meant little in the first place, and it details the intellectual journey from presupposing theist (without really considering the implications) to atheist. Toward the end of his life Darwin had completed that transition; his theory of natural selection was merely a byproduct of this process.

Let me rephrase this statement: "He DELIBERATELY, ARTICULATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY left God out of the equation." A better way to put it would have been "He DELIBERATELY, ARTICULATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY constructed a theory which defied and denigrated the old theistic viewpoint." Darwin's era, you see, was characterized by Enlightenment ideas and principles. These often found their expression in marked defiance to Europe's religious heritage. Above all, Darwin gave a unitive logic and voice to the new viewpoint; this is, in part, what made his theories so successful. He was a child of his times, and his proposal of "natural selection" is a reflection of this.; 4:21 AM
RJU said...: No need to rephrase your statement: "He DELIBERATELY, ARTICULATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY left God out of the equation." It is completely correct. This is because all scientific inquiry DELIBERATELY, ARTICULATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY leaves God out of the equation. The term God is exactly equivalent to the term magic- a force or power we have no control over and cannot understand. All scientific inquiry attempts to explain physical and natural phenomena with powers, forces, and processes we can understand. There is a magical (intelligent design) alternative to every scientific theory. For instance, rather than disease being caused by bacteria or viruses, we could say it is being caused directly by God. We could say, if we fail to comprehend the theory of nuclear fusion, that God makes the Sun’s heat to keep all his children on Earth warm. We could say, if we think Maxwell’s theory is wrong, that electricity and magnetism are simply magic or God’s powers being manifested on Earth which we cannot understand. Any theory that relies on God or magic to explain physical phenomena is not science. Perhaps you do not believe in science, but it has been fairly successful in giving us greater control and understanding of the world around us.

If Darwin’s theory of evolution is incorrect, then no scientist would be looking to replace the theory with magic (God or “intelligent design), but would be looking for an alternative scientific theory. This is why it is complete and total falsehood to purport that ID is an alternative scientific theory that should be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution. It is not an alternative, any more than the theory that God’s divine will causes the sun’s heat. Would you also like to offer this alternative theory in our schools?

As far as I know there are no alternative scientific theories to Darwin’s evolutionary theory to explain biological phenomena. If there were, they most likely would still not be taught in schools, because normally only the most accepted paradigm is taught about most science. If you end up specializing in some scientific field, then you might begin to exploring alternative ideas. Unfortunately, even in this case, mostly only the most accepted theories are taught.; 8:52 AM
TheUltimateCyn said...: These comments are exactly why I love Mac's blog... people "think" here.; 1:22 PM
Mac said...: This "Intelligent Design" post sure whipped up a whole lot of dialogue, that's for sure.; 1:26 PM
RJU said...: W.M. said " The problem comes when you try to verify it by observation and experiment, which is simply impossible in principle in many (not all certainly) cases."

Sorry, but this is total b.s. Since the process proposed by Darwin is a totally physical process, it can be verified in theory in every aspect. Our ability to do this is not far off. We will soon be able to take DNA, make any small, minute incremental changes we choose and reproduce every aspect of Life's evolutionary history, if we choose. There is no theoretical reason this cannot be done. If you don't believe that this would be proof and you want to be able to personally watch a million steps over millions of years, this is also theoretically possible by multiple generations of scientists. We could introduce random changes now and continue to watch what happens for millions of years, or we could simply speed up the process, by introducing the changes faster to reduce the time by many orders of magnitude. Similar experiments have already been done on computers, already verifying that in theory the process of random natural selection can do what Darwin postulated it could.

In contrast to this totally verifiable theory, you have ID which does not actually postulate a physical process, but only magic which cannot by its very nature ever be tested. Why you might what to introduce magic in a science class is beyond my limited comprehension.

There is a place for this sort of thing in the world. It is called a church. Maybe you have never heard of this. Let us keep religion in churches and science in science classes. There is nothing to be gained by trying to introduce religion as science.; 3:54 PM
Ken said...: "If Darwin’s theory of evolution is incorrect, then no scientist would be looking to replace the theory with magic (God or “intelligent design), but would be looking for an alternative scientific theory. This is why it is complete and total falsehood to purport that ID is an alternative scientific theory that should be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution. It is not an alternative, any more than the theory that God’s divine will causes the sun’s heat. Would you also like to offer this alternative theory in our schools?"

I never said ID was an alternative scientific theory, and I do not wish for it to be taught in classrooms. My point was that it is impossible to be completely objective when we are looking at/interpreting the "facts". Interpretation of scientific data must always be done against the backdrop of philosophical/metaphysical presuppositions. Darwin had such presuppositions no less than proponents of ID do today; hence he came up with the notion that all biological development takes place arbitrarily.

"As far as I know there are no alternative scientific theories to Darwin’s evolutionary theory to explain biological phenomena."

Yes, things like this indicate the intellectual poverty of our scientific community today. Have you ever wondered why we don't see any Darwins, Freuds or Einsteins anymore?; 5:16 PM
RJU said...: >> K.Y.:"Darwin had such presuppositions no less than proponents of ID do today; hence he came up with the notion that all biological development takes place arbitrarily."

Another ridiculous statement! Darwin had an a problem that the scientific world needed solving- How to explain the fossil record and the diversity of life? Science solves such problems by trying to understand the physical processes that might be involved. If he supposed that some magical process was involved, such as ID proponents propose, then there would be no need to study the problem scientifically. In exactly the same way Newton would have not needed to try to understand the motions of the planets scientifically, if he supposed a magical process was involved- that the motions were controled by the gods, for instance.

If you cannot see this my good friend Ken, I truly feel sorry for you, your thinking is simply too muddled that you might ever produce anything of value with that brain that was arbitrarily given to you by random physical processes.; 5:36 PM
Ken said...: My good friend RJU --

"Another ridiculous statement!"

??? I gave you an answer for the first statement I made which you also called "ridiculous". You did not address my explanation, which indicates that you had no answer to give me. How then is it still ridiculous?

"Darwin had an a problem that the scientific world needed solving- How to explain the fossil record and the diversity of life? "

That's right, and he came up with the hypothetical solution that life succeeds through a blind series of "hits" and "misses". Whatever traits help an organism to survive are developed further, while useless ones or those which present impediments naturally disappear (i.e., the specimens which have these features more pronounced die off at a greater and faster rate). He called this theory "natural selection". What we must take note of - as WMB has pointed out to you repetitively - is that Darwin's hypothetical theory is just that - HYPOTHETICAL. There is no way to test it empirically. In fact, there are some instances of biomimicry (such as insects which possess bodies which strikingly resemble leaves or twigs) which are VERY difficult to explain by a theory of mere natural selection. How can such things evolve through a random series of trial and error? I saw a documentary on TV about an insect which looked JUST LIKE A LEAF, complete with botanical veins and a corner which was simulated rotten, with worm-eaten "hole". A proponent of ID would point out that God did it; well, I doubt it was God, but I DO think this is one instance which demonstrates the deficiences in Darwin's theory.

What was Darwin's metaphysical presupposition? Answer: That there is no underlying connection between events (such as the evolution of forms) other than a random coincidence of cause and effect. He also asserted that the phenomenon of evolution has no direction and no purpose. How can he make such assertions? All he can say as a scientist is that things *appear* (to him) in such and such a manner - but Charlie decided to make his assertions border on the absolute. And his followers (e.g., yourself) have taken that extra little step to assert them as if they WERE absolute (read your former statements above, before you rant at me further).

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Proponents of ID do their science within the framework of Christian metaphysics - and I don't agree with it - but it DOES provide a backdrop against which they can study the natural world, no less than an atheistic roll-of-the-dice western mentality framework (influenced by notions of capitalism, in Darwin's case) supplies a backdrop for Charlie and for yourself.

What does all of this come down to? Charlie says that things *appear* as such and such when they are observed in nature - but this appearance itself is debatable, and besides, simply because things appear a certain way from our finite perspective does not guarantee that things ARE that way in reality (or that they would even continue to appear that way if, perchance, we were granted a more comprehensive understanding of the world). Well guess what? The proponents of ID are doing the *exact same thing* Darwin did - i.e., they are arguing "intelligent design" from the way things appear (to them, that is, nature looked at from an angle).

Finally, the theory of ID is not "magic". It is the belief - supported by appearances in some cases - that the hand of God is *somehow* involved in the evolution of biological life. It is the inverse of Darwin's theory - viz., that biological life is an accident from beginning to end, an absurdity and fluke phenomenon in an impersonal, indifferent cosmos governed by chance.

You say that Darwin's theory provides the BEST explanation - but by what criteria?? If a person is convinced (on separate grounds) that the claims of Christianity are true, it follows from this that *to them* ID provides the best explanation (because it cannot possibly be true, according to the law of contradiction, that *both* Christianity and Darwin's view of the cosmos are correct). So you see, it's a matter of perspectives and foundational premises.

Scientific "knowledge" must, by its very nature, always be a matter of relative perspective. All we can rest on are theories - and these theories must always be subject to possible revision with the introduction of new and/or subversive discoveries. But until these theories are challenged or overthrown, scientists continue to speak of them was if they were FACTS (here is where scientific "knowledge" becomes a social construct). Thus scientists are teetering on the tight rope which hangs between the nihilistic abyss of "We can know nothing" and the self-deceptive reassurance of "We know these are 'facts'".

Is the theory of ID scientific? Like I said, no it's not. The proponents of ID do not walk the precarious tight rope illustrated above. The more intelligent among them begin with *Christian apologetics* to establish a firm (and indispensable) framework within which they can study the physical world. Sure, this approach also has it's drawbacks - but the threat of falling into nihilism isn't one of them.

"I truly feel sorry for you, your thinking is simply too muddled that you might ever produce anything of value with that brain that was arbitrarily given to you by random physical processes."

Only time will tell, huh? ;); 9:22 PM
Ken said...: For those who are interested: Find a good biography of Darwin *here*:

http://www.2think.org/darwin.shtml

Happy reading.; 9:52 PM
RJU said...: First of all let me apologize for any remarks that you gentlemen considered insulting, but sometimes it is necessary to call a spade a spade, so now I will repeat it. Ken’s basic criticism of Darwin is that he chose not to consider God=magic explanations for explaining the fossil record and the diversity of life. If he had chosen a God=magic explanation for this then this would have be saying that there is no natural or physical explanation for the fossil record and the diversity of life, therefore God must exist. Science is the business of trying to provide natural physical explanations for observed phenomena which is exactly what Darwin did. It is ridiculous to criticize that he did not consider God=magic explanations since this is not what science is about.

W.M. claims Darwin’s theory is not verifiable even while it is being verified to the nth degree. The discovery of DNA and genes verified one major aspect of Darwin’s theory- the physical basis or substrate on which the process of natural selection acts. The mechanism of natural selection can be observed acting right now in the modern world. The fossil record shows us innumerable transitional forms contrary to the claims of creationists. Evolutionary theory can explain all the data and observations we have about biology. Until someone presents some data or observation that cannot be explained by the theory, there is actually no reason to develop a new theory.

I read about the computer simulation of evolution in an issue of Discover magazine sometime in the last year. I cannot remember all the details, but it may or may not fit W.M’s criteria as “proof” of random natural selection driving evolution. I will try to find it and give you some references if you are interested.; 9:21 AM
RJU said...: Here is the article I refered to earlier: "Testing Darwin" Discover Magazine Feb. 2005, vol 26-2. You should be able to read it at this link: http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/.; 10:02 AM
RJU said...: More about the Discover article: Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to read more than the intro to the article if you follow the link above, but I may be able to cut and paste it into an email, if you would like to read it.; 11:14 AM
Ken said...: "Science is the business of trying to provide natural physical explanations for observed phenomena which is exactly what Darwin did. It is ridiculous to criticize that he did not consider God=magic explanations since this is not what science is about."

I agree, and I was not criticizing Darwin because he did not consider God=magic explanations. There have actually been *theologians* who have pointed out the fallacy of doing "science" this way (they called it "the God of the gaps"). What I was trying to say is that our view of the nature of the cosmos must necessarily effect our interpretation of scientific data in the field of biology. Darwin may have been attempting to draw conclusions from observing the natural world (without filling in the gaps with a God=magic explanation) but his findings were nevertheless colored by his view of the nature of ultimate reality.; 5:06 PM
RJU said...: >> K.Y:"There have actually been *theologians* who have pointed out the fallacy of doing "science" this way (they called it "the God of the gaps")."

I am quite relived to learn that there are some theologians with some sense. Perhaps there is hope for the world after all.

Also, Ken, I emailed the Discover article, "Testing Darwin" to W.M., if you want it let me know.; 7:49 PM
Ken said...: RJU -- Yes I would be interested in reading the Discover article. Please email it to me. Thanks.; 10:02 PM
RJU said...: The software they talk about in the Discover article is being freely distributed at this site: http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/

I downloaded it and installed it on my computer last night. Not much time to play with before bedtime, but it appears to work.; 11:25 PM

Sunday, June 05, 2005

33 comments:

Welcome to the official blog of Mac Tonnies.

My Books

Blurbage

Featured Interviews

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

Follow this blog...

My photos...

Friends

Tears in Rain

Meme Dispersal

Art and Design

Technological Futurism

Cosmos

Organizations

Fellow Posthumans

Tracking

Obligatory Graphical Links

Merchandise

Link!

Technorati

Tip jar