What are Darwinists so afraid of?

worldnetdaily.com ^ | 07/27/2006 | Jonathan Witt

[BrandtMichaels]

What are Darwinists so afraid of?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jonathan Witt © 2006

As a doctoral student at the University of Kansas in the '90s, I found that my professors came in all stripes, and that lazy ideas didn't get off easy. If some professor wanted to preach the virtues of communism after it had failed miserably in the Soviet Union, he was free to do so, but students were also free to hear from other professors who critically analyzed that position.

Conversely, students who believed capitalism and democracy were the great engines of human progress had to grapple with the best arguments against that view, meaning that in the end, they were better able to defend their beliefs.

Such a free marketplace of ideas is crucial to a solid education, and it's what the current Kansas science standards promote. These standards, like those adopted in other states and supported by a three-to-one margin among U.S. voters, don't call for teaching intelligent design. They call for schools to equip students to critically analyze modern evolutionary theory by teaching the evidence both for and against it.

The standards are good for students and good for science.

Some want to protect Darwinism from the competitive marketplace by overturning the critical-analysis standards. My hope is that these efforts will merely lead students to ask, What's the evidence they don't want us to see?

Under the new standards, they'll get an answer. For starters, many high-school biology textbooks have presented Haeckel's 19th century embryo drawings, the four-winged fruit fly, peppered moths hidden on tree trunks and the evolving beak of the Galapagos finch as knockdown evidence for Darwinian evolution. What they don't tell students is that these icons of evolution have been discredited, not by Christian fundamentalists but by mainstream evolutionists.

We now know that 1) Haeckel faked his embryo drawings; 2) Anatomically mutant fruit flies are always dysfunctional; 3) Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks (the photographs were staged); and 4) the finch beaks returned to normal after the rains returned – no net evolution occurred. Like many species, the average size fluctuates within a given range.

This is microevolution, the age-old observation of change within species. Macroevolution refers to the evolution of fundamentally new body plans and anatomical parts. Biology textbooks use instances of microevolution such as the Galapagos finches to paper over the fact that biologists have never observed, or even described in theoretical terms, a detailed, continually functional pathway to fundamentally new forms like mammals, wings and bats. This is significant because modern Darwinism claims that all life evolved from a common ancestor by a series of tiny, useful genetic mutations.

Textbooks also trumpet a few "missing links" discovered between groups. What they don't mention is that Darwin's theory requires untold millions of missing links, evolving one tiny step at a time. Yes, the fossil record is incomplete, but even mainstream evolutionists have asked, why is it selectively incomplete in just those places where the need for evidence is most crucial?

Opponents of the new science standards don't want Kansas high-school students grappling with that question. They argue that such problems aren't worth bothering with because Darwinism is supported by "overwhelming evidence." But if the evidence is overwhelming, why shield the theory from informed critical analysis? Why the campaign to mischaracterize the current standards and replace them with a plan to spoon-feed students Darwinian pabulum strained of uncooperative evidence?

The truly confident Darwinist should be eager to tell students, "Hey, notice these crucial unsolved problems in modern evolutionary theory. Maybe one day you'll be one of the scientists who discovers a solution."

Confidence is as confidence does.

[tortoise]

The determinism of Laplace fell to the realities of quantum mechanics. At the most basic level of the universe, subatomic matter is not governed purely by cause and effect.

Only in physics currently, where unpredictable determinism is treated as though it was mathematically random. Last I checked it was well-established that there is nothing about quantum mechanics that necessitates non-determinism, and one can make strong mathematical arguments to that effect. The idea that quantum mechanics is fundamentally random is a common misconception.

Really short version:

Even a trivially simple deterministic systems can be intractably random to all observers in this universe if the only tool at your disposal is induction, and induction is really the only process science has. You can effectively treat such a process as "random", but it is still a trivial deterministic process that would be completely transparent if you could look under the hood. Quantum mechanics is like that; there are simple deterministic processes that we have not figured out how to look under the hood, and which appear to be utterly intractable by induction.

(ObTangent: cryptography is based on the same notion of processes that are completely trivial to predict by deduction but grossly intractable to predict by induction. In the case of crypto, they go one step further by openly describing the complete mechanics of the internal process but not disclosing key bits of state. In physics, we frequently know a lot about neither the abstract mechanics nor the state.)

[MHGinTN]

I'm curious, are you a Chemist or a Botanist?

[Oztrich Boy]

please work at keeping the volume turned down. It doesn't accomplish anything.

Actually it does. It gets the thread moved to Chat (or if you are particularly nasty - The Smokey Backroom)

It'a a common technique over at Democratic Underground:
A hoplophobe posts thread with a provocative title What are gun-nuts afraid of?

The "gun-nuts" enter the thread with arguments based on facts, reason, ans logic.

The anti-gunners (and encourage others of their group who) use ridicule ans insults, with increasing venom, until the moderators lock the thread.

This technique it tolerated because the disruptors are believed to be the Voice of the Democratic Party, while the "gun-nuts" are the servants of Satan.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Neither (I used to be a chemist, my father was a botanist.) I'm a computer scientist who spend years teaching mathematics at a small university and then did mathematical and physics research for The Government.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements and the outstanding essay-post! It seems you have instigated quite an interesting sidebar discussion – though it saddens me greatly that the focus of your point remains largely ignored:

Still scientific descriptions are of appearances that necessarily arise from the "essence" of what a thing really is

The sidebar essay-posts by tortoise have vindicated the point we’ve made for so long concerning the difference between randomness and unpredictability. Thank you, tortoise!

But this too is part of the “observer problem” though I suspect tortoise disagrees that there is such a thing.

Nevertheless, once the observer has supposed a domain or system, he has lost objectivity – particularly so if he is part of the domain or system.

And once he has made an observation, he has further constrained the domain or system to the limits of his subjective encoding/decoding (syntax, language, consciousness and so on).

For such reasons I aver that only God is objective; God is Truth.

That is not to say we should throw up our hands and give up trying to understand things. Not at all. But concerning issues of reality, we should always remember that we are like the ten blind men trying to describe the elephant.

One may grab the trunk and say the elephant is like a rope, another the ear and say it is like a fan, another the leg and say it is like a tree and so on. All are partly right and all are clearly wrong. We must realize our blindness – quit insisting our view is the only view - and dig deeper for a better understanding of the elephant.

Which brings me full circle to the original point which seems to be flying overhead like geese in this sidebar: the issue is not what a thing such as life (or an elephant) looks like but what it “is”.

[Hi Heels]

Do I think globally the Christian people belly up first to do charity work? Yep. Do I think they provide for a moral way of life that best serves mankind? Yep. If that spills over into their jobs, political or not, do I see a problem with all that mean nasty moral kindness? Nope. Did I ever say anything about anger being a reasonable response? No, exactly the opposite, but thanks for responding in anger thus proving my point. Do we think the nasty argument I was commenting on in which two FReepers were taking cheap pot shots at one another over faith is "criticism"? No. I think it's unnecessary and counterproductive.

Now for your questions. Is the constant barrage of news stories that BEGIN with "A Christian woman has strangled her two year old" is ever apparent every single day of every single year emphasis on the "Christian" no matter the crime a fair representation of a people whose general generosity and kindness and decades long work in charity outweigh any evil BILLIONS OF TIMES OVER certainly in modern time (and spare me the crusades, ok? Your ancestors probably threw virgins to the volcano gods. Things change)? But have you EVER EVER EVER HEARD ANY NEWS STORY START OUT WITH "today an atheist rammed his car into a family of six killing them all"? "Atheist raped four women in Cleveland"? Anything? I think the attacks are real, MSM driven, unfair, biased, unprovoked, pompous, and nasty. Period. And I think that Christians acting in response in an angry unChristlike way is just as wrong. It's not the way our Savior would have us act.

[metmom]

Apparently Heinlein wrote the evos *Scripture* because they sure quote it like that. It's pretty pathetic if that's the best they can do. Everybody has some belief system-aka *religion*, even if they deny it.

[metmom]

I think the attacks are real, MSM driven, unfair, biased, unprovoked, pompous, and nasty. Period.

In addition, Christians doing good things almost never makes the news unless you're a Mother Theresa. The good that is done is done in the name of Christ is virtually always ignored unless it is spectacluarly good, while we regularly hear about some local third grade class doing something to save the rainforest or stop global warming, for example.

The bias is most certainly there.

[Virginia-American]

“[But it might be objected:] ‘This “intelligence” of yours, would it be the author of the universe, who I note you left out of your book Méchanique Céleste....’

Napoleon Bonaparte and Laplace knew each other,.

The most famous exchange between these two men occurred after Laplace had given Napoleon a copy of his great work, the Mecanique Celeste. Napoleon looked it over, and remarked that in this massive volume about the universe there was not a single mention of God, its creator. Laplace replied "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis". ("Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse")

Source. The source has an interesting discussion about "Napoleon's theorem" in plane geometry. (which is a very neat theorem!)

Napoleon's theorem states that if we construct equilateral triangles on the sides of any triangle (all outward or all inward), the centers of those equilateral triangles themselves form an equilateral triangle, as illustrated below.

[tortoise]

For such reasons I aver that only God is objective; God is Truth.

From a strict perspective there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this idea. The obvious limitations is that it would be true if and only if we were discussing our universe in isolation (which from the perspective of humans, we effectively are) and God is completely external to our universe. Thought that fact really does not help us because humans cannot evaluate God in such a manner.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: mathematics does not allow a part of a system (like humans) to be objective about a system (like our universe). That's where things like Bayes' theorem comes in (which interestingly, many scholars would attribute to Laplace). Just don't run too far afield with this.

[tortoise]

Everybody has some belief system-aka *religion*, even if they deny it.

Whether or not you believe something is irrelevant. Obviously even atheist believe many things. The real question is whether or not you take any belief to be axiomatic. That is the distinction with a difference.

A purely rational person would not assert any axioms, though they may assert that a particular belief is highly probable (c.f. Occam's Razor). I really can't speak for atheists, but I have gathered that most them merely do not take the existence of God as axiomatic. If you have no axioms then you have things like Bayes' theorem and Occam's Razor, which are not a bad foundation for reasoning by any means. The strictest rationalists will fully acknowledge that all of mathematics is based on arbitrary axioms and therefore may be incorrect at its core, but its uncanny effectiveness means that one does not discard it lightly (per Occam's Razor).

You assert that everyone has a belief system, but not all belief systems are equal. Generally speaking, non-axiomatic systems are more rational than axiomatic ones (as a strict consequence of mathematics). The fool takes their beliefs to be axiomatic, a wise person views their beliefs as nothing other than the unauthoritative best answer they have at the moment and subject to change rather than the Correct answer.

[King Prout]

one common current linguistic folly is the grotesque construct:
"Every one isn't (such and such)"

when what is MEANT is:
"Not every one is (such-and-such)"

this error (slovenliness) drives me monkey-$#!+

that... and the misuse of the term "decimate" when what is meant is "devastate"
etc...

I call all errors of this sort "Irregardless Syndrome"

[King Prout]

Thanks for letting me know about your granddads wisdom in this respect...

Gramps was an interesting fellow... a highly complex and subtle man who pretended and practiced to be a simple man.

[fabian]

the debated only ended in the minds of some people who wish to hold onto a theory that is not supported by the facts. Many of the creation scientists are biologist but that doesn't matter. It's just a red herring that you are throwing out implying that other scientists and just informed folks need to be biologists to understand toe. But that further discredits evolution because if the fossil record clearly showed true transitional forms it would be so easy to see by all. But that just isn't the case and if it were the many thousands of creation scientists would have admitted it long ago because they do tend to be honest people looking for the truth.
To answer your question; the fossil record should obviously show many thousands or millions of life forms that are clearly slowly turning into different life forms. It was supposed to take many millions of years of slow transition. The fossils that you guys think are transitionals are completed life forms. I think you guys want them to be transitionals but honest observations shows the reality. Anyways, I hope you will look a little deeper.

[King Prout]

fabian, a few questions:

1. why do you believe that the fossil record "should" be as complete and comprehensive as you describe?
Please be specific in your answer, including a description of the mechanism of preservation and a rationale for its necessary prevalence in your notional model of history.

2. what makes you believe that a representative organism from a transitional species would be in any way an "incomplete" life form?
Please be specific, including the anatomic anomalies your model predicts as necessary for an "incomplete" life form, and how "incomplete" life forms can be decisively discerned from "complete" life forms.

3. what leads you to assume that (alleged) honesty and earnestness precludes idiocy and error?
Please be as thorough as you can in your answer.

Thank you.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not everyone cares about the "Irregardless Syndrome." Most are included out.

[HayekRocks]

Fine HayekRocks. But what specifies the interactions? And how arose the codons?

Before there were interactions, there were no 'codons'. RNA preceded protein. Amino acids are not just parts of proteins, they are part of the building blocks of RNA bases. So, before there were proteins, RNA had to metabolize amino acids to reproduce itself. As that metabolism became more efficient, specific amino acids bound to specific tracts of RNA, and were subjected to catalytic transformations. Such reactions led to useful peptides and useful polypeptides. Eventually these pieces of RNA evolved into both codons and the ribosomal apparatus. But the memory of that time lingers, as, many many millions of years later, the most important amino acids continue to bind specifically to the RNA triplet that codes for them. That is a phenomenon consistent with an earlier, more primitive era of protein synthesis, an echo of that time, if you will permit the metaphor. It is inconsistent with the proposition that the complex tRNA/ribosome/mRNA/protein machinery was 'intelligently designed'.

In effect, you are saying that natural events are expressions of "near-neighbor" or "local," force-field-driven relations of their physico-chemical constituents.

That is generally true, yes.

(This in an age where the non-locality of the universe has been much remarked.)

Your observation is indeed true, but perhaps you are giving a little undue stress to that non-locality. In principle the wave function of a particle extends over all space. In practice, absent highly unusual conditions, the amplitude of that wavefunction a few nanometers away from the particle is infinitesimal.

Plus it seems your view may run afoul of Crick's "Central Dogma" of biology, which states that there is an irreversible line of development that goes from DNA --> tRNA --> proteins (of which amino acids are components).

I have a very small correction I know you will not mind. It is mRNA, not tRNA, that lies between DNA and protein. I do not see where the evolution of the genetic code conflicts with Crick's 'dogma'.

[HayekRocks]

No, exactly the opposite, but thanks for responding in anger thus proving my point.

I am distressed that you are under the impression that my post was written in anger. Please identify what led you to deduce an anger which I assure you was certainly not present. I will endeavor to avoid giving that false impression in future.

While it is clear you are agitated about what you perceive as attacks, and I do not want to ignore or minimize your points, let me draw your attention to a very recent and apparently careful study that finds that atheists are seen more negatively than any religious minority in America.

http://www.asanet.org/page.ww?section=Press&name=Atheists+Are+Distrusted

[Gumlegs]

Not everyone cares about the "Irregardless Syndrome." Most are included out.

Goldwynism = death!

[Quark2005]

The fool takes their beliefs to be axiomatic, a wise person views their beliefs as nothing other than the unauthoritative best answer they have at the moment and subject to change rather than the Correct answer.

Very well stated.