Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists

London Times vis The Statesman (India) ^ | 04 July 2004 | Times of London Editorial

[PatrickHenry]

Professor Ernst Mayr, the scientist renowned as the father of modern biology, will celebrate his 100th birthday tomorrow by leading a scathing attack on creationism.

The evolutionary biologist, who is already acclaimed as one of the most prolific researchers of all time, has no intention of retiring and is shortly to publish new research that dismantles the fashionable creationist doctrine of “intelligent design”.

Although he has reluctantly cut his workload since a serious bout of pneumonia 18 months ago, Prof. Mayr has remained an active scientist at Harvard University throughout his 90s. He has written five books since his 90th birthday and is researching five academic papers. One of these, scheduled to appear later this year, will examine how “intelligent design” — the latest way in which creationists have sought to present a divine origin of the world — was thoroughly refuted by Charles Darwin a century and a half ago.

His work is motivated in part by a sense of exasperation at the re-emergence of creationism in the USA, which he compares unfavourably with the widespread acceptance of evolution that he encountered while growing up in early 20th-century Germany.

The states of Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky and Oklahoma currently omit the word “evolution” from their curriculums. The Alabama state board of education has voted to include disclaimers in textbooks describing evolution as a theory. In Georgia, the word “evolution” was banned from the science curriculum after the state’s schools superintendent described it as a “controversial buzzword”.

Fierce protest, including criticism from Jimmy Carter, the former President, reversed this.

Prof. Mayr, who will celebrate his 100th birthday at his holiday home in New Hampshire with his two daughters, five grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren, was born on 5 July 1905 in Kempten, Germany. He took a PhD in zoology at the University of Berlin, before travelling to New Guinea in 1928 to study its diverse bird life. On his return in 1930 he emigrated to the USA. His most famous work, Systematics and the Origin of Species, was published in 1942 and is regarded still as a canonical work of biology.

It effectively founded the modern discipline by combining Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel’s genetics, showing how the two were compatible. Prof. Mayr redefined what scientists mean by a species, using interbreeding as a guide. If two varieties of duck or vole do not interbreed, they cannot be the same species.

Prof. Mayr has won all three of the awards sometimes termed the “triple crown” of biology — the Balzan Prize, the Crafoord Prize and the International Prize for Biology. Although he formally retired in 1975, he has been active as an Emeritus Professor ever since and has recently written extensively on the philosophy of biology.

[VadeRetro]

IOW, if it's in a creationist quote salad, you might know it or at least of it. If it isn't, then forget it!

[VadeRetro]

A reading of Darwin, something you've never done for yourself, shows that Eldredge mischaracterizes him as a phyletic gradualist. He anticipated Gould and Eldredge in many ways.

[AndrewC]

So you are resting your case on the existence of strings data that have not been corrupted during generations of replication? Is this it? I'm trying to understand.

You seem to be confusing arguments. The Darwin comment was only to show that competing evolution theories are "contradictory". There is evidence that natural selection is not necessary to explain functional changes in organisms. I have often cited Dr. James Shapiro as support.

The other topic is the fact that unchanged areas cannot be explained by random mutation/natural selection when those areas have no apparent selective advantage.

[VadeRetro]

But the truly amazing thing is that the same recruits keep showing up, cycle after cycle, showing no improvement at all.

BADAAS! (Back again, dumb as a stump!) It's the essence of creation science. That and "Brazen everything!"

[js1138]

Interesting site:

http://isis.bit.uq.edu.au/front.html

[Dimensio]

The fossil record, as a rule, exhibits morphological stasis within species.

What, you're expecting endless streams of fossils showing the gradual change from one species to another? Even Darwin didn't predict that. Fossilization is very rare.

Creatures disappear from the fossil record in the same form that they appeared.

Which indicates that they existed in periods where conditions were ripe for fossilization to occur.

Moreover, we have examples of "living fossils," creatures that seem to have failed to have evolved over the course of thousands of years.

As I said, that's what happens when there's no mutation that would provide the offspring with a greater survival advantage than the parents.

Finally, supposed "transitional forms" like archaeopteryx exhibit morphological stasis in the fossil record. Seven fossilized archaeopteryx's have been found, all exhibiting the same morphology.

Which, as I said, would indicate that they lived in a time when conditions were good for fossilization to occur. I'm sure that other, more informed people can offer an even better explanation.

OK, so where are their ancestors? Where are the fossils of the countless transitional forms that must have lead up to the temporary state of stasis?

Provide an example of a species exhibiting such a static nature.

Have human beings evolved? Yes or no. Are we evolving? Yes or no? How do you know?

Yes and yes, though any changes will be far less noticable and drastic as we have taken such control over our environment.

The question is, should I aid my body in recovering from a cold?

That is entirely your decision.

Maybe I'm being culled from the herd.

Culling, with respect to evolution, is not a deliberate process. It is simply something that just happens.

Should I act to prevent my culling?

If you wish to do so, then do so. There is no rule that an individual is "required" to be culled from the herd. It's just what happens when they're not able to survive in their given environment. If you're able to get over the cold by some means, then clearly you're able to survive in your environment.

Evolution is descriptive, it is not proscriptive or prescriptive. It does not tell us that we should exterminate species or allow species to be exterminated. It just tells that under certain conditions, the 'less fit' (that is, less able to survive and reproduce in its given environment) will not pass their genes on the subsequent generations.

Do you consider medicine to be scientific?

Do you consider doctors to be scientists, or practitioners of science?

Not all medical doctors -- even good ones -- are scientists, just as not all auto mechanics are engineers.

If so, should doctors (scientists) work to cure disease or should they let evolution "cull the herd"?

I think that they should work to cure diseases. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. There is no deliberate 'culling' process, it's just what happens when individuals in a population are unable to survive in the environment. If doctors create an accessable cure, then the environment is altered in such a way as to allow more individuals to survive. It's not about seeing that evolution happens as it should. Evolution happens, you can't stop it from happening, you can only change the environment in which it happens to allow a greater chance for survival amongst the individuals.

In other words, is it good or bad to allow the herd to be culled?

Science does not make moral judgements. There is no "good" or "bad" with respect to evolution. All science is descriptive, not proscriptive or prescriptive. You cannot determine "good" or "bad" action purely through the scientific method, you can only dig up explanations as to how things work.

You say that "science does not deal in 'good or bad,'" which is why I asked you if you consider doctors to be practitioners of science.

Science does not deal in good or bad.

"Scientific" evolutionary theory has some very practical consequences. Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler were well aware of them.

Why is it that creationists are always happy to blame evolution for Adolph Hitler? In addition to invoking Godwin, you again demonstrate your fundamental ignorance regarding evolution theory. Evolution states that in a given environment, individuals who have a genetic predisposition toward survival will be the ones to reproduce, passing on their genetic advantage to their offspring while those without the genetic advantage will eventually die off and face extinction. Nothing in there makes for good social policy. Adolph Hitler's plans and actions are not founded in the theory of evolution, not matter what you read or hear from dishonest creationist sources or even from cranks espousing "Social Darwinism" pseudoscience. Evolution merely describes how things occur in the natural world amongst biological life forms. It does not tell us that we need to exterminate a group of people.

Anyone who claims that a scientific theory of any kind makes for a good social policy is an idiot. Anyone who blames a scientific theory for an abhorrent social policy is an even bigger idiot. I'm not even going to get into the theological justifications that Hitler used for what he did (no, I'm not claiming that he was a good Christian lad).

Personally, I'm not very concerned about the fate of viruses and bacteria.

So you don't think that it's worthwhile to study them?

How, exactly, are we to combat them if we don't know how they work? It's this kind of attitude that leads to the abuse of antibiotics which creates resistant strains of bacteria.

I'm more concerned about diseases relating to human beings. My question is, how can human diseases be defined under an evolutionary rubric if death and destruction is part of the evolutionary process, or "the survival of the fittest"?

It really can't be defined with respect to evolution unless the disease strikes people with a genetic predisposition to it, in which case it becomes an environmental factor hindering the survival rate of the individuals with the genetic makeup that makes them succeptable, possibly leading to their elimination from the gene pool.

If "science does not deal in 'good or bad,'" science must remain agnostic regarding the cure of so-called "diseases," correct?

There is no "scientific" position regarding the curing of disease. That is an ethics concern. There is no requirement that scientists must give up their ethics.

Or should scientists work to combat "diseases"?

That's their choice, and many choose to do just that.

Are they judging diseases to be bad?

Yes, they are. They are using non-scientific processes to make the judgement, and proceeding with research to cure the disease from a scientific stanpoint. That is perfectly valid.

[Dimensio]

I forgot to finish up...

Someone should tell the scientists who are working on cures to genetic diseases. They're acting as if some mutations are bad.

I said that science does not deal in 'good' or 'bad'. That does not mean that scientists can't deal in such things.

This is a fundamental contradiction, because scientists every day are working to cure diseases.

There is no contradiction. You just fail to understand. Medicine is based on the judgment that there is such a thing as health (good) and illness (bad).

Yes. And while the procedure for researching disease to find cures is itself scientific, the definition of the illness as bad and curing the illness as good is not scientific. Science is great for finding out how the natural world works, but it's not really going to give you an explanation of what is "good" and "bad". You'll have to use something else to make those judgements.

[Dimensio]

Evolution does not deal with the origins of the planet. I don't understand your point.

[balrog666]

No. I stated a form of the second law of thermodynamics. But I am interested in what you consider a naturally occurring non-organic heat pump.

Atmospheric circulation. Water currents over thermoclines. Salinity and brine separation flows. How many examples do you need to see before you admit that you are wrong?

[AndrewC]

How many examples do you need to see before you admit that you are wrong?

Wrong on what?

[PatrickHenry]

Why is it that creationists are always happy to blame evolution for Adolph Hitler?

But it's reasonable to blame Isaac Newton if a student of physics decides to throw his mother out the window.

[js1138]

Have human beings evolved? Yes or no. Are we evolving? Yes or no? How do you know?

Yes and yes, though any changes will be far less noticable and drastic as we have taken such control over our environment.

Since humans can feed everybody and have no significant preditors, sexual selection has taken over. Whatever we become will be the result of who gets the most women. Either that or our great grandchildren will be computers. But they will probably keep a few of us around as pets.

[balrog666]

Weasel or lawyer? You make the call!

[Dimensio]

I guess this is why evolution is still a "theory".

What else would it be? "Theory" is the strongest affirmation that a scientific explanation can have.

There is no proof that evolution or creation either one ever took place.

You need to be more specific when referring to "creation", as there are literally hundreds of different "creation" stories out there. Regarding evolution, there is no "proof". There's just evidence. Lots and lots of evidence.

However, I defy anyone to prove to me that a simple blade of grass just "happened" to appear one day.

Probably not going to happen. But I don't see your point.

If anyone can prove that beyond any reasonable doubt, then I will look seriously at whether or not an entire Universe just "Happened" to appear.

The ultimate origins of the universe have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution.

When they do this, then we can all go out and buy plastic, glass, fiberglass and metal and put them into a large bag. In oh... 20 million years or so, that stuff should morf into a Pentium computer.

Why would you expect this? This is completely nonsensical.

[AndrewC]

Weasel or lawyer? You make the call!

Well thanks for letting me describe you. You are both, but not much of a scientist.

[Aquinasfan]

Yes. And while the procedure for researching disease to find cures is itself scientific, the definition of the illness as bad and curing the illness as good is not scientific. Science is great for finding out how the natural world works, but it's not really going to give you an explanation of what is "good" and "bad". You'll have to use something else to make those judgements.

That thing is philosophy, the handmaid of theology, the queen of the sciences.

The problem is, if evolutionary theory makes no judgment regarding the relative goodness of various mutations, then it loses the basis for what little explanatory and predictive power it has.

Under an evolutionary rubric, mutations must be good, at least with respect to the theory, because without them evolution would not occur. We cannot, in a scientific sense, say whether specific, current, human mutations are good or bad because we cannot know what we are evolving into, and whether these mutations will ultimately increase or decrease our chances of survival.

Since we cannot scientifically say whether specific human mutations (and diseases) will ultimately increase or decrease our chances of survival, doctors may take an agnostic attitude regarding human mutations and diseases, or they can just as "scientifically" choose to cure these diseases, or they can just as "scientifically" work to cleanse the gene pool, as Margaret Sanger did.

This conclusion contradicts the first principle of ethics, which is that the good must be done and evil avoided. Clearly disease and injury are disorders of the body and intrinsic evils.

[Aquinasfan]

Do y'all exist in an either-or universe?

True and false, that kind of thing.

BTW, I'm an ID guy, not a Creationist, although I do believe that God created the universe from nothing, and that the human race derived from Adam and Eve.

Otherwise, the proper attitude regarding human origins, from what I've seen of the available evidence, is that we simply don't know how we got here.

[Aquinasfan]

Both... or ... three (Random/neutral genetic drift)... or four ... or ...

I've fallen behind in the theories I guess...

He also virtually anticipated punctuated equilibrium.

Thanks for clearing that up 8-)

[Dimensio]

That thing is philosophy, the handmaid of theology, the queen of the sciences.

Yes, it is philosophy, but I don't see it as queen of the sciences.

The problem is, if evolutionary theory makes no judgment regarding the relative goodness of various mutations, then it loses the basis for what little explanatory and predictive power it has.

No, it doesn't. It's descriptive. That's it.

Under an evolutionary rubric, mutations must be good, at least with respect to the theory, because without them evolution would not occur.

That's only if there's an implied definition of the process evolution itself being "good", which again, is outside of the realm of science. Evolution simply describes a process, it does not say whether the process itself is 'good' or 'bad'.

We cannot, in a scientific sense, say whether specific, current, human mutations are good or bad because we cannot know what we are evolving into, and whether these mutations will ultimately increase or decrease our chances of survival.

You're right. We cannot say, in a scientific sense, whether mutations are good or bad. We also cannot say, in a scientific sense, whether increased human survivability through mutation is good or bad, whether the WTC attacks were good or bad, whether Spider-Man 2 is good or bad or whether feeding the homeless is good or bad. Science simply describes processes, it does not make value judgements of any kind. Evolution happens; whether the ultimate results of the process are "good" or "bad" are judgements left for non-scientific analysis.

Since we cannot scientifically say whether specific human mutations (and diseases) will ultimately increase or decrease our chances of survival, doctors may take an agnostic attitude regarding human mutations and diseases, or they can just as "scientifically" choose to cure these diseases, or they can just as "scientifically" work to cleanse the gene pool, as Margaret Sanger did.

You still don't understand. Evolution deals with survivability in a given environment. If you work to cure disease, then you are changing the environment, and thus increasing the survival chances for individuals within the population. Thus curing human disease is another means of creating an environment in which more people will be able to survive.

Yes, you can try to argue that you're just trying to cull the 'weak' from the environment to improve future human generations, but don't tell me that it's an argument from pure science. You still have to make the ethical decision that it's better to let people die now so that humans in the future might have a genetic predisposition for immunity to the diseases and when you do that you've left the realm of science.

This conclusion contradicts the first principle of ethics, which is that the good must be done and evil avoided.

Well then it would seem as though someone who makes such a decision has a warped sense of ethics. I don't see how this condemns the theory of evolution.

Clearly disease and injury are disorders of the body and intrinsic evils.

If you say so. But this has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution.

[longshadow]

But it's reasonable to blame Isaac Newton if a student of physics decides to throw his mother out the window.

Similarly, the Wright Bros. were responsible for 9/11, because airplanes were used to kill 3,000 people.

< /Irrational Luddite Mode>