What are Darwinists so afraid of?

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

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.

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."

why do u think these things are called clean or unclean? does that have any scientific validity? just curious

I don't know for sure, but I can take a stab at it. Hares and hogs (unclean animals) eat their own poop (intentionally, and unintentionally, respectively), making them highly succeptable to tularemia. Scaleless fish are bottom feeders, as are shellfish, and arthropods, and are succeptable to a variety of diseases due to dead things sinking to the bottom. Locusts and grasshoppers, while insects, are actually grazers/browsers. The likelihood of getting sick off of eating them is rather low. They are very rich in protein, and considered a delicacy in many parts of the world.

Actually, the dietary requirements section of Leviticus is fascinating. I love going through it. However, the more that I go through it, the more errors I come across. Not a bad bit of work for bronze age nomadic goat herders, but it has its problems.

"I’ve been thinking about this question for a week now [I’m a really slooooow thinker. :^)]"

I'll not take a backseat to anyone when it comes to slooooow thinking. { 8^)

"That the Observer Problem" is not confined to matters scientific, as you and others (A-G) have noted, is a happy event for those of us who do not possess a strong background in science, because it permts us to relate to the concept by way of our understanding of its application in other disciplines. Such as history:

Whenever we undertake to study historical events or the acts of historical figures, we are "privileged" (as the historian Bernard Bailyn is wont to describe it) to know of subsequent events and outcomes, of which those earlier figures had no more than a glimmer, if even so little as that. This is true whether we are dealing with the past of, let us say, a mere 241 years ago, or of a much greater length of time, for example as in 3,500 years ago. If we study and judge events and human actions out of the context of their particular historical time and not on their own terms, then that is an observer problem which must lead to error. As one evidence of the Observer Problem in historical matters, it might be noted that, in a peculiar variation on Branden's Falacy of the Stolen Concept, on occasion we are so influenced by some events and figures that our grasp of their significance can be considerably effected.

The aforementioned Bailyn (Considering the Slave Trade: History and Memory, The William and Mary Quarterly Vol. 58, No. 1, Jan 2001), describes the historical Observer Problem in these terms: "As historians we shrink from telescoping past and present, hoping to explain the things that happened for their own sakes and in their own terms. And we select from the documentation what seems to illuminate the outcomes, which we, as opposed to the people in the past, are privileged to know. But we do so critically, skeptically, because we know that we can never recapture any part of the past absolutely and completely. So we keep our distance from the past, from the stories we tell, knowing that facts may be uncovered that will change our stories; other viewpoints may turn us away from what we now think is relevant, and other ways of understanding may make us reconsider everything."

So it follows that I'm inclined to think, as Ive always been inclined to think, that the 'Observer Problem' is indeed a problem for the observer, and that the Universe not only has no problem with it, but in fact takes no notice of it. The Universe, like 'Ol Man River', just keeps rolling along, knowing everything and knowing nothing. But, unlike 'Ol Man River,' we are obliged to take notice.

So that brings us to you and A-G (and others), who have engaged to enter into discussions with The Masters of the Universe over their 'tendency to deny the 'observer problem' and to indulge in philosophical speculations 'under the color of science.' I understand you are presently on vacation, but upon your return, I look forward to benefitting from a continuation of those discussions, and in the hopes that I may make some small contribution on the rare occasion.

Thank you oh so very much for your insights into the "observer problem" especially as it relates to history!

What a fascinating aspect it is - and every bit as relevant to the historical sciences such as anthropology, archeology, Egyptology and evolutionary biology. In these fields, the investigator may be working mostly with physical fragments of the past with little or no recorded language to "frame" the evidence. Even so, they attempt to reconstruct what likely happened in an environment which is not always "information-rich".

Nevertheless, as your except noted "So we keep our distance from the past, from the stories we tell, knowing that facts may be uncovered that will change our stories; other viewpoints may turn us away from what we now think is relevant, and other ways of understanding may make us reconsider everything."

IMHO, that is the responsible way to deal with the observer problem in looking at the past.

FYI, Ortega Y Gasset has the following about definition (and a bit about planets at the end):

A world whose being is known is composed solely of necessities. Always, when we say of something that 'it is thus' or 'is so', 'is this' or 'is that other way,' we have abandoned the thing as it first appeared before us and have substituted a thought of our own, an interpretation . . .
The earth is here beneath my feet or under the foundations of the building in which I find myself. It has, in my life, a primary role which is to uphold and sustain me. But suddenly it shakes, moves from side to side, ceases to be firm and to sustain me. It is then that I make a question of it. . . Now it is . . . a question, a problem. I ask myself, 'What is the earth?'
Earlier we were resting on the earth, sustaining ourselves on it; but when it becomes that which fails to uphold us, we do not know what to do with the earth, what to look for in regard to it. And we do not know the latter because we do not know the former. so that becomes a question for us. Fundamentally, the question is one of our behavior toward it, our conduct, what we do with the earth . . . .
If the earth shakes, ceasing to uphold us, thereby denying us its habitual service, we ask ourselves, 'What is the earth?' When the sun suddenly, and in full daylight, refuses its habitual illumination so favorable to men, the latter ask, 'What is the sun?'
The same thing happens with my body. When it is sick, it is opposed to me and does not serve me. Ipso facto, it remains foreign to me, and does not serve me. Thus, man, as he lives, discovers the basic duality of his life; he feels that he is amid something other than himself, in a foreign country, dépaysé.
After asking himself, he asks other men; . . . finding out 'what is said' about it. The subject of this saying is what we called 'people'; the social environment, the collective personage, without individuality, which is no definite person and is, therefore, irresponsible. . . .
There is a great lack of congruence between the question and the reply. The question, 'What is the earth?', I have thought and have felt in all its moving and inevitable anguish; but the reply, 'the earth is a planet' or something similar, this I neither thought nor rethought, but with this reply I repeat what 'is said,' and with this repetition I enter into and become part of 'the people,' which is nobody. I, then, turn into nobody, which is what Ulysses, punning with his name, did when he wanted to hide or to disappear.

Interesitng icorrigible individualist!

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

. . . . . The Rubaiyat Omar Khayyam, 1120 AD, the FitzGerald Quatrain LXXI

the tendency of some disciplines of science (perhaps seeking to be autonomous?) is to ignore and/or deny the observer problem. That tendency casts a dark shadow over many pronouncements, particularly those of the metaphysical naturalists who practice philosophy under the color of science.

That that is, is. Such a simple statement to cause Man so much trouble. Truly A-G, as you note, the observer problem is a human problem. And, it is as much the human will which betrays Man, as it is his senses or the boundries of his knowledge. And thank you, cornelis, for the ruminations of Ortega Y Gasset, agonizing over this self-same 'observer problem'. There then arises the issue where lies the boundry between the Individualism of Gasset and the chaos of wilful intemperance. How to distinguish liberty from license. How may Man enjoy the benefits of living in a state of nature, yet find the necessary security provided by association.

A-G, I've had the opportunity to discuss various of the practical aspects with some of those whom you call metaphysical naturalists (i.e. The Masters of the Universe). They exhibit an appalling disinterest in, or perhaps instead a lack of appreciation for, the most basic concepts of the consent of the governed. Do you suppose that to be a manifestation of their metaphysical naturalism? I think maybe so.

If we study and judge events and human actions out of the context of their particular historical time and not on their own terms, then that is an observer problem which must lead to error.

Hi YHAOS! Sorry for my tardy reply; have been on a splendid vacation where excellent things happened, even when it rained. :^)

It happens I'm a great admirer of Bernard Bailyn. His Ideological Origins of the American Revolution and the Ideological Origins of American Politics are cherished volumes on my bookshelf.

You wrote: "the 'Observer Problem' is indeed a problem for the observer, and that the Universe not only has no problem with it, but in fact takes no notice of it. The Universe, like 'Ol Man River', just keeps rolling along, knowing everything and knowing nothing."

Deeply perceptive IMHO my friend.

"Ol' Man River" in this context is the totality of God-ordained Being. The "Observer problem" goes to epistemology: "What can we know about this Being, and how do we know it? And how do we know we know it?"

In short, we are dealing with questions of ultimate truth, and how truth can be accessed and understood by human minds. Fortunately, as we have been told before now in holy scripture, the "imago Dei" which is man, as the image or reflection of the divine, a creature of reason and free will, was set up in the beginning to understand such things.

Which understanding probably is the reason why systematic science arose only in the Western cultural tradition. If the East ever got a hang of it, is was only through cultural borrowing from the West.

But I digress. To get back to the point at issue: The Observer problem putatively is not restricted to problems in science, in particular to relativity and quantum theory, but is a fundamental issue in observations of our own space-time experience, a la Newton and classical physics.

I'd just have to agree that this is manifestly true, with ample historical backing evidence.

It was Laplace who indicated the full extent of the ambition of classical physics:

“The Marquis Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827) was known as the Isaac Newton of France. A brilliant mathematician and wily politician, he’s an almost perfect embodiment of the arrogance of the ‘Age of Enlightenment.’
“[For Laplace said:] ‘Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective positions of the beings which compose it, if moreover this intelligence were vast enough to submit these data to analysis … to it nothing would be uncertain, and the future as the past would be present to its eyes.’
“This mechanistic view was a dream of many, starting with the ancients who talked about the ‘music of the spheres’ as they envisioned the universe as a series of interlocking crystalline spheres spinning inside each other.
“[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?’
“Hmph. I know what you’re driving at, sire, but I have no need of this … ‘God’ hypothesis.”
[Mon Dieu!] :^) [Ottaviani and Purvis, Suspended in Language, 2004]

Well, that may all be well and good as far as it goes. But human beings fully live "in spirit" as much or more than they live "in matter." It seems Laplace, in consigning God and spirit to the ash heap of history, cut man down to sub-human level.

Which, it seems to me, makes him a far less capable truthful "observer" than were he to be left with his original divinely-ordained legacy still intact, in faith and reason....

Thank you so much, YHAOS, for your beautiful essay/post!

[ But I digress. To get back to the point at issue: The Observer problem putatively is not restricted to problems in science, in particular to relativity and quantum theory, but is a fundamental issue in observations of our own space-time experience, a la Newton and classical physics. ]

Observation begins the moment we are born the first time, and is kick started on the second birth.. Some it seems have trouble shaking the observations of stage one trying meld stage one with stage two.. Not separating the two paradigms..

Because its certain there are two paradigms.. observed with two different organs(metaphor).. The relativity of Quantum theory is relevant to stage one, the relativity of stage two is still playing out and the relativity is in progress.. Changing daily even moment by moment.. for some..

Observology is quite an occupation.. The study of which can expand a persons abilty to observe.. Neat ain't it.. What a plan..

"It happens I'm a great admirer of Bernard Bailyn."

In my opinion, he is a most accurate and careful historian/historiographer.

"Ol' Man River" in this context is the totality of God-ordained Being.

Darn. I can't slip a thing past you. {8^)

"we are dealing with questions of ultimate truth, and how truth can be accessed and understood by human minds"

With us, is this not always so?

[Man, the] "reflection of the divine, a creature of reason and free will, was set up in the beginning to understand such things"

Yes. And my point being that Man is his own worst problem. To be sure, there are other features of 'the observer problem', but IMHO Man himself (his will) is the greatest of these.

"Which understanding [man, as the reflection of the divine] probably is the reason why systematic science arose only in the Western cultural tradition"

Or so was the thought in Judeo-Christian Western Civilization until recently when it has become fashionable to believe that Western Civilization can do better absent the Judeo-Christian part.

Still, he seems to subject ontology to epistemology here. Oftentimes that proves useful.

Reminds me of a passage in the Timaeus:

For this ordered world is of mixed birth: it is the offspring of a union of Necessity and Intellect. Intellect prevailed over Necessity by persuading it to direct most of the things that come to be toward what is best, and the result of this subjugation of Necessity to wise persuasion was the initial formation of this universe.

Have you ever read the opening chapter in Tolkien's Silmarillion? Tolkien recognizes how the contest of intellect is the effort toward formation and creation, but that this effort is complicated with the contest for recognition as opposed to greater harmony.

And we wish to be served, rather than to serve. Sam calls Frodo Master. The observer problem is tangled up with the contest for power. And on top of all this Jesus says, "I call you my friends" and adopts us as sons of God.

And my point being that Man is his own worst problem. To be sure, there are other features of 'the observer problem', but IMHO Man himself (his will) is the greatest of these.

It seems we live in an age that celebrates radical egoism: the doctrine that holds individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action, and legitimately so. But of course this gives short shrift to the social dimensions of man's life: The "Good" is defined as "what's 'Good' for me," not any wider or more comprehensive Good beyond the self. Lost, or nearly so, is any idea of connection to other human beings, of a sense of duty or responsibility to others. Above all it seems the human person is losing all sense of being a participant in a "great hierarchy of being," which extends beyond the selfish self to society, history, nature -- and above all to God, who is the Author of the hierarchy.

In falling away from the life of the Spirit (greatly enabled by the prestige of positivism and reductive materialism which arguably includes at least the popularized form of neo-Darwinism), man is plunged into disorder, and from there disorders all that he comes into contact with.

But he is "free to do as he likes." And this is how human liberty is defined these days. Truth has no bearing on one's choices; utility is king, and what passes for "success" is the standard of "correctness." All truth is just opinion anyway....

These are suicidal tendencies, IMHO. And so yes, I do agree with you, YHAOS: Man is his own worst problem.

[ All truth is just opinion anyway.... ]

Which is the condensation of the question, "My truth or your truth"...
Another view of the scale of the "observations" of the Observer.. The scale weighs observations.. With no scale the weight is just an opinion.. Without the Bible as a scale humanity is just fishing for concepts, and proudly lying about their size.. As Neils Bohrs "implys", even the reciprocal of a truth is a truth.. Its possible that the whole unvarnished truth of any matter is too much for one man to contain.. meaning we need each other to even approach understanding a portion of the truth, any truth..

Would make the metaphor of the "Body of Christ" even deeper in its concept.. meaning it takes us all to understand the truth, any truth.. It might take a corporate structure to contain the truth, any truth.. i.e. the truth MUST be shared corporately to even approach it.. (spirits Merging <- BOW)

"It seems we live in an age that celebrates radical egoism: the doctrine that holds individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action . . . "

A self-interest, devoid of rationality and lacking any sense of conscious, purposeful direction, would be nothing if not a disaster. Man reduced to a state of nature without the protection of society.

"Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this.

"This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense."

. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ME, Vol 5, pg 257)

"Lost, or nearly so, is any idea of connection to other human beings, of a sense of duty or responsibility"

Recall the rape of Nanjing or the bombing of Guernica.

"But he is "free to do as he likes." And this is how human liberty is defined these days. Truth has no bearing on one's choices; utility is king, and what passes for "success" is the standard of "correctness." All truth is just opinion anyway.... "

Yes, but not an evidence of 'free will'; instead an evidence per my observation (in #1668), that if truth is mere opinion we experience great difficulty in retaining the ability to know "How to distinguish liberty from license."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.