Posted on 07/22/2005 4:46:53 AM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
In a recent TCS essay ("Darwin and Design: The Evolution of a Flawed Debate") I attacked what I regarded as the excesses of both sides of the evolution-creationism debate. There were angry responses in the mail and the blogosphere from both the creationist and the evolution sides, which pleased me, since there were clearly oxen on both sides that felt they had been gored, and caps in my piece that were felt to have, uncomfortably, fit. The angry evolutionists were especially interesting, as they often wound up admitting implicitly that their real agenda was atheism -- while denying that there was any social policy message in that agenda.
In the essay I did state flatly that the theory of evolution had been proved. I wanted it to be clear where I stood. Much of the mail I received protested about that statement. I hold to it, and hold to it not as my own opinion, but as a fact, like the existence of Australia, which is not my opinion but a fact. But I do know that there are many who sincerely, and given their range of knowledge, rationally, do not believe in the theory of evolution.
By the theory of evolution I mean the origination of new species from common ancestral forms by an iterated process of genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission, whereby the frequencies of newly altered, repeated, and old genes and introns in a given lineage can cross ecological, structural, and behavioral thresholds that radically separate one species from another. In one sense, this can be summed up in a syllogism, which must be true if we make the basic and essential act of faith that logic itself is true: survivors survive. Given enough time, variation among the genes of individuals, variations in habitat in space and time, the process by which genes translate into proteins, tissues, and organs, and the thresholds that define biological species, all of which can be observationally verified, the principle of the "survivors survive" syllogism must bring about a huge branching of different kinds of life.
The above summary statement of the theory will not convince opponents, who will be able to pick philosophical holes in it (which holes have been sewn up by countless scientists and philosophers in the last 150 years). But what opponents of evolution do not perhaps realize is what they are up against in terms of sheer human and civilizational achievement based on the evolutionary paradigm. This is not a proof of evolution, any more than the four-thousand year history of the survival of the Jewish people is a proof of Judaism or the worldwide congregation of Christianity is a proof of that religion; but it is an indication of the kind of scholarship that would be needed to refute it.
There are at least 50 major journals in the academic field of biology. All accept without question the theory of evolution as I outlined it above. They are not attempting even to prove the theory, any more than math journals attempt to prove that the sum of the internal angles of a plane triangle is 180 degrees, or engineering journals revisit the existence of gravity. But they would be nonsense without the theory of evolution, just as engineering would be nonsense without gravity. Each of those journals is published about four times a year; several of them have been in existence for over a hundred years. Each journal contains at least ten articles of about 2-20 pages, and each of those articles represents several months' or years' work by a team of trained biologists whose most compelling material and moral interest would be to disprove the work of all their predecessors and to make an immortal name by doing so. The work of the biological teams is required to be backed up by exhaustive experiment and observation, together with exact statistical analysis of the results. There is a continuous process of search through all these articles by trained reviewers looking for discrepancies among them and demanding new experimental work to resolve them. Since every one of these articles relies on the consistency and truth of the theory of evolution, every one of them adds implicitly to the veracity of the theory. By my calculation, then, opponents of evolution must find a way of matching and disproving, experiment by experiment, observation by observation, and calculation by calculation, at least two million pages of closely reasoned scientific text, representing roughly two million man-years of expert research and perhaps trillions of dollars of training, salaries, equipment, and infrastructure.
But the task of the opponent does not end here. For biology is not the only field for which the theory of evolution is an essential foundation. Geology, physical anthropology, agricultural science, environmental science, much of chemistry, some areas of physics (e.g. protein folding) and even disciplines such as climatology and oceanography (which rely on the evolutionary history of the planet in its calculations about the composition of the atmosphere and oceans), are at least partially founded on evolution. Most important of all for our immediate welfare, medicine is almost impossible as a research discipline without evolutionary theory. So perhaps the opponent must also throw in another 4 million pages, four million man-years, and ten trillion dollars -- and be prepared to swallow the billions of human deaths that might follow the abandonment of the foundations of medical, mining, environmental, agricultural, and climatological knowledge.
If what is at stake is a proposition in the theology of biblical interpretation that is not shared by a large minority or possibly a majority of Christians and Jews, perhaps it might be more prudent to check the accuracy of the theology, which, after all, is a human creation even if scripture itself is conceded to be divinely inspired. Might not God's intentions be revealed better in the actual history and process of nature, his creative expression, than in the discrepancies we might hope to find in its self-consistency and coherent development?
From a logical standpoint, I have no great dispute with the position that God permits evil to take place so that a greater ultimate good will result. The only problem with regard to the present debate is that in order to do that evil must be enacted along the way. There's also the question of why an omnipotent God would be unable to produce the same result without enacting evil or otherwise permitting its enactment, but that can be resolved several ways.
One way is that, however paradoxical, the enactment of evil is a good unto itself. That appears to be where you're headed; i.e., that free will is of such inherent value that evil must be permitted to exist so that free will to enact it can then exist. I can accept that; it's just that from a logical standpoint - as we understand logic - this requires a God that can do evil, notwithstanding that the evil is part and parcel of an overriding good.
There is also the argument that God operates under rules of logic different from ours, which from our standpoint would make him an irrational God (but not necessarily irrational in the absolute sense). I can accept that too, but that wasn't the argument originally presented. My dispute with the original argument is that it's self-contradictory - in other words, the premises appear mutually exclusive.
Your premises stated above are not mutually exclusive.
Good blog and nice rebuttal.
Simple. Gather together Ichneumon's FR posts, edit them into an orderly fashion, and publish. One of Darwin Central's junior assistant custodians could do the grunt work. ;o)
It's almost like the entire evo community memorized the talking points memo.
"Yeah, but he was caught by evolutionists! See, the system works!"
Yeah, if you're willing to wait 30 years, it works.
But, my inquiry into your mindset (which has proved you to be merely another apologist who would rather attack creationists than substantively address the issue) was based on YOUR original post #126, where you condescendingly smirked at the 'peer review' process with regards to Brad Harrub (for whom I could care less).
If you're going to attack the other side with singular anecdotes, you'd better have big enough shoulders to take the 'slings and arrows' in return.
You haven't made even the most elementary attempt to investigate the Prof. Protsch affair. You dismiss it out of hand with a sniff: "Evolutionists found it and punished him."
Well, maybe we'll wait 30 years before we take a look at Mr. Harrub, OK? That'd make it fair according to your rules of engagement, wouldn't it?
So... how is it that the evo establishment is structured with fatal flaws such that the Protsch's of your community are allowed to slither around in the academic primordial goo for 30 years or more?
Yes, actually, they do. I might be a little hard pressed to find a calculus example, but there are plenty of examples of them attacking or ridiculing geology and astrophysics, along with nuclear physics and a bunch of other fields.
I was quite sure, as an undergraduate, that differential equations were the work of the devil. ;o)
A couple weeks ago (on Sunday, of course ;^) I was drawn into a family dispute that involves matters of faith. When reflecting upon it, I was quite taken aback by the immense hostility and contempt that I expressed toward the entire subject of faith. In short, my conclusion is that I have unresolved issues.
Now, the fact that I have unresolved issues is hardly any kind of revelation to me by any stretch of the imagination. However, I've been wondering how much of my abandonment of faith may be due to said unresolved issues rather than to intellectual reasoning. I find this somewhat disconcerting, since it leads me to wonder whether in the absence of such unresolved issues I would reach the same conclusion with regard to faith (or lack thereof).
So, nothing may very well come of it in the end, but I am presently questioning my (dis)beliefs.
"The burden of proof is on anyone who makes an assertion either way."
Nonsense. "We see no evidence for an intelligent designer" can have no possible proof. That doesn't impact the validity of the statement at all.
It is those maling a *positive* assertion that must provide evidence for that assertion.
Please dont give them any ideas.
What, you don't like the fact that I approve of Reiner Protsch's dismissal for committing fraud? You don't like the fact that he was thoroughly exposed by scientists who investigated his findings and then dismissed in disgrace? That makes me and others (inexplicably) "apologists"? Sheesh.
And no, I haven't conducted an examination of Mr. Protsch. Why should I? Sounds like others accomplished that task rather thoroughly, and I'll take your word regarding his fraudulent behavior and dismissal.
Now, do you have any evidence that Mr. Protsch's fraud was known about sometime earlier but condoned? You seem to be making the accusation that, for thirty years, Mr. Protsch was a known fraudulator (a term of art), but that scientists kept it a secret and snickered about it in their monthly "darwin central" meetings. It'd be nice if you would back that up. Otherwise, I'll presume that, as soon as his fabrications were unearthed, he was dealt with. Harshly.
It's rather self-evident to me that Mr. Harrub's falsifications (or at the least, gross negligence) are well known. Right now. Today. But of course, nothing will be done about it. That's "creation science" in a nutshell.
You are correct. I should have thought about that more before posting it. I have friends that believe in a 6,000 year old earth. They frequently attack geology.
Helping a friend move back from Texas to Seattle was a bit frustrating, as we visited the Grand Canyon on the way. He was more than happy to explain how it was formed (flood geology), and I was more than happy to explain why he was wrong. It went over there as well as it goes over here, and we've been best of friends for 30 years. Sigh.
You said:
The burden of proof must therefore lie with the people making assertions of an intelligent designer, not with those who deny one.
Simply stating that one sees no worthwhile evidence of ID is not the same as actively denying its existence. But in either case, it's a philosophical/religious observation, not a scientific one.
A comparison to global warming is a stawman of the first order. The fact is scientists in the majority denounce global warming.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1448332/posts?q=1&&page=51
See post #68
You keep trying to avoid the root of the question: How is it that the evo community can create a 'peer review' structure that has holes in it big enough to drive a 30-year career through?
Trying to create some sort of straw man argument like "What, you don't like the fact that I approve of Reiner Protsch's dismissal for committing fraud? You don't like the fact that he was thoroughly exposed by scientists who investigated his findings and then dismissed in disgrace?"
These are things I never said, and never intimated. If you infer these things, it is because you need an easier target at which to shoot, other than the one I have clearly provided.
But, my question about 'peer-review' still stands, and it has not one sentence of explanation from you regarding it, thus far.
You incorrectly insinuate that I'm some sort of a conspiracy theorist by snidely positing that: "You seem to be making the accusation that, for thirty years, Mr. Protsch was a known fraudulator (a term of art), but that scientists kept it a secret and snickered about it in their monthly "darwin central" meetings. It'd be nice if you would back that up." You should be above putting words into people's mouths.
Again, to bring you back on to point, what is it about the evo scientific community, structurally, that would fail so spectacularly for so long in it's peer-review process? What about duplication of results? What about the careers of the peer-reviewers who tacitly put their stamps on his 30 year work?
Should they suffer recrimination too?
I meant to address you also in my #253...
"Simply stating that one sees no worthwhile evidence of ID is not the same as actively denying its existence. But in either case, it's a philosophical/religious observation, not a scientific one."
In the absence of any single shred of evidence, I have no problem with scientists saying that ID is bunk. After all, science is all about evidence.
It's religion, which is not subject to the scientific method. As religion, it is a subject of faith. But when IDers inject it into the realm of science without being able to support it as science, it (and they) deserve to be laughed out of the room.
I have no problem with them saying it, either -- to their families over supper, or posting on internet message boards, or whatever. But they should not pretend that such an opinion constitutes 'science.' It is merely their personal religious belief.
After all, science is all about evidence.
Exactly. And since we already established that there can be NO evidence that intelligent design played no part in the development of species, then any claim to that effect is necessarily made without any evidence, and is therefore unscientific.
But...
Researchers can come up with any number of scenarios for the natural evolution of a system and then test those scenarios. One cannot disprove Intelligent Design; however one can show it is unnecessary.
bookmark
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.