Posted on 11/01/2003 4:13:59 AM PST by I Am Not A Mod
Evolution under fire? -- Part 2
By David F. Dawes
|
CanadianChristianity.com: Does the general public realize the extent to which evolutionary theory is under attack by people with legitimate scientific and scholarly credentials?
Denyse O'Leary: Well, how could they? Darwinism is the orthodoxy of textbooks. It is the staple of TV science programs. In the United States, it is even protected by law.
I only discovered how much trouble Darwinism was in when I took a year out of my life -- late 2002 to late 2003 -- to study the situation. I was appalled. Darwinism has nothing like the support that we are accustomed to for theories in physics or chemistry.
CC.com: There is a crucial distinction between 'micro-evolution' (physical changes within a single species) and 'macro-evolution' (transformation from one species into another). Do you think there is sufficient awareness of the fact that there is no concrete evidence for macro-evolution?
D.O.: First, we need to distinguish between two ideas: Darwinism and macro-evolution. Darwinism says that evolution occurs as a result of the natural laws of physics and chemistry acting on purely random mutations in organisms. The origin and development of life is explained entirely in this way. The main driver (not necessarily the only one) is natural selection. Natural selection means that only those organisms that survive and breed leave offspring, so their traits are passed on. All other drivers -- for example, constraints on development -- are equally the outcome of law and chance.
Regarding macro-evolution: We know it happens. After all, there were trilobites in the Cambrian, but not horses. There are horses today but not trilobites. The unanswered question is -- how does it happen?
Theories of evolution have been proposed since the 18th century. Darwinism became the orthodoxy because it ruled out design. But it is not the only way of understanding evolution.
CC.com: The PBS special on evolution a few years ago was a clear demonstration that the theory is still deeply ingrained in scientific thought. Why does the scientific establishment (in a general sense) seem to be so determined to cling to evolutionary theory? How did this theory become so deeply entrenched as 'scientific' orthodoxy?
D.O.: Darwinism became entrenched because it eliminates design. Traditionally, three factors -- a sort of triangle -- accounted for creation and life: law -- what must happen; chance -- what might happen; and design -- art, engineering, intelligent design. Darwinism eliminated design from life forms. Design was merely an illusion. Life was really the outcome of law and chance.
Eliminating design enables a purely mechanistic world, which is easy for science to understand if -- and only if -- it is true. Is it true? Are the miracles of the cell and the eye, and the Cambrian Explosion really the result of blind chance, compelled by law? Of course not. Darwin knew nothing of these things. He was a clever man, but he had no idea what he was talking about. He lived and died before these wonders came to light.
CC.com: Are a significant number of scientists now open to alternatives to evolutionary theory?
D.O.: Yes and no. Many scientists are not happy with Darwinism. But Darwinism is more than a theory in science. It is the chief prop of an approach to science called methodological naturalism. Put simply, this approach means that law and chance are assumed to govern everything in the universe. In principle, design is ruled out.
The Big Bang theory and the discovery that Earth is a favoured planet -- not a mediocre one -- have dealt serious blows to this idea in physics and chemistry. When the COBE satellite confirmed the Big Bang, physicists were shouting that they had seen 'the face of God.' Stephen Hawking has nonetheless been trying to avoid God for decades, but does not appear to have succeeded.
Don't expect scientists to admit this. They don't like it, and are looking for a way to avoid it. It is a very unwelcome discovery.
CC.com: Are a lot of schools and school boards showing increasing willingness to give a platform to origins theories other than evolution?
D.O.: No. And they would be the last ones to do so. They have to please a variety of stakeholders, and the good union joes are still solidly behind Darwinism. To be fair, they have seldom had a chance to look at what is wrong with it. It won't be the establishment's fault if they do get a chance.
CC.com: To what extent has the Intelligent Design (ID) movement given added credibility to creationist views? Is ID making serious inroads into the scientific, educational and philosophical establishments? Specifically, do you know if much is happening in Canada, in this regard?
D.O.: Intelligent design is not a form of creationism. Creationism can be seen as a form of intelligent design, in that it identifies a designer. However, intelligent design simply argues that design is real, not apparent. Not everything that looks like design is in fact design. The frost patterns on the window are law and chance, not design. On the other hand, the origin of life forms continues to defy any explanation other than design.
I doubt that much is happening in Canada. Advocating intelligent design is costly even in the United States, where minority views are more easily tolerated. My book features lots of stories of people who have suffered career damage simply for saying that they believe that Darwinism is not true.
Ironically, one of Darwin's strongest supporters, Thomas Huxley, warned that Darwinism might become an ignorant superstition one day -- and it has.
CC.com: Is belief in evolutionary theory crumbling, in a general sense? Can you speculate whether it will finally be publically discredited -- and if so, whether you think that may happen in the near future?
D.O.: Actually, I very much doubt that belief in 'evolutionary theory' is crumbling. I certainly hope it isn't. After all, 31 phyla appeared in the Precambrian era . . . and of these, nine are extinct. Of the surviving ones, many have diversified remarkably -- vertebrates are a good example.
It is interesting to reflect that we humans have the same basic body plan as frogs, snakes, dinosaurs, and birds. We need some explanation for where we are today, that takes into account our planet's past.
On the other hand, the evidence from embryology shows that, while we have the same five-digit limb as they do, we do not get it by the same embryology path. That is not what Darwinism would lead us to expect. There are many remarkable puzzles waiting to be solved.
My prediction is that design will be restored as a normal part of our understanding of the universe, just as it was before Darwinism appeared in the 1850s. Thus, evolution will be seen as, in part, a function of design.
That, of course, leads inevitably to talk about God in biology. That's okay, really. Physicists have been doing it for decades. It didn't stop them from doing good science. It didn't stop Newton or Kelvin. It won't hurt biology either.
God does not tell us how he does things. He makes us find out all by ourselves.
CC.com: Can you share an anecdote involving an encounter you've had with someone who believes in the theory of evolution, and their response to creationist concepts and materials?
D.O.: Let's see . . . One Darwinist, encountering the Burgess Shale (where 31 phyla appeared suddenly) suggested that maybe it can all be explained by assuming that the Burgess creatures evolved eyes. Eyes explain all the complexity, he said. They enabled the complex evolution. The trouble with his idea is, what explains eyes?
Vision is a fantastically complex ability, quite apart from the eyes that enable vision cells to function. The eyes are complex too, but that is a separate story.
How did the complex vision cells start? Darwinism asks us to believe that, by accident, most of the Burgess creatures hit on this incredible series of steps at once, even though the creatures are so unrelated that they are put in different phyla by taxonomists. But some creatures never even developed vision and got on just fine. How is that?
After a while, I realized that the Darwinist simply needed to believe that there is no design. There is a huge investment in this sort of thing in our society. Many people simply cannot afford to see the design. They keep looking for chance, and it isn't there.
I found this on Toynbee.
"IN THE LATE FORTIES, TOYNBEE acquired the reputation of being a passionate Arab protagonist and a fierce opponent of the State of Israel; by his own admission he became known as a "Western spokesman for the Arab cause."
That pretty much descredits Toynbee. What else you got?
You have had a very sheltered life. Not only is your grasp of history limited but you display an appalling lack of knowledge of current affairs as well. Toynbee was the greatest historian of his day. Everyone who has ever read any history knows Toynbee. In light of current events Toynbee was clearly correct in his appraisal of the partition of Palestine to create a Jewish homeland. He had extensive knowledge of the effect of the partitions of India and Ireland by the British government. Theft by government mandate is still theft, and oppression always leads to resistance. Hate begets hate and the cycle escalates until there are folks so filled with hate and despair that their only possible response is to become a suicide bomber. Perhaps you are aware that there is today a growing movement within the Israeli military that recognizes the futility of heavy handed oppression of a captive people. Toynbee predicted this almost sixty years ago.
By the way, truth is always stranger than fiction. Everything that I have told you is historically accurate. I simply know more than you do about your religion and its history. You could remedy this by study but you would have to recognize that impartial scholarly investigations must start without preconcieved notions. It also helps if you employ the best sources available and not rely exclusively on children's bedtime story versions of history.
See that was Eve's mistake in the garden. She got two sets of information. One from God and one from the serpent. First thing, Eve caught and corrected the serpent for twisting the words of the Lord. But then she continued to listen to the serpent until eventually he convinced her that the forbidden fruit was not fatal. She should have identified his nature right off and not listened to anything the serpent said.
Same with Toynbee. He is discredited.
Being well read, doesn't necessarily make you smarter. If you don't discriminate about your sources, it just makes you confused.
In every population there are always those who are in denial. They think that everyone shares their values and that there ought to be a way that we can "all just get along". And while I think that's a nice sentiment, it's not realistic, because everyone doesn't share those values.
Arafat turned down a state for the Palestinians. What Arafat says in Arabic after he finishes speaking in English for the rest of the world, reveals his true intent. He intends to drive Israel into the sea. The murderous acts of the terrorists have nothing to do with being oppressed captives and everything to do with hatred of the "infidel".
Your claim that Toynbee is discredited and a "Jew Hater" because you have read one sentence about him (which you didn't understand) is clearly evidence of neurosis.
"Being well read, doesn't necessarily make you smarter. If you don't discriminate about your sources, it just makes you confused." -- DannyTN
Perhaps you get confused. Most people past the age of twelve are pretty capable of handling a diversity of opinions and information without confusion. Not so with True Believers who use mental compartmentalization in order to avoid mixing disparate facts that might lead them to doubt their faith. The mental effort (largely subconscious) required to maintain the compartments often leads to an impaired intelligence. Mixing, after all, is what intelligence is all about.
While your "mixing" you might want to try mixing in a little "discernment" in your pot.
Very funny. Remember to first cast the beam out or your own eye before you remove the mote from you neighbor's eye. If you had any "discernment" at all you would long ago have recognized the difference between ancient myths and actual events.
Yes! Walk in the woods, dig in the earth, observe the animals. Study nature and natural history, don't Myth it!
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.