Darwinian Dissonance?

Internet Infidels ^ | Timeless | Paul A. Dernavich

[Heartlander]

---

Darwinian Dissonance?

Paul A. Dernavich

It is safe to say that the creation/evolution debate will not be resolved anytime soon, and why should it?  With the recent squabbles in states throughout America, and the Dawkinses and Dembskis trading haymakers with each other, things are only getting interesting.  Although I am merely a ringside observer, I am here to blow the whistle on some apparent foul play which I have observed. It is up to you to determine whether any of the participants should be disqualified. 

Let's go to the videotape...

Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive dissonance.  They routinely describe non-human processes as if they were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed. No sooner do they discredit evidence for a grand, cosmic plan, that they reveal their anticipation towards what the next phase of it will be. Let me give you examples.

Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent Design theory ( "Design Yes, Intelligent No" ), utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume, are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as concepts, they defy common sense.  He describes the natural world as being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena."  If these terms mean something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves.  For the very notion of design cannot be thought of in any other terms than that of a conscious being with an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a plan, or an intellect.  Each of the 21 definitions  of "design" in Webster's pertain to a living subject, human by implication.   This is not to say that random arrangements of things cannot be fantastically complex; but if they are not purposefully complex then the word "design" is incorrect.   And "chaotic self-organizing" is a cluster of words similar to "triangular circles": an excessively clever term to describe something that can't possibly exist.

Other examples abound.  A 1999 Time magazine cover story described human evolution like it was General Motors, replacing the "clunkers" with "new and improved" models: but doing it, of course, "blindly and randomly." [1] Spare me, please, from blind and random "improvements."  In the most recent Free Inquiry (the magazine of the Council for Secular Humanism), a scholar writes that both "Christians and humanists agree on one thing: that humans are the most valuable form of life on the planet," and that we are "the crown of earthly creation." [2] That is precisely the one thing that a secular humanist cannot call us: the crown of earthly creation. And valuable? Valuable to whom, and on what basis?  Another term which receives heavy usage is "success," as in a "successful" species of lizard.  But in order for anything to be a success, it must have had some prior goal or standard to fulfill.  If we cannot confirm a purpose for which life is supposed to have originated, how can we say anything is a success?  What if chickens were supposed to fly?  What if beavers were supposed to build A-frames?  Naturalistically speaking, anything is successful if it exists.  Even a pebble is successful at being a pebble.

Finally, Robert Wright, in a New Yorker piece which dope-slaps Stephen Jay Gould for being an unwitting ally to creationists, proves himself to be a pretty solid creationist in his own right, as he goes on to refer to natural selection as a "tireless engineer" with a "remarkable knack for invention," even comparing it to a brain, indicative of a higher purpose, which stacks the evolutionary deck and responds to positive feedback.[3]  Maybe evolution is a focus group!?  Whether it is by ignorance, defiance or the limits of our language, these Darwin defenders liberally use terms which are not available to them, given their presuppositions.  One cannot deny the cake, and then proceed to eat from it!

It brings up the problem I have always had with the term "natural selection."  We all know what it means, and I can't dispute it's validity as a model for the differentiation of species.  As a word couplet, though, it is a grammatical gargoyle, like the term "cybersex."  If you were asked to describe what sex is, it probably wouldn't sound like what happens when a lonely data-entry intern in Baltimore starts typing his fantasies on a flat screen which, thanks to thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable, is then read by someone in Spokane. That situation has nothing to with the purposes or processes of sex, as either God or nature intended it. The modifier is not true to its object.  Although the word "cyber-" is intended as a kind of adjective, it comes dangerously close to totally redefining the word which it is only supposed to modify.  Contrarily, one could have a blue book or a brown book, but in either case it is still a book.  One could make a hasty selection or a careful selection; it is still a selection. But natural?  A selection is a choice, and only a conscious being that can process information can really make a choice, or even input information into a system which will later result in a choice.  However, when the drying of a swamp puts a salamander out of existence, that is an occurrence.  We are comfortable with "natural selection" as a phrase, because it conjures up images of Mother Nature, or some cosmic Gepetto tinkering with his toys.  As a technical term, it is a misleading oxymoron.

I know what this proves.  It proves absolutely nothing.  This is innocent embellishment, lazy usage, or a validation of Chomskyesque theories about the inadequacy of language. One could say that a critique based on language is aimed at the most inconsequential part of any argument, like saying that Kierkegaard would have been more compelling if he had typed in New Times Roman.  However, a more careful consideration will reveal that exactly the opposite is true, at least in this case. The words used by modern-day Darwinists are not a sidelight, they are symptomatic of a fissure in the structure of their thought.  I believe that when someone wrongly calls the evolutionary process a purposeful "design," it is not because of sloppy writing, but because of intentional and thoughtful writing.  It is because that is the only idea that will work.  It is the only word that will work.  It is because there is something brilliant, something awesome, and something significant about our world, and our instinct is to want to know who gets credit for it.  The impulse is innate and proper.  It is  the decision to give credit to an abstract and unauthored "process" which is out of sync.

Let me make the point in a more obvious way.  Here are two written accounts:

A. Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with each other at a single point in space and time.  One cluster dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into its component elements.

B. A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially motivated attack, according to Thompson County police.  Reginald K. Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports, Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun.  According to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.

If asked where these two fictitious excerpts came from, most would say that A was from a textbook or scientific journal, and probably describes events observed under a microscope or in a laboratory.  B would be a typical example of newspaper journalism.  Most people would say that, of course, they are not talking about the same thing. But could they be?  Well, to the materialist, the answer is certainly negative. To those who don't take their Darwinism decaffeinated, who embrace it as a philosophy which excludes any non-natural explanations for life's origins, the answer is absolutely.  B perhaps wins on style points, but the content is the same.  Any outrage or emotion felt upon reading the second excerpt would be a culturally conditioned response, but not a proof that there had been anything "wrong" that had happened.  In this view, A is probably the most responsible account.  Nature, with its fittest members leading the way, marches on. I think I would be correct in stating that many would disagree with, or be offended by, that analysis.  What I am not really sure of, and would like explained to me, is why?  What is in view is not so much of a Missing Link, as much as a Missing Leap: the leap from the physical to the metaphysical.  Taken as a starting point, I have no problem with quantitative assessments.  They establish a baseline of knowledge for us. 

But what about life?   Life is an elusive concept that cannot be quantitatively assessed.  As Stanley Jaki writes in his most recent book. [4] Moreover, long before one takes up the evolution of life, one is faced with a question of metaphysics whenever one registers life.  Life is not seen with physical eyes alone unless those eyes are supplemented with the vision of the mind.  No biologist contemptuous of metaphysics can claim, if he is consistent, that he has observed life, let alone its evolution. We then start to have an aesthetic appreciation for the beauty and ingenuity of these life forms, and it is not long before we get around to talking about abstract concepts such as rights, justice, and equality, and assigning some species - namely, us - some kind of moral responsibilities for them, none of which can be measured according to scientific methods.

I think it is safely assumed by all parties that, although we have some physical and behavioral characteristics in common, humans are significantly more intelligent and sophisticated than our mammal friends, and possessed of a vastly different consciousness. For whatever reason, we are unique enough to make us "special." The problem is that the physical sciences cannot explain how, much less why, this consciousness emerged. And a bigger problem is the strangeness of our consciousness: abstract self-doubt, philosophical curiosity, existential despair. How does an intense awareness of my accidental existence better equip me for battle?  Why do we consider compassion for the sick to be a good thing when it can only give us a disadvantage in our vicious eat-or-be-eaten world?  Why would these traits emerge so late in the game, when one would think evolution would be turning us into refined, high-tech battle machines? We cannot acquire a transcendent or "higher" purpose through evolution, any more than a sine wave can develop separation anxiety. And yet many who swear by the powers of Darwin and empiricism also cling, hypocritically, to a quite unproven assumption that the human race is somehow set apart, created for a glorious destiny. Just as determinists argue undeterministically, scientists believe unscientifically. The most serious offenders in this category have to be the various minds behind the Humanist Manifesto, who roundly reject the metaphysical even as they affirm it, by assumption, in their grand prescriptions for humanity.  This is called talking out of two sides of the mouth.  Now, biologically speaking, developing this trait would be a great way for an organism to gain a tactical advantage in the struggle for survival.  Unfortunately, it also opens the creature up for easy attack in life's intellectual jungles. These contradictory assumptions met each other vividly in the theater of mainstream culture last year, during the pop radio reign of "Bad Touch," the Bloodhound Gang song. You know the song: it was the one with the refrain of "You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals / So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."  It was pure Darwinism for the dance floor and became an instant dorm room classic, despite (or most likely, because of) the fact that it was too explicit for the kitsch it aspired to.  The party music stopped, however, upon arrival of Thornhill and Palmer's  The Natural History of Rape, the book that investigated whether rape was a genetically determined trait that enabled humans to climb the evolutionary ladder. The book's research was as swiftly refuted as The Bell Curve's.  However, the white-hot center of controversy surrounding this book was not the research, but the inferences that might have been made from it: the fear that rape could be rationalized, or even accepted, on a biological basis.  The science may have been bad, but the logic is faultless.  Why can't a chameleon's color change, a bat's sonar, and a man's sexual coercion all be examples of successful evolutionary "design"?  Given the absence of any empirical alternative to social Darwinism, the nonconsensual Discovery Channel bump-and-grind is a pretty educated approach to sexual ethics.  I repeat: one cannot deny the cake, and then proceed to eat from it.

That, then, is why the language is confused: because the ideas are confused, because the mind is confused.  To the extent that our Darwinians and humanists seek answers to humanity's dilemmas using the natural sciences, they are absolutely on the right track.  To the extent that they reject the idea of a divine or supernatural creator using the natural sciences, they are not only overstepping the boundaries of their field, but they are plainly contradicted by their language, their goals, and their lives.  G.K. Chesterton, writing a century ago, astutely observed this dichotomy in the modern mind when he said that "the man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts." [5] It is precisely this incongruity which remains unaccounted for today.  This incongruity was raised to heights both humorous and sublime by noted Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, writing an essay for the Atlantic Monthly called "The Biological Basis of Morality."  In it, Wilson outlines the argument for his suspicion that morals, ethics, and belief in the supernatural can all be written off to purely materially-originating, evolutionary-guided brain circuitry, and that's that.   In the light of this, he suggests in his conclusion that evolutionary history be "retold as poetry, " because it is more intrinsically grand than any religious epic.[6]  But if moral reasoning is just a lot of brain matter in motion, where does that leave appreciation for poetry? And seeing that poetry has a definite beginning and an end, as well as an author and a purpose, isn't the evolutionary epic the very last thing that could be told as poetry? Besides, who could possibly come up with a rhyme for lepidoptera?  If life is a drama, then it needs a Bard; and we need to learn to acknowledge our cosmic Bard, just like Alonso in the final act of The Tempest:

This is as strange a maze as e'er men trod,
And there is in this business more than nature
Was ever conduct of.  Some oracle
Must rectify our knowledge.

1. Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up From the Apes," Time Magazine 154 no. 8, August 13, 1999.

2. Theodore Schick, Jr., "When Humanists Meet E.T.," Free Inquiry 20 no.3, Summer 2000, pp. 36-7.

3. Robert Wright, "The Accidental Creationist," The New Yorker, Dec. 30,
1999, pp. 56-65.

4. Stanley Jaki, The Limits of a Limitless Science, (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2000, p. 97).

5. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, (NY: Image Books, 1990, pp 41-2).

6. E.O. Wilson, "The Biological Basis of Morality," The Atlantic Monthly 281 no. 4, April 1998, pp. 53-70.

 

[balrog666]

Fundamental laws of cause and effect. Shall I explain them or do I trust that you will accept it as a homework assignment?

Sorry, no credit if you don't show your work.

[balrog666]

All we agree on is that intelligent life exists. Your timeline explains complexity, but it cannot show where human consciousness arrived, never mind Glenn Miller.

Are you asserting here that human consciousness is somehow different in kind from that of any other animal?

[VadeRetro]

I think we have to agree that we don't really know what was in the "void" or how it got there, because the sudden appearance of anything - electrically charged particles or God - must be taken on faith.

Wrong on a very elementary point of science. We know what was in the CMB universe the same way we know what is in the sun. The light given off by elements heated to incandescence contains absorption and emission lines which tag them uniquely. It works on Earth, in the sun, and everywhere else we look. These things are not matters of faith in the same sense as the transubstantiation of wine to blood.

The cosmic radiation does not show up in any family genealogy that I have seen.

You're not looking back far enough, although the images are all over. It's isotropic radiation, after all.

But there is no Problem Two.

Wrong.

When did anyone show that a "certifiably mindless" group of matter CAN produce intelligence under natural selection?

Nice try, but I've given a summary already of what is quite a large body of evidence and reasoning. There are no serious alternate scenarios around. You're very much begging the question by simply announcing that all the evidence and reasoning is somehow misleading. But how? Citing your very unwillingness to accept the conclusion as its disproof is just circular. You beg the question.

Never mind the science - it defies the most fundamental laws of cause and effect.

This is a rather bizarre description of science, although Einstein's complaints against Quantum Mechanics had a similar ring to them. Science is nothing but the rules for cause and effect writ large and general even in the case of QM. Alas, your issues are not particularly with quantum indeterminacy. You just don't like the answers. Your statements above amount to little more than shouting with fingers in ears.

All we agree on is that intelligent life exists.

We certainly do not seem to agree on how knowledge is gathered, or of what it consists. Something like that. Mere shouting is not argument.

Your timeline explains complexity ...

Not really. It's just a timeline. I posted it to show that our so-far ephemeral existence probably was not the justification for the universe, given the amount of time and space in which we have have not existed and do not exist now. Very few of the total volume-years have been devoted to our caging and feeding.

... but it cannot show where human consciousness arrived, never mind Glenn Miller.

It doesn't make much of a German grammar, either. It does what I posted it to do.

[PDerna]

"Are you asserting here that human consciousness is somehow different in kind from that of any other animal?"

I am asserting it, but I assume that most here hold it as a given. If you want to assert that human consciousness does not differ substantially from deer tick consciousness, that is your right. It is certainly consistent with naturalism. It might also explain your previous posts (you gotta give me layups like that).

[balrog666]

I am asserting it, but I assume that most here hold it as a given.

Buzz, wrong.

If you want to assert that human consciousness does not differ substantially from deer tick consciousness, that is your right.

Consider it done.

It is certainly consistent with naturalism.

And everything else that matters.

It might also explain your previous posts (you gotta give me layups like that).

Another non-sequitur. No points.

Allow me to point out that you have yet to support your initial assertions. And while I get tired of repeating myself, please "try again".

[Heartlander]

Welcome to FreeRepublic! Thank you for the great article.

It appears you are dealing with the ‘usual suspects’.

They will take
(I took nothing)

what you say
(Yeah. So you say but…)

line by line
(Prove this while I rifle through your wallet)

and refute it in context ; )
(Obviously you see that you are wrong and you should admit it to all or be discredited throughout history – Oh yeah, and you are a stupid creationist regardless)

Anyway, I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and Happy New year! (My wife kept me away from computers for almost two months – and it was fantastic!)

So now that the niceties are out of the way…
Darwin purposed that RM&NS is all that is required for the diversity of life we now see and logically comprehend which is now extrapolated into the modern neo-darwinism.

But what about the predictions of Darwin that neo-darwinism is based upon? We know that science is self-correcting but what if the current course as a whole was incorrect? Is forward actually progress?:

FIG O: Origin of the Phyla: Darwinian predictions

FIG Q: The origin of the phyla: the fossil evidence

The sudden appearance of between 50 and 100 disparate body plans with extremely low species diversity supports the conclusion that neither gradual Darwinian evolution nor lower taxon-level punctuations can account for the origin of the higher taxa and the major body plans.

FIG P: Origin of the Phyla: Darwinian predictions

FIG R: The origin of the phyla: the fossil evidence

The sudden appearance of between 50 and 100 disparate body plans with extremely low species diversity supports the conclusion that neither gradual Darwinian evolution nor lower taxon-level punctuations can account for the origin of the higher taxa and the major body plans.

Anyway, evolution has no target and your article points out the implications.

[PDerna]

You told me earlier that "nobody gives a d@mn what the average Joe thinks", and now you tell me that you consider yourself no more sophisticated than a deer tick. Forgive me for not feeling the burning need to reply.

[PDerna]

"Your statements above amount to little more than shouting with fingers in ears."

Can anyone blame me?

With all due respect... you have given me lots of information, but I don't see any reasoning. Maybe it is I who don't know what you are trying to show. There is nothing in anything you have said that can tell me how life came from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, or consciousness from non-consciousness. What you perceive as repetitive shouting is my attempt to get back on point, because there is no use noodling around in the grimy details if one of us completely misses the broader supporting idea.

And the broad idea, by the way, is that by definition, a naturalistic approach to studying the universe can give you information about the 'what' and the 'how' of the way things are, but never the 'why,' and never the 'ought.' Of course, you are free to try and ascertain the 'why,'but if you do, you will always be stepping outside naturalism into a subjective discipline - religion, philosophy, fantasy, post-grunge indie rock, etc. If you can't agree on this fundamental distinction, then we probably don't have anything to talk about.

[PDerna]

Thanks for the welcome, thanks for the slides, and thanks for the beatific vision of two computerless months....

[balrog666]

You told me earlier that "nobody gives a d@mn what the average Joe thinks", and now you tell me that you consider yourself no more sophisticated than a deer tick.

Actually, that was a reference to you. Next time I'll dumb it down for you.

Forgive me for not feeling the burning need to reply.

Then why did you?

[VadeRetro]

With all due respect... you have given me lots of information, but I don't see any reasoning.

First, let's focus in on the origin of human consciousness. I'll give a high-level summary of some of the evidence.

I. A Graduated Hierarchy of Intelligence in Modern Lifeforms

• algae (some species move toward light)
• jellyfish (neural net, a few reflexes)
• lancelet (chordate organization)
• shark (vertebrate organization with brain)
• iguana
• opossum
• border collie
• chimpanzee
• Hillary Clinton
• Winston Churchill

Now, the typical creationist trick is to say there are only two kinds of consciousness, the kind that can write Dante's Divine Comedy and everything else. Your dog may have soulful eyes and try all kinds of tricks to communicate, but it can't talk. Cheap trick. The graduated hierarchy of intelligence is out there and it points to a prosaic origin of our mental processes. Which brings up part II.

II. A Gradual, Evolutionary Appearance of Features Associated with Humanity

a. Structure

From here.

b. Function

• First stone tools, then copper, then bronze, then iron, etc.
• First existing caves, then wood shelters, then stone buildings, etc.
• First drawings, then pictographs, then identifiable script, etc.
• ...

That is as high-level a dash as I can imagine. The topic is just too big to do justice to here. Against the accumulated weight of the last two centuries of science, you have only your unwillingness to see.

[VadeRetro]

Since gore got banned, you're now the poster boy for back-again-dumb-as-a-stump tricks. Your parallel-line charts have been refuted before, by me and by others. This, IOW, is not rational argument. This is a militant con man trolling for suckers.

[PatrickHenry]

My only criticism of your excellent post is your placement of Hillary above the 'possum. I would rank them about the same. Otherwise, a good job!

[VadeRetro]

I knew that criticism was coming as soon as I posted, but I expected the 'possums to protest the loudest. So far, I'm getting some cold-blooded emails from the iguanas.

[VadeRetro]

And the broad idea, by the way, is that by definition, a naturalistic approach to studying the universe can give you information about the 'what' and the 'how' of the way things are, but never the 'why,' and never the 'ought.'

Not really a criticism of science, but your article tries to make it one. Science is supposed to be about the "what" and "how." If all you want to talk about is "why" and "ought," you should be writing about ethics, or public policy, or whatever. If scientists sometimes lapse into the language of anthropomorphism, animism, intent, "ought," and other imprecisions, it's because most people don't understand partial differential equations in complex tensor variables.

Of course, you are free to try and ascertain the 'why,'but if you do, you will always be stepping outside naturalism into a subjective discipline - religion, philosophy, fantasy, post-grunge indie rock, etc.

You wrote the article, and you wrote it about science. I just responded, initially in post 11. I notice my initial reaction still stands, as far as I'm concerned.

If you can't agree on this fundamental distinction, then we probably don't have anything to talk about.

The one thing I notice is that you relentlessly employ fallacy, your favorite being the argument from semantics, no matter how often it is pointed out to you. It's obvious, brazen, a Johnny-One-Note performance. There's probably little more to say.

[PDerna]

You are playing into my hands. Like I said, your hierarchy is information, but it is not an argument. It tells me the 'what,' but not the 'how' or the 'why.' Because the 'how' of how these organisms were formed was never observed, you are making a presumption, based on your prior philosophic opinion that there is no Creator, that all life arrived and developed Darwin style, mutation by mutation. The evidence does not do this; only your opinions do. Your observations are science. Your conclusions are philosophy.

[VadeRetro]

I'm making a very simple induction that lawful processes observed in case after case after case are also working in obviously similar cases. It's the same thing as deciding that if spectrography works on the Earth and in the sun, it works in farther parts of the universe. Anywhere at all where we see the spectral signature of hydrogen, we are indeed detecting hydrogen, even if we can't wander out to collect a sample to check our assumption.

All inductive logic is "flawed" in not being rock-solid geometrically deductive. All of science has this flaw. Nevertheless, science is what we know about how the world works. If you don't like the answers it's too bad.

[VadeRetro]

You are playing into my hands.

I should also mention that your hands remain empty. All the evidence still points to a gradual evolution of human consciousness. Where is the evidence for any other version of events?

[js1138]

Placemarker

[redhead]

"Since men cannot be lepidoptera
We must make do with helicoptera
And lacking lovely, powdered wings
We do the job with metal things"

Bravo! Great job!!