Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'

Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 13, 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[The Raven]

Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"

Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.

[BaBaStooey]

From what I've read, the last time God tapped anyone to speak on his behalf was over 2,000 years ago. He's been quiet on all matters of discussion since.
What about John Denver?

[donh]

Well, no, but I think it's worthwhile to first stop for a moment and consider what we mean by "useful" in this context. Scientific principles are useful to us because they illustrate or illuminate some aspect of actual reality. Whatever else it may be, science is not a solipsistic exercise, and is predicated on the assumption that objective reality exists beyond ourselves. Given that, for our principles to be truly useful in a scientific sense, they must then bear some relationship to objective reality, and hence be in some sense, truthful, albeit as an imperfect approximation of truth, rather than being provably and indisputably true. The inverse-square law of gravitation is not deductively and provably true, but it is useful to us precisely because it appears to bear some relationship to the actual, objective behavior of physical objects.

You too, eh? "Useful" is an adequate distinction to operate on. TRUTH, like "Proof", is in the eye of the beholder. Please consider what you have just said here about the inverse-square law: it is useful to us because "it appears to bear some relationship to the behavior of objects". That's all you need to know--that the inverse-square law can be useful in landing spaceships and predicting eclipses and piecing together what it must look like in distant regions of space. TRUTH need not enter the picture, unless your religeous, or religeous-like convictions incline you that way. Utility is a pretty obvious telescope whose view looks pretty similar for every sane observer--TRUTH is a fractured kalaidascope every viewer can put together in his own peculiar way, and arrogate to his own peculiar agenda.

[donh]

It is certainly fair to state that the theory of evolution is not conclusively proven true, but I do not think it is at all unreasonable to state that, at least for the time being, it is proven as a matter of reasonable certainty. The theory of evolution is not expected to be taken axiomatically, after all - we consider it to be true because that is the direction in which the bulk of the evidence currently points. In the sense that it then illustrates some aspect of objective reality for us, it is both useful and reasonably true.

I see, you think what lawyers say about this word should carry the day. So, if 51% of the evidence points to one conclusion in natural science over its opposite, then it is proved? 81%? 91%? One day it was 99.98 percent certain, and it wasn't proved, but the next day it was 99.99 percent certain and it was proved???? If we reserve the word "proved", when we are talking about technical issues, to tangible deductive proofs, it will still have meaning, I feel relatively safe in claiming.

I also feel relatively safe in predicting that scientists are not generally going to be tongue-tied if deprived of a degerate misuse of the word "prove". We cannot prove things in science, we can increase our confidence in things. Which is good enough--there is no need to oversell our ideas with false claims about "proof", that make us particularly vulnerable to attack by creationists and ID'ers, with an audience that isn't going to mull over the odd metaphysics of a lawyer's version of "proof" for half a day before voting to let ID into the classroom.

I'll repeat the question my other deponent here did not effectively answer: it is a truism of scientific rhetoric that scientific theories are subject to question. Now you've claimed that the best scientific theories are "proved". So what "proved" means, is "subject to question"? I guess a word means whatever you want it to mean.

let me just pass on some advice from God about this. "Do not follow a mob to do evil". Just because something slipshod is a relatively common practice, doesn't make it an acceptable thing. Practically everybody watches television. That does not automatically make a television a virtuous device.

[Ophiucus]

"So your objections are that for over 170 years the judiciary has been corrupt....and that case law and precedent, the basis of our legal system ....., is dangerous and should be removed - 'move the case law to the landfills."

In a nutshell, yes.

"A state can not decide to ignore parts that it doesn't like, nor can individuals. "

Your statement is meaningless under todays standards. The federal government can, and does ignore the constitution on a continuous basis,

I'll take it as point made that a state can not constitutionally issue legislation against the federal Constitution.

You have moved to a position that the state should break the Constitution since the Federal government has - another thread topic and something along the lines of it's ok to break the law because everyone is.

[Theo]

Biologists used to just roll their eyes (and sometimes descend to name-calling) at all this. More recently, they've been joining with First Amendment groups to oppose moves to water down the teaching of evolution in classrooms.

"Biologists"? The way that paragraph is disingenuously written, one would think that all biologists are evolutionists. What if I wrote it this way:

Biologists have been joining with First Amendment groups to oppose moves to teach evolution in classrooms.

That's probably a true sentence as well. The dishonestly of the article is consistent with the dishonesty of arguments in favor of "evolution." But I'm so bored with evolution/creation conversations. We'll all personally find out in 100 years what's true.

Blessed are those who humble themselves before the creator prior to their meeting Him....

[general_re]

Please consider what you have just said here about the inverse-square law: it is useful to us because "it appears to bear some relationship to the behavior of objects". That's all you need to know--that the inverse-square law can be useful in landing spaceships and predicting eclipses and piecing together what it must look like in distant regions of space.

If you're content to stop there, fine by me. Personally, I like to consider the issue of WHY it's useful to us, which is because it is an accurate and faithful representation of reality.

TRUTH is a fractured kalaidascope every viewer can put together in his own peculiar way, and arrogate to his own peculiar agenda.

I think you're overloading the word by automatically assigning it religious or mystical significance, when such is hardly necessary to use the word properly. "Truth" is only as you say it is if you deny that there is such thing as objective fact, which I would be rather surprised to see you do. Compare "an accurate and faithful representation of reality" to:

truth    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. 1. Reality; actuality.

Some truths are in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, particularly if you're talking about mysticism and so forth. But the sorts of things that science concerns itself with are not.

I see, you think what lawyers say about this word should carry the day.

I think what people say about the word should carry the day. You may try to "reserve the word 'proved'...to tangible deductive proofs" until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that the majority of users of the language do not make such a reservation. "Proof" is a matter of degree, and in most cases, a subjective judgement. That usage may offend you, but the point of language is to communicate with others, not to enforce your particular standard of right-thinking. If you wish to explain to people that the colloquial use of "proof" and "prove" does not have any relationship to what scientists do, be my guest, but I rather doubt that the colloquial meaning of "proof" and "prove" will change as a result.

I'll repeat the question my other deponent here did not effectively answer: it is a truism of scientific rhetoric that scientific theories are subject to question. Now you've claimed that the best scientific theories are "proved". So what "proved" means, is "subject to question"? I guess a word means whatever you want it to mean.

prove    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (prv)
v. proved, proved, or prov·en (prvn) prov·ing, proves
v. tr.

1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

Just because something slipshod is a relatively common practice, doesn't make it an acceptable thing.

I have expressed no opinion about whether it is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable. I merely point out that this usage exists, and is common enough to be what people "usually mean" by "proof", contrary to what you said before.

[donh]

I think you're overloading the word by automatically assigning it religious or mystical significance, when such is hardly necessary to use the word properly. "Truth" is only as you say it is if you deny that there is such thing as objective fact, which I would be rather surprised to see you do.

Indeed, I do not deny it. As a closet Objectivist, I embrace it as fundamental to psychological health. I accept it because I have faith in the concrete nature of reality. But I do not mistake this faith for something other than faith, of no more fundamental technical merit in the realm of logical reasoning than faith in God the Prime Mover, or faith in druidic tree spirits, if that's what floats your boat. When it comes to what you can objectively share with others, that sharing takes place outside the skin, where utility stops. Inside the skin is where the TRUTH detectors are--and everybodies TRUTH detectors are tuned slightly differently--it is treacherous territory to try to objectively share.

[PatrickHenry]

I accept it because I have faith in the concrete nature of reality. But I do not mistake this faith for something other than faith, of no more fundamental technical merit in the realm of logical reasoning than faith in God the Prime Mover, or faith in druidic tree spirits, if that's what floats your boat.

I just want to make sure I understand your position. Are you saying that your belief in objective reality (for example, the existence of the moon) is no more firmly grounded than someone's belief in the existence of hell?

[PhilipFreneau]

>> You have moved to a position that the state should break the Constitution since the Federal government has - another thread topic and something along the lines of it's ok to break the law because everyone is.

Nonsense. My position has consistently been that the government should abide by the Constitution. You are the one who thinks it is okay for them to break it if someone broke it in the past and got away with it (e.g., if it is supported by "CASE LAW" it is okay). Lawyers and judges are evil bast..ds.

[Ophiucus]

My position has consistently been that the government should abide by the Constitution. You are the one who thinks it is okay for them to break it if someone broke it in the past and got away with it (e.g., if it is supported by "CASE LAW" it is okay). Lawyers and judges are evil bast..ds.

Right - so if a judge states something about the Constitution he's wrong even if he's right because all judges have always been evil.

An impossible position to justify anything.

[js1138]

thread was lost but now is found placemarker

[donh]

I just want to make sure I understand your position. Are you saying that your belief in objective reality (for example, the existence of the moon) is no more firmly grounded than someone's belief in the existence of hell?

With respect to unquestionable proof thereof, indeed so.

My position doesn't differ much from the Hume/Popper nexus. I am quite convinced my notions of reality are better than anyone else's. So is everyone else. Which doesn't make it a very satisfactory root basis for reaching common understanding. Utility will work better for that. If we stop at utility, than we have something outside our mutual skins to agree about, and therefore, can test.

[donh]

That usage may offend you, but the point of language is to communicate with others, not to enforce your particular standard of right-thinking. If you wish to explain to people that the colloquial use of "proof" and "prove" does not have any relationship to what scientists do, be my guest, but I rather doubt that the colloquial meaning of "proof" and "prove" will change as a result.

This would be fine with me, if, in fact, everyone would agree on the one definition. However, "proof" has several similar definitions which slide around trecherously. Communicating with others is unlikely to be aided by letting educated people be sloppy about this. It is one of the jobs of scientists to be more precise about what they say than the average person. The colloquial use is inadeguate for any serious technically tinged discussion hinging on issues of logic, confidence, or proof affecting public policy, and scientists ought to be more thoughtful then this where public policy and science collide.

[Virginia-American]

"Biologists"? The way that paragraph is disingenuously written, one would think that all biologists are evolutionists.

Give a few counterexamples, please.

Also, what is the percentage of biologists who accept evolution? 985%? 99+% What?

[Theo]

From this page:

In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God in 1996.

According to another study, most biologists are overwhelmingly evolutionists -- that is obviously correct. From this page :

A recent poll of the members of the National Academy of Sciences found that, although commitment to atheism was predominant among the leading scientists in all fields, biologists were more so than others.

Biologists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

In fact, probably most of this small minority who do believe in God are theistic evolutionists, not creationists.

However, it should be emphasized that this overwhelming commitment to evolutionism is not because of the scientific evidence, but rather because of antipathy to Biblical Christianity. Even Charles Darwin became an evolutionist and agnostic because of his rejection of the Biblical doctrine of divine punishment.

I did a quick google search, though, and came away with a list of scientists who believed the biblical "take" on how we came about. I quote from another page :

Of even greater significance than the fact that there are thousands of scientists who have become creationists in modern times, however, is the fact that most of the greatest scientists of the past founding fathers of modern science creationists and, for that matter, even Bible-believing Christians. One could go down the list of the names of the great men who founded the various disciplines of modern science like Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur, Maxwell, Kelvin and scores of others of like calibre he would find a very large percentage of them to have been men who believed the Bible to be the Word of God and the God of the Bible to have created all things in the beginning. Somehow these beliefs didn't deter them from understanding science!

[Virginia-American]

However, it should be emphasized that this overwhelming commitment to evolutionism is not because of the scientific evidence, but rather because of antipathy to Biblical Christianity

Do these people have anything to back this up? How does it jibe with the fact that practically all Christian biologists accept evolution?

Even Charles Darwin became an evolutionist and agnostic because of his rejection of the Biblical doctrine of divine punishment.

Anything to support this claim, which flies in the face of everything I know about Darwin's life?

From Was Darwin a Christian?

by Michael Roberts,
Vicar of Chirk, Wales UK :

"In 1851, after the death of his ten-year old daughter Annie, he lost his belief in God's love as Darwin could not square suffering with God's love. Ten years later he wrote to the American botanist Asa Gray, a Christian, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent God would have created the Ichneumonidae (whose larvae feed on living caterpillars and gave inspiration to The Alien) or that a cat should play with mice."

Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur, Maxwell, Kelvin

The only surprise on the list is Pasteur. He evidently got confused by his experimental results in spontaneous generation. None of the other people on the list made any contributions to biology. (Except Kepler, in phyllotaxis); in fact 5 of the 8 lived before Darwin.

Of even greater significance than the fact that there are thousands of scientists who have become creationists in modern times

Biologists? or frustrated publicity hounds like Fred Hoyle?

What I find interesting is that I said the overwhelming percentage of biologists accept evolution - you came back with dubious statistics about atheism among scientists.

[Theo]

... dubious statistics ...

Not sure what you mean by "dubious." The statistics are accurate (within whatever deviation allowed by the various studies/polls). The paragraphs I quickly copy-pasted do note different statistics for "scientists" vs. "biologists" -- even pointing out that biologists believe in evolution more than other "scientists."

I wasn't trying to mislead -- I guess since "biologists" are a subset of "scientists," it was fine to include the various stats, including those that specified "biologists."

Again, if you look at what I copy-pasted, you'll see that I'm not refuting your assertion that "the overwhelming percentage of biologists accept evolution" -- I'm going beyond that to point out that there have been and are respectable scientists, including biologists, who believe that all this stuff was created by a Person, rather than by gkvoiuwlsjh;alwhv;alw.

How wonderful to be able to marvel at a particular aspect of biology, and have Someone to thank, Someone to admire.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> Right - so if a judge states something about the Constitution he's wrong even if he's right because all judges have always been evil.

That is an deceitful analogy. In fact, most of your statements have been supportive of the doctrine of a "living constitution", the doctrine big-government leftists. Are you a leftist?

[balrog666]

In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God in 1996.

Why conflate "doubt" with "disbelief" except to obscure the real numbers for ideological reasons?

[PatrickHenry]

600 placemarker.