Posted on 11/23/2004 9:53:55 PM PST by nickcarraway
Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
Edited by William A. Dembski
(ISI Books, 366 pages, $28; $18 paper)
WACO, Texas -- At one time, the debate over Darwin's theory existed as a cartoon in the modern imagination. Thanks to popular portrayals of the Scopes Trial, secularists regularly reviewed the happy image of Clarence Darrow goading William Jennings Bryan into agreeing to be examined as an expert witness on the Bible and then taking him apart on the stand. Because of the legal nature of the proceedings that made evolution such a permanent part of the tapestry of American pop culture, it is fitting that this same section of the tapestry began to unravel due to the sharp tugs of another prominent legal mind, Phillip Johnson.
The publication of his book, Darwin on Trial, now appears to have marked a new milestone in the debate over origins. Prior to Johnson's book, the critics of evolution tended to occupy marginalized sectarian positions and focused largely on contrasting Darwin's ideas with literalist readings of the Genesis account. Johnson's work was different. Here we had a doubter of Darwin willing to come out of the closet, even though his credentials were solid gold establishment in nature. He had attended the finest schools, clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, taught law as a professor at highly ranked Berkeley, and authored widely-used texts on criminal law. Just as Darrow cross-examined the Bible and Bryan's understanding of it, Johnson cross-examined Darwin and got noticed in the process. He spent much of the last decade debating the issue with various Darwinian bulldogs and holding up his end pretty well.
PHILLIP JOHNSON, AND a number of others, raised enough doubts about the dominant theory to cause a number of intellectuals to take a hard look, particularly at the gap between what can be proven and what is simply asserted to be true. Since that time, authors with more technical backgrounds, like mathematician/philosopher William Dembski and biochemist Michael Behe, have published books providing even more powerful critiques of the neo-Darwinian synthesis based on intelligent design theory. Behe's work has been particularly disturbing to evolution advocates because he seems to have proven that organic machines at the molecular level are irreducibly complex and therefore could not have been the products of natural selection because there never would have been any intermediate working mechanism to select. Now, the two team up as Dembski edits and Behe contributes to a bracing collection of controversial writings titled Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing.
Dembski displays the intellectual doggedness of the group of contributors when he uses his introductory essay to ruthlessly track down and scrutinize the footnotes offered by those who would refute Behe's case. Reference after reference claiming to have decisively defeated Behe turns out to be inadequate to the task. What passes for refutation is instead a collection of question-begging and "just-so stories." Right away, Dembski sets the tone for the book. Nothing will be uncontested. The pro-evolution community will be made to fight for every inch of intellectual real estate without relying on the aura of prestige or the lack of competent critics to bolster their case.
The best way to read the book is by beginning at the end and perusing the profiles of the contributors. There, the reader will be able to select essays from representatives of a variety of disciplines, including mathematics, philosophy, biochemistry, biophysics, chemistry, genetics, law, and medicine. The most enjoyable in terms of sheer brio are the essays by Dembski, Behe, Frank Tipler, Cornelius Hunter, and David Berlinski. Tipler's essay on the process of getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is particularly relevant and rewarding because it deals with one of the biggest strikes against Intelligent Design. ID theorists have had a notoriously difficult time getting their work published in professional journals. Tipler, a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane, crankily and enjoyably explains why.
TOP HONORS, HOWEVER, go to David Berlinski's essay, "The Deniable Darwin," which originally appeared in Commentary. The essay is rhetorically devastating. Berlinski is particularly strong in taking apart Richard Dawkins' celebrated computer simulation of monkeys re-creating a Shakespearean sentence and thereby "proving" the ability of natural selection to generate complex information. The mathematician and logician skillfully points out that Dawkins rigged the game by including the very intelligence in his simulation he disavows as a cause of ordered biological complexity. It's clear that Berlinski hits a sore spot when one reads the letters Commentary received in response to the article. Esteemed Darwinists like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett respond with a mixture of near-hysterical outrage and ridicule. Berlinski's responses are also included. At no point does he seem the slightest bit cowed or overwhelmed by the personalities arrayed against him.
For the reader, the result is simply one of the most rewarding reading experiences available. Berlinski and his critics engage in a tremendous intellectual bloodletting, with Berlinski returning fire magnificently. In a particularly amusing segment, Berlinski, constantly accused of misperception, writes, "For reasons that are obscure to me, both [Mr. Gross] and Daniel Dennett carelessly assume that they are in a position to instruct me on a point of usage in German, my first language." Though his foes repeatedly accuse Berlinski of being a "creationist," the tag has little chance of sticking to a man arguing for little more than agnosticism on the question of origins and who disavows any religious principles aside from the possible exception of hoping to "have a good time all the time." One suspects that the portion of the book occupied by the Berlinski essay and subsequent exchanges will gain wide currency.
For far too long, the apologists for Darwin have relied on a strategy of portraying challengers as simple-minded religious zealots. The publication of Uncommon Dissent and many more books like it, will severely undermine the success of such portrayals. During the past decade, it has become far too obvious that there are such things as intellectuals who doubt Darwin and that their ranks are growing. The dull repetition of polemical charges in place of open inquiry, debate, and exchange may continue, but with fewer and fewer honest souls ready to listen.
Hunter Baker is a Ph.D. student at Baylor University and contributes to the Reform Club.
Darwin actually said the OPPOSITE -- shall I quote him for you? So are you making this false claim because you're a liar, or a fool? Please respond. Also note that if you repeat this false claim on a later thread after being corrected here, then we'll *know* you're a liar.
a record which simply does not exist.
Another false claim -- what's your excuse for *this* one? Here are a few hundred transitional fossils for you, and there are thousands more where those came from. Again, if you repeat this falsehood, you *will* be called on it.
In his defense, Darwin did not have the advantage of an understanding of DNA which we now possess.
And yet, he did a remarkably good job of foreseeing the consequences of such a process.
Those who persist in defense of this position are lately relying on "puntuated eqilibrium" to explain the movement from one form to another. Not very good scholarship.
Ahem. Darwin himself described punctuated equilibrium and showed why it would be an expected result of the processes he described. So whose "scholarship" is not "very good" here? Oh, right, yours.
Come back when you actually *know* something about biology and evolution, please. We've already got enough Freeper creationists who just regurgitate the nonsense they find on creationist pamphlets and websites, we don't need any more.
I love this point. If some sort of evolution ever happened, our reaction is most certainly known. And that would be the end of that evolutionary step. Except for our humanity, we would kill any weaklings/deviations from the norm. I do wonder what is different about us...
That wasn't the "foundation" of the review, but if that's the excuse you want to use to not have to think about the points it makes, well, whatever helps you sleep at night.
I have read the book - have you?
I have -- the author is a classic crank, and his "evidence" is laughable. If this is the sort of thing you enjoy, you ought to like "Chariots of the Gods", and just about any of the UFO or Bermuda Triangle book, which plow similar quackery, just as goofily.
Pakicetus was better adapted to land than a modern otter. In fact, aside from something or other about its earbones, it shows almost no aquatic modifications at all. For all that, it's the starting point for the series that follows it because of similarities of skull, teeth, ankle bones, etc.
Your chronic naysayer at Creation Safaris has the hobby of researching every possible excuse to discard as much of mainstream geology, biology, and even astronomy as possible. In his frantic haste to do so, he allows himself great license.
He couldn't find much on Rhodocetus, evidently. In alleging the poverty of the whale series, he forgets to mention Ambulocetus, the alligator-like one before Rhodocetus, and various later whales--Basilosaurus and Dorudon come to my aging mind--which are fully obligate ocean swimmers whose hind legs slowly disappear. Isn't it a cheat to allege that a fossil series is skimpy and then "forget" more than half its contents?
The guy casts his aspersions so recklessly that it's not clear if he's lying or he simply didn't bother to check first. The quality of his work has been dissected for you before. It does not hold up to serious scrutiny. The way you keep trotting him out as if he were Albert Einstein doesn't look good, either.
ROFL!!! PatrickHenry proved that your claim was actually DEAD WRONG about what Darwin said on the subject (he actually aid the OPPOSITE of what you claimed), and what's your response? Did you admit error like an honorable person? Heck no, you just flung back an OUT OF CONTEXT quote and hoped it would fool anyone (hint: Darwin said that, *then* went on to correctly explain why such forms would be relatively rare in the fossil record). Oh well, that's typical of anti-evolutionists, at least, "quote-mining" is one of their favorite disingenuous tools. Or maybe they do it because they're not able to understand more than a sentence or two at a time, and don't actually grasp the full discussion. Perhaps you could elucidate for us which one explains your own example...
Please understand that I am not attempting to characterize all people who ascribe to this theory in a particular manner, nor am I saying that the theory was fabricated from whole cloth. I am simply applying the principle "plurality should not be posited without necessity" in light of what we know today concerning the distinctness of DNA, the spontaneous appearance (and disappearance) of species and the nature of consiousness, non-locality, subjectivity of time and the non-substantial nature of matter. (Please refer to post #149.) The best to you in all things capitalist and the ongoing search for truth.
Ah, yes, the old "if I post some mumbo-jumbo, maybe it'll distract attention from how I got caught posting falsehoods" ploy. If that was your hope, I regret to inform you that it didn't work.
Getting back to the subject, please explain how you came to post a complete falsehood about Darwin. Did you know you were lying, or were you just repeating the falsehoods of other anti-evolutionists without the knowledge or ability to notice how dishonest it was?
Ich, if you'd followed my posts at all, you'd know that I most firmly object to evolution on scientific grounds, and frankly, could not possibly care less what you think about my intellect or knowledge or whatever. Evolution is foolish on its face and the deeper you go, the more ridiculous it gets.
Over and out.
MM
Not only that, it's supporters come across as a bunch of angry old men with a chip on their shoulder.
This is not done--MUST not be done--by Holy Warriors striving publicly with an Evil, Dumb Enemy.
You mean scientific objects like this one? That's not very bloody scientific of an objection, now is it? If you are looking to the Bible for justification of a scientific theory, you'll be wasting your time, I think.
Oh, *there's* your mistake. It doesn't take "Faith" to believe in evolution, it takes knowledge, understanding, and evidence.
How did life start??
That's still a field without final answers yet, but here are some of the scenarios which accord with the evidence and current chemical research:
The Path from the RNA World Anthony M. Poole, Daniel C. Jeffares, David Penny: Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Massey UniversityAnd:Abstract: We describe a sequential (step by step) Darwinian model for the evolution of life from the late stages of the RNA world through to the emergence of eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The starting point is our model, derived from current RNA activity, of the RNA world just prior to the advent of genetically-encoded protein synthesis. By focusing on the function of the protoribosome we develop a plausible model for the evolution of a protein-synthesizing ribosome from a high-fidelity RNA polymerase that incorporated triplets of oligonucleotides. With the standard assumption that during the evolution of enzymatic activity, catalysis is transferred from RNA M RNP M protein, the first proteins in the ``breakthrough organism'' (the first to have encoded protein synthesis) would be nonspecific chaperone-like proteins rather than catalytic. Moreover, because some RNA molecules that pre-date protein synthesis under this model now occur as introns in some of the very earliest proteins, the model predicts these particular introns are older than the exons surrounding them, the ``introns-first'' theory. Many features of the model for the genome organization in the final RNA world ribo-organism are more prevalent in the eukaryotic genome and we suggest that the prokaryotic genome organization (a single, circular genome with one center of replication) was derived from a ``eukaryotic-like'' genome organization (a fragmented linear genome with multiple centers of replication). The steps from the proposed ribo-organism RNA genome M eukaryotic-like DNA genome M prokaryotic-like DNA genome are all relatively straightforward, whereas the transition prokaryotic-like genome M eukaryotic-like genome appears impossible under a Darwinian mechanism of evolution, given the assumption of the transition RNA M RNP M protein. A likely molecular mechanism, ``plasmid transfer,'' is available for the origin of prokaryotic-type genomes from an eukaryotic-like architecture. Under this model prokaryotes are considered specialized and derived with reduced dependence on ssRNA biochemistry. A functional explanation is that prokaryote ancestors underwent selection for thermophily (high temperature) and/or for rapid reproduction (r selection) at least once in their history.
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells William Martin and Michael J. RussellAnd:Abstract: All life is organized as cells. Physical compartmentation from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, hence inorganic matter with such attributes would be life’s most likely forebear. We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes. The known capability of FeS and NiS to catalyse the synthesis of the acetyl-methylsulphide from carbon monoxide and methylsulphide, constituents of hydrothermal fluid, indicates that pre-biotic syntheses occurred at the inner surfaces of these metal-sulphide-walled compartments, which furthermore restrained reacted products from diffusion into the ocean, providing sufficient concentrations of reactants to forge the transition from geochemistry to biochemistry. The chemistry of what is known as the RNA-world could have taken place within these naturally forming, catalyticwalled compartments to give rise to replicating systems. Sufficient concentrations of precursors to support replication would have been synthesized in situ geochemically and biogeochemically, with FeS (and NiS) centres playing the central catalytic role. The universal ancestor we infer was not a free-living cell, but rather was confined to the naturally chemiosmotic, FeS compartments within which the synthesis of its constituents occurred. The first free-living cells are suggested to have been eubacterial and archaebacterial chemoautotrophs that emerged more than 3.8 Gyr ago from their inorganic confines. We propose that the emergence of these prokaryotic lineages from inorganic confines occurred independently, facilitated by the independent origins of membrane-lipid biosynthesis: isoprenoid ether membranes in the archaebacterial and fatty acid ester membranes in the eubacterial lineage. The eukaryotes, all of which are ancestrally heterotrophs and possess eubacterial lipids, are suggested to have arisen ca. 2 Gyr ago through symbiosis involving an autotrophic archaebacterial host and a heterotrophic eubacterial symbiont, the common ancestor of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. The attributes shared by all prokaryotes are viewed as inheritances from their confined universal ancestor. The attributes that distinguish eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet are uniform within the groups, are viewed as relics of their phase of differentiation after divergence from the non-free-living universal ancestor and before the origin of the free-living chemoautotrophic lifestyle. The attributes shared by eukaryotes with eubacteria and archaebacteria, respectively, are viewed as inheritances via symbiosis. The attributes unique to eukaryotes are viewed as inventions specific to their lineage. The origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system and nuclear membrane are suggested to be the fortuitous result of the expression of genes for eubacterial membrane lipid synthesis by an archaebacterial genetic apparatus in a compartment that was not fully prepared to accommodate such compounds, resulting in vesicles of eubacterial lipids that accumulated in the cytosol around their site of synthesis. Under these premises, the most ancient divide in the living world is that between eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet the steepest evolutionary grade is that between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front M. J. RUSSELL & A. J. HALL: Department of Geology and Applied Geology, University of GlasgowAbstract: Here we argue that life emerged on Earth from a redox and pH front at c. 4.2 Ga. This front occurred where hot (c. 150)C), extremely reduced, alkaline, bisulphide-bearing, submarine seepage waters interfaced with the acid, warm (c. 90)C), iron-bearing Hadean ocean. The low pH of the ocean was imparted by the ten bars of CO2 considered to dominate the Hadean atmosphere/hydrosphere. Disequilibrium between the two solutions was maintained by the spontaneous precipitation of a colloidal FeS membrane. Iron monosulphide bubbles comprising this membrane were inflated by the hydrothermal solution upon sulphide mounds at the seepage sites. Our hypothesis is that the FeS membrane, laced with nickel, acted as a semipermeable catalytic boundary between the two fluids, encouraging synthesis of organic anions by hydrogenation and carboxylation of hydrothermal organic primers. The ocean provided carbonate, phosphate, iron, nickel and protons; the hydrothermal solution was the source of ammonia, acetate, HS", H2 and tungsten, as well as minor concentrations of organic sulphides and perhaps cyanide and acetaldehyde. The mean redox potential (ÄEh) across the membrane, with the energy to drive synthesis, would have approximated to 300 millivolts. The generation of organic anions would have led to an increase in osmotic pressure within the FeS bubbles. Thus osmotic pressure could take over from hydraulic pressure as the driving force for distension, budding and reproduction of the bubbles. Condensation of the organic molecules to polymers, particularly organic sulphides, was driven by pyrophosphate hydrolysis. Regeneration of pyrophosphate from the monophosphate in the membrane was facilitated by protons contributed from the Hadean ocean. This was the first use by a metabolizing system of protonmotive force (driven by natural ÄpH) which also would have amounted to c. 300 millivolts. Protonmotive force is the universal energy transduction mechanism of life. Taken together with the redox potential across the membrane, the total electrochemical and chemical energy available for protometabolism amounted to a continuous supply at more than half a volt. The role of the iron sulphide membrane in keeping the two solutions separated was appropriated by the newly synthesized organic sulphide polymers. This organic take-over of the membrane material led to the miniaturization of the metabolizing system. Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in this same milieu. But iron, sulphur and phosphate, inorganic components of earliest life, continued to be involved in metabolism.
They remind me of flat-earthers. They're firmly entrenched in their position and no amount of evidence--or no LACK of evidence for their position--is going to change their mind; anyone who dares to offer an alternative is shouted down and ridiculed as a barefoot snake handler, conveniently ignoring the many many many prestigious and uber-intelligent scientists who also think evolution is silly to the Nth. The earlier poster is a perfect example, with his comment that all creationists are basically ignorant boobs, when there are no doubt countless highly intelligent scientists who know a thousand times more about the scientific issues involved than he will ever know in his lifetime.
MM
The comment about Genesis and the Bible was aimed at Christians who take the position that some parts of the Bible are more important than others.
The key is that there is no conflict whatsoever between the Bible and real science.
MM
Most of us know that "the cover-up is worse than the crime." But when it comes to creationism, the thing to remember is that creationism itself is a cover-up (of a failed "science"), so of course they can't admit any errors. What would you have them do? Do you think they'll say: "Yes, in the furtherance of a grand pack of lies I told a fib?"
Sure you did:
"If you don't believe in the truths of the Bible, you can have all the "well-formed religious views" in the world and it will not get you any closer to anything meaningful than will a pack of explosives around his middle get a suicide bomber 72 virgins."That's a comparison, son.
Again, I will not let you try to box me into the "judging Christian" trap you want to shove me into.
But you've been working overtime to shove *him* into many boxes due to your preconceptions (e.g. "humanist", etc.), I've noticed...
Say, what was that one about the mote and the beam again?
He has to practically scream to get most people's attention in this "enlightened" world.
Then I suggest that He send me an email, that'd work fine and save His throat from all that screaming. And no, I'm not being facetious. There's a point here, but I suspect you'll miss it.
I think you and other evolutionists need to ask yourself whether you are closer to Christians or to Pharisees.
Sometimes I feel closer to Galileo.
Yeah, like that underdog bald man who won out over the two kids teasing him about his baldness, when the Lord sent a bear to rip the kids to shreds and helped him "win out".
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
M1 equals the mass of the first object
M2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
From an NSF abstract:
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science.They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
Indeed.
I wonder how if they debate this topic in Japan, where shame has meaning?
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.