Intelligent design [was] old news to Darwin

Chicago Tribune ^ | 13 September 2005 | Tom Hundley

[PatrickHenry]

So what would Charles Darwin have to say about the dust-up between today's evolutionists and intelligent designers?

Probably nothing.

[snip]

Even after he became one of the most famous and controversial men of his time, he was always content to let surrogates argue his case.

[snip]

From his university days Darwin would have been familiar with the case for intelligent design. In 1802, nearly 30 years before the Beagle set sail, William Paley, the reigning theologian of his time, published "Natural Theology" in which he laid out his "Argument from Design."

Paley contended that if a person discovered a pocket watch while taking a ramble across the heath, he would know instantly that this was a designed object, not something that had evolved by chance. Therefore, there must be a designer. Similarly, man -- a marvelously intricate piece of biological machinery -- also must have been designed by "Someone."

If this has a familiar ring to it, it's because this is pretty much the same argument that intelligent design advocates use today.

[snip]

The first great public debate took place on June 30, 1860, in a packed hall at Oxford University's new Zoological Museum.

Samuel Wilberforce, the learned bishop of Oxford, was champing at the bit to demolish Darwin's notion that man descended from apes. As always, Darwin stayed home. His case was argued by one of his admirers, biologist Thomas Huxley.

Wilberforce drew whoops of glee from the gallery when he sarcastically asked Huxley if he claimed descent from the apes on his grandmother's side or his grandfather's. Huxley retorted that he would rather be related to an ape than to a man of the church who used half-truths and nonsense to attack science.

The argument continues unabated ...

[snip]

[SeaLion]

continental drift rates average somewhere around 10% of the growth rate of your fingernails. In a billion years (do the math), that's more than fast enough for a continent to relocate halfway across the earth.

But you've touched on one of the big problems many people have about understanding ToE: small brains (like mine, I admit) just don't handle really big numbers.

That's why Creationists get away with bogus analogies, like coming up with a huge number supposedly representing the odds against homo sapiens arising through natural selection, or the odds against a whirlwind in a junkyard assembling a 747 (which is so far removed from ToE--but I'm preaching to the choir).

It's just hard to grasp how just how long is a billion years. A half hour of Barney the Dinosaur can feel that long, and I nearly gave up hope that the interminable Clinton Age would ever end!

[Diamond]

I never said that the morality that evolved was the right one. I don't look to my evolutionary history to determine my moral code...Evolution most certainly does give an account of the origin of morality and ethical codes. See Sociobiology. It is true that evolution doesn't have much if anything to say about what moral code is correct...

If mindless Evolution is true there is no 'correct' or 'right' moral code. To allow for the possiblity of a 'correct morality' you have to presuppose a prior morality before the statement can even be uttered, which begs the question of the origin of morality. Where do moral rules come from and why should I be obligated by them?

Evolution, being descriptive in nature could at best only be a description of past behavior; it is descriptive, not prescriptive. But morality is prescriptive in nature. It tells how we ought to behave. So how do you explain morality by mere descriptions of past behavior? If the moral element is prior to the behavior, then it can't be the behavior itself and the behavior itself cannot be the explanation of it. Any evolutionary description that purports to be a justification or explanation for the origin of moral rules will inevitably end up depending upon a moral rule before it can even be offered, the very thing it supposed to explain in the first place, so such descriptions cannot possibly be the explanation of what we understand morality to be.

Cordially,

[Thatcherite]

Lasagnal transfer

[Thatcherite]

If mindless Evolution is true there is no 'correct' or 'right' moral code.

Partially correct if you say (as I do) that morals are not handed down from God but are the manifestation of what creates a successful society whose individuals are more likely to bear children. Morality exists because morality works. Unselfish moral behaviour by individuals makes the group that they form part of more successful, and hence those individuals more successful. For a more detailed exposition of the game-theory underlying this proposition read about the repeated prisoner's dilemma.

But the many Christians who also believed in evolution would disagree both with you and I, which is why in truth ToE has nothing to do with absolute morality; what determines belief in absolute morality is one's religion, and ToE is not a religion. What is curious is the confusion exhibited by so many anti-evos on these boards between evolution and atheism.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Well, it was rejected in Nebraska.

[Thatcherite]

I wouldn't want to give you the wrong impression. Some of your posts still induce a life-threatening-blood-pressure-raising level of rage when I read them.

When I said something similar to "GoBucks" he suggested that I should read his posts more, and for longer. I thought that was pretty funny too.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If mindless Evolution is true there is no 'correct' or 'right' moral code.

We have minds. We can use them. There are absolutes of our nature and our existence. That is the logical basis for my moral code.

"To allow for the possiblity of a 'correct morality' you have to presuppose a prior morality before the statement can even be uttered, which begs the question of the origin of morality."

No, you really don't.

"Where do moral rules come from and why should I be obligated by them?"

From the nature of our existence. If you don't follow your reason you will not last too long. That's a pretty good incentive.

"So how do you explain morality by mere descriptions of past behavior? "

As I already stated, I don't use the facts Evolution to guide my moral code.

"Any evolutionary description that purports to be a justification or explanation for the origin of moral rules will inevitably end up depending upon a moral rule before it can even be offered, the very thing it supposed to explain in the first place, so such descriptions cannot possibly be the explanation of what we understand morality to be."

Evolutionary descriptions are not a justification, just an explanation. You do not need to know what is correct morally to know that moral codes exist. Evolution can shine light on how some of these moral codes have biological components, components that have been subject to selection pressures. It does not mean we have to accept what was selected as being the most rational.

[Quark2005]

But you've touched on one of the big problems many people have about understanding ToE: small brains (like mine, I admit) just don't handle really big numbers.

I have to admit there was a point (a long time ago) that I had some skepticism about evolution's ability to work in the amount of time it did, until I started making some rudimentary calculations like that. Given the way life is seen to change on earth, a better question than "how could major evolutionary changes occur in that amount of time?" would be "how could they not?"

It has nothing to do with the limitation of anyone's brain - a billion years is just too big a quantity for anyone to visualize without actually doing the math. (All people's brains are small in the grand scheme of things...)

[balrog666]

I wouldn't want to give you the wrong impression. Some of your posts still induce a life-threatening-blood-pressure-raising level of rage when I read them. When I said something similar to "GoBucks" he suggested that I should read his posts more, and for longer. I thought that was pretty funny too.

I must admit, having never seen a rational argument from the spamming idiot, I have long since stopped reading him. I'm just glad his posts are distinctive enough to skip over before sampling.

[Thatcherite]

I agree with you here. But what of the passages that are not OBVIOUS metaphors? This is the point of contention. Does one's belief in E color the way the look a Scripture, or ones belief in Scripture influence the way they look at the data from the Earth?

Do you think the verse in Mat24 about the stars falling to earth is an obvious metaphor or not?

Do you think a 2nd century reader of Mat24 would have considered the same verse an obvious metaphor or not?

Clearly knowledge of the universe can affect which passages even you view as metaphor. You make that decision based on your a priori assumptions of what can possibly be fact. Prior to around 1700 it would have been perfectly plausible to imagine stars falling to earth and the verse would have been read literally. Daring to suggest that stars were incredibly distant/gigantic/numerous balls of gas would have been heresy, with the obvious rejoinder of scriptural authority. Now we know that the stars can't fall to earth, and the verse is read as a metaphor for angels descending to earth.

[Thatcherite]

I must admit, having never seen a rational argument from the spamming idiot, I have long since stopped reading him. I'm just glad his posts are distinctive enough to skip over before sampling.

Exactly, I skim his posts. His joke was the only clever post I've ever seen him make.

[bluepistolero]

What, by the way, are you a Doctor of? You've shown precious little understanding of science so far. In fact, you have not even tried to provide any argument against evolution other than spouting bible quotes. Please say your doctorate isn't medical related.

I guess studying American literature was too hard for them. I went to school in another country, and we studied the great writers, even including American ones, but it seems beyond the reach of most here, and yet they consider themselves educated. It used to be even, that Western Civilization did not consider one learned if they did know know the bible. Now we are seeing the results of that dumbing down.

bluepistolero

[gobucks]

"I must admit, having never seen a rational argument from the spamming idiot, I have long since stopped reading him. I'm just glad his posts are distinctive enough to skip over before sampling."

Ahhh, a rare compliment disguised as an insult. You must see how irrational that must be.... but maybe not. Anyhow I appreciate the bump and encouragement! Btw, you and Thatcherite seem to be lonely all the way in the 900's here ......

[Quark2005]

Now we are seeing the results of that dumbing down.

Exactly. A whole generation of people who don't understand evolution.

[bluepistolero]

Thank you for that generous confirmation. Yes, people who can't or won't read, often get much wrong.

bluepistolero

[SeaLion]

But they have read The Great Gatsby

[Quark2005]

Yes, people who can't or won't read, often get much wrong.

Are you insinuating that I don't read? Or that I haven't read the Bible? You're quite wrong on both counts.

[bluepistolero]

No. You seem to have a penchant for taking things personally.

bluepistolero

[SeaLion]

Yes, people who can't or won't read, often get much wrong.

I'm in raging agreement with you about this. And--although you may have assumed the contrary, I have indeed read the Bible, many times.

I long ago gave up on discussions of Biblical exegesis using translations: my NT Greek is still pretty good, may I presume yours is as well?

Cordially

[bluepistolero]

It is passable, but next to the English language, my love is for Hebrew. Thank you for asking.

bluepistolero