Faith in Theory (Great article by great conservative)

Opinion Journal ^ | December 26 2005 | James Q Wilson

[RightWingAtheist]

When a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the efforts of a local school board to teach "intelligent design," he rightly criticized the wholly unscientific nature of that enterprise. Some people will disagree with his view, arguing that evolution is a "theory" and intelligent design is a "theory," so students should look at both theories.

But this view confuses the meaning of the word "theory." In science, a theory states a relationship between two or more things (scientists like to call them "variables") that can be tested by factual observations. We have a "theory of gravity" that predicts the speed at which two objects will fall toward one another, the path on which a satellite must travel if it is to maintain a constant distance from the earth, and the position that a moon will keep with respect to its associated planet.

[jwalsh07]

That's a tricky one for theistic scientists, too.

Nah, by definition they believe God was there.

[jwalsh07]

Try again.

[Dimensio]

That is why I have concluded that something out of the reach of our understanding is at work here and might be a Supreme Being.

That's an acceptable assumption, so long as you don't call it science.

[trek]

"Their existing traits were sufficient to provide reproduction and new traits did not provide any significan reproductive advantage, even when environmental conditions might have changed."

This is getting to the heart of the matter for me. WHICH TRAITS? It is not sufficient simply to assert that differences explain the differences. For the theory to be valid it has to show why difference A leads to difference B. This seems to be missing in the argument.

Specifically in the case of the Ceolocanth {sic?} what is it about this fish swimming in the sea that allowed it to remain unchanged while other fish swimming in the same part of the same sea changed dramatically? (extinction being the most dramatic change)

[canuck_conservative]

Yes, I agree, the Dawn Redwood is a beautiful, mysterious tree - looks like something right out of the Dinosaurs' time.

We have some growing here (Vancouver, B.C.) outdoors in the local parks.

[101st-Eagle]

Point taken. My apologies on that front. You, however, have not provided anything but a "I don't like it" response to the implication that there is no "before" the Big Bang

And you have only stated with personal, not factual, certainty that something is the way you say it is and is simple because "you say so." So we are at an impasse. Peace anyway.

[freedumb2003]

Please do not take this the wrong way, but this is a standard CRID talking point and is based on BOTH an incorrect fact AND an incorrect understanding of the Therory of Evolution.

I strongly urge you to study heavily the TOE (and Scientific Theories in general) before wading into this issue. And NOT the "evidence" and false spin on the TOE that you find on anti-Evo wesites and threads.

I mean this as a friendly suggestion.

[Dimensio]

This is getting to the heart of the matter for me. WHICH TRAITS?

All of them. Geez. Every trait that the animal posesses provides no reproductive disadvantage, and no new traits that have emerged have provided any significant additional reproductive advantage. Not any single specific new or old trait, but all.

For the theory to be valid it has to show why difference A leads to difference B.

I can't parse this.

Specifically in the case of the Ceolocanth {sic?} what is it about this fish swimming in the sea that allowed it to remain unchanged while other fish swimming in the same part of the same sea changed dramatically?

If you paid attention, it did not "remain unchanged". It's a different species, it just happens to be in the same order as its ancestral relatives.

[trek]

"All of them. Geez. Every trait that the animal posesses provides no reproductive disadvantage, and no new traits that have emerged have provided any significant additional reproductive advantage. Not any single specific new or old trait, but all."

You seem not to recognize the insufficiency of this argument. Your statement presupposes that the evolutionary model is correct and then asserts that since no change in the species is observed then, by definition, no mutation providing reproductive advantage could have occurred. This argument is circular:

It still needs to be explained, in detail, what it is about a Ceolocanth that distinguishes it from all the other fish that coexisted with it but fell by the wayside over the last 400 million years.

" I can't parse this."

I agree. See the above.

"If you paid attention, it did not "remain unchanged". It's a different species, it just happens to be in the same order as its ancestral relatives."

Now this point has some meat in it. I am not a biologist. So I can't speak authoritatively about why those skilled in the art consider the fish taken in 1938 (and later) to be of the same order as the 400 million year old fossils. But the conventional wisdom appears to be that it is from the same order.

I am willing to grant that the fossils and the fish are not identical. But the fact remains that Ceolocanths (and other select species) would appear to have remained substantially more similar over the millenia than other species. I have not yet heard how the theory of evolution accounts for this.

[Dimensio]

It still needs to be explained, in detail, what it is about a Ceolocanth that distinguishes it from all the other fish that coexisted with it but fell by the wayside over the last 400 million years.

You're the one asserting that the existence of Ceolocanth today poses a problem for evolution. You are the one who needs to explain why the Ceolocanth, as an order, should be extinct if the theory of evolution is correct.

[trek]

Hmmmm, its seems I just won the argument.

In any case you give every indication of being a good person with a lot of smarts. Let's part friends.

EOM

[Dimensio]

Hmmmm, its seems I just won the argument.

Indeed. You made an unsupported assertion and demanded that others prove you wrong. VICTORY IS YOURS!

[RightWhale]

he rightly criticized the wholly unscientific nature of that enterprise

Maybe so, but the decision was on the law, not on science.

[highball]

Wow - a conservative who recognizes that words mean things, and refuses to re-define words to suit a political agenda.

There's hope after all.

[Busywhiskers]

More just-so stories.

[RightWhale]

There is a serious lack of a judging committee on FR. Some other sites rate posts by various factors, but here we just post. If someone claims victory it really means he can't argue further for whatever reason and he is done. It's like invoking ad hominem, which is recognized as admission of loss in the exchange.

[Ichneumon]

Is it true that this Court also ruled that instructors are forbidden to question, criticize or challenge evolution theory?

No, it isn't.

There can be no possible justification for such an imperious command.

That's why he didn't make one.

Why don't you try reading the decision for yourself? It has a lot of good material in it.

[beaver fever]

There actually are material differences between the fossil Celocanth and it's modern descendents.

The fossil Celocanth has distinct differences in the size and shape of it's leg bones and their are actually two different species of Celocanth. One lives off the coast of Africa and another off the Coast of India.

They are isolated from one another and have evolved separately.

Also the seeming lack of distinction between fossil and living Celocanths is due to their environment which is nutrient poor and free of predators. Celocanths also have a very low metabolic rate in order to conserve energy.

It's not surprising then that Celocanth evolution has been so subtle and slow.

[trek]

"Celocanths also have a very low metabolic rate in order to conserve energy."

Thanks for jumping in. I'm not really interested in starting this up again. But in case the other guy is still listening, this is kind of argument I was looking for.

Yet in the spirit of the thread, I am forced to ask, if low metabolic rates are such an advantage we do we not see a preponderance of species with low metabolic rates?

[beaver fever]

There other species that have to conserve energy due to scarcity of nutrients and are substantially unchanged from their ancient ancestors; Crocodiles, Sharks, Tortoises and the Black Sea Sturgeon come to mind.

The relationship between slow evolution and slow metabolism is by no means conclusive on it's own so I'm not putting a great deal of emphasis on it.