Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

Today, almost one hundred and fifty years after the publication of The Origin of Species, we are still arguing about Darwin. How is this possible? If Darwin's theory of natural selection is a scientific theory, as its defenders claim, then why hasn't it been able to establish itself securely in the public mind? Why, in short, is Darwin still the subject of continuing controversy and acrimonious debate?

Contrast this on-going battle over Darwin with the fate of the other great scientific revolutions. The same Christian fundamentalists who argue that public school should teach creationism have no quarrel with the Copernican revolution. No one argues that public schools should be forced to teach the Ptolemaic system because it permits Joshua to make the sun stand still. Yet polls in the USA show that a large segment of American society continues to reject Darwin's scientific revolution.

Modern proponents of Darwin, like Richard Dawkins, have an elegant explanation for this puzzling phenomenon. Those who reject Darwin are ignorant boobs who take the Bible literally. The Bible says God created man in his own image, and so that is what they believe, despite the evidence that shows that human beings share more than 98% of their genes with chimpanzees. Therefore, in order to get people to accept Darwin, you must first destroy their adherence to Biblical fundamentalism. Once people see that the story of Adam and Eve is simply a fairy tale, they will be in a position to embrace the idea that we all descended from lower primates. But is this interpretation really psychologically plausible? Is it only the second chapter of Genesis that stands in the way of a universal acceptance of Darwin's theory that we descended from creatures far more monkey-like than us-like?

The stumbling block to an acceptance of Darwin, I would like to submit, has little to do with Christian fundamentalism, but a whole lot to do with our intense visceral revulsion at monkeys and apes. This revulsion, while certainly not universal, is widely shared, and it is a psychological phenomenon that is completely independent of our ideas about the literal truth of the Bible.

Our visceral revulsion at the mere sight of lower primates has been noted by the Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal. Observing the visitors to the chimpanzee colony at the Arnhem Zoo, de Waal noticed a frequent pattern among them. Many people would stare at the chimps for a few minutes, then, after saying, "Oh I could watch them all day," they would swiftly make their way to the nearest exit. They had had enough monkey business. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, another great naturalist, was equally aware of this deep-seated revulsion against monkeys. In his novel Elective Affinities, a character declares her feelings about monkeys in no uncertain terms: "How can anyone bring himself to expend such care on depicting horrid monkeys! It is debasing simply to regard them as animal [!], but it is really more malicious to succumb to the temptation of seeking in them the likeness of people you know."

This visceral revulsion against monkeys explains why so many people prefer to hold on to the far more flattering mythology of man's creation as it was presented in Genesis. It is not Genesis that turns them against Darwin; it is Darwin that makes them turn to Genesis.

Now the proponents of Darwin will argue that a visceral revulsion is not a logical argument, and the proponents of Darwin will of course be right. From the fact that most people are horrified to think of themselves as descending from the lower primates, it does not follow that they must have arisen from a more respectable ancestry.

At the same time, those who accept Darwin (as I do) need to understand the true origin of the revulsion so many people feel against his theory. For the basis of this revulsion is none other than "the civilizing process" that has been instilled into us from infancy. The civilizing process has taught us never to throw our feces at other people, not even in jest. It has taught us not to snatch food from other people, not even when they are much weaker than we. It has taught us not to play with our genitals in front of other people, not even when we are very bored. It has taught us not to mount the posterior of other people, not even when they have cute butts.

Those who are horrified by our resemblance to the lower primates are not wrong, because it is by means of this very horror of the primate-within that men have been able to transcend our original primate state of nature. It is by refusing to accept our embarrassing kinship with primates that men have been able to create societies that prohibit precisely the kind of monkey business that civilized men and women invariably find so revolting and disgusting. Thou shalt not act like a monkey - this is the essence of all the higher religions, and the summation of all ethical systems.

Those who continue to resist Darwin are not standing up for science, but they may well be standing up for something even more important - a Dawkinsian meme, if you will, that has been instrumental in permitting mankind to transcend the brutal level of our primate origins. Our lofty humanitarian ethical standards have been derived not by observing our primate kin, but by imagining that we were made in the image of God. It was only by assuming that we were expected to come up to heavenly standards that we did not lower our standards to those of our biological next of kin. The meme that asserts that we are the children of God, and not merely a bunch of wild monkeys may be an illusion; but it is the illusion upon which all humane civilizations have been constructed. Those who wish to eliminate this illusionary meme from our general meme pool may be acting in the name of science; but it is by no means obvious that they are acting in the name of civilization and humanity.

What law? I'm with you, there is evolution! Ideas evolve. Human designers evolve their systems as the ideas evolve. There is a feedback loop -- the first generation of automobiles were considerably different than the 2008's.

However the idea that biological systems as complex as an cell evolved WITHOUT a designer violates the law of probability. That is the likelihood of a cell occurring by chance through some designer-free evolution, without a purposeful designer is so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable for all practical purposes from zero.

The following online lecture kind of changes that estimate of probability, doesn't it?

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

According to the lecture summary Prof. Odell is way overstating how "thoughtless, haphazard, non-designed" his system is. The system is FULL OF design. Where that design is found needs a subtle intellect! It's easy to ignore because it's in buried in the background. A purposeful researcher, and humans generally, focuses on the foreground.

Here are some of the many things that are designed, upon which his results are based, necessary for his results. Not a full listing:

the computer system
the program that implemented the "genetic" algorithm, which might called the virtual ecosystem
the initial settings of the state vector of the process
the observation points and outputs that allowed the Professor to monitor the process or/and results
the selection algorithm and/or the rubric by which the Professor evaluated the algorithm
the language and grammar (presumably modern English) the Professor used to write down his ideas, to communicate with peers, that was used by those who taught him
the Professor's clothes which kept him warm
the building the Professor worked in
the ground the building stood on
time
space
physics
the Professor himself

That has nothing to do with the probability problem, or that lecture, at all.

Don't you think you might view the online lecture before dismissing it? Or before lecturing me as to what it says?

"Ok. So what 'kind' is a porpoise?"

The order, Cetacea , is probably a reasonable approximation of the "kind" in this case.

As you know, and I have already stated, there is no agreed upon, systematic organization of life forms into "kinds".

I already gave a generalized definition based on nothing but my opinion.

If you have a point, go ahead and make it.

"Not necessarily. Classification systems have their uses as organizational umbrellas."

Well, after contradicting what I said, you essentially restated what I said.

Per www.m-w.com/dictionary:
capricious
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈpri-shəs, -ˈprē-\
Function: adjective
: governed or characterized by caprice : impulsive
unpredictable
synonyms see inconstant

arbitrary
Pronunciation: \ˈÃƒÂƒÃ‚ÂƒÃƒÂ‚Ã‚Â¤r-bə-ˌtrer-ē,
-ˌtre-rē\
Function: adjective
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law ... 3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

inherent
Pronunciation: \-ənt\
Function: adjective
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something
: belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic

My point is NOT that taxonomic nomenclature is useless. My point is that it cannot be consulted as supporting evidence for evolutionary theory. That would be like invoking alphabetic order to prove that two random events were related because of similar descriptions.

On the contrary, if there is MEANINGFUL order to the natural realm, that in itself implies Design (with a capital D). I know all about the arguments of the semantics of the word. But the bottom line is that science actively searches for meaning , order and logic in the Universe. The concepts of deity and creator are philosophical presuppositions of true science.

Many proponents of evolution equivilate materialism with science. This conclusion can only be arrived at by philosophic choice. Science does not presuppose this. Faulty logic leads from empiricism to materialism. The scientific method does not discriminate between ideas that are arrived at by faith or foolishness, deliberation or chance. (I am referring to hypothesis formulation and selection.) They just need to be testable and supportable by empirical evidence.

The meaning of the universe may be like music. There is a physiological response to music in the ears and brains of listeners who perceive the music. Without this, there is no music, only noise, or at most empty sound.

Materialists are tone deaf to the meaning that is readily apparent to most. Why? My opinion and best guess is that it is due to a moral bent - damage from guilt, bitterness, lust, greed, or something of this nature, has damaged their ability to perceive what is in plain sight.

Radical materialism transforms science from a thing of beauty to a dull, lifeless, empty void. In it there are no explanatory theories. It can only describe and never explain.

[[Where that design is found needs a subtle intellect! It’s easy to ignore because it’s in buried in the background. A purposeful researcher, and humans generally, focuses on the foreground.]]

You will never make that clear to them no matter how hard you try or the facts you present. If there’s a 1 in 10 to the 360’th power chance of even one single event being a slight possibility, then that’s all the ‘proof’ they need for Macroevoltuion. And just for hte record- that lecture has already been rebuttled- evben still though, it’s a favorite link for Coyoteman who ignores the rebuttles, waits a certain amount of time, then reposts it after everyone has forgotten about hte refuting.

And just for hte record- that lecture has already been rebuttled- evben still though, it’s a favorite link for Coyoteman who ignores the rebuttles, waits a certain amount of time, then reposts it after everyone has forgotten about hte refuting.

I post legitimate science, you post religious propaganda, and you think that constitutes a rebuttal?

The stuff you link to, almost entirely gleaned from creationist or creation "science" websites, does not pertain to real science at all, let alone rebut any of it.

I didn’;t link to naythign for the rebuttle- so enough with the lame old tired out phrases Coyoteman- There was no need to link to anythign else because the lecture was nothign but a slieght of hand one trick pony show- Therei s NOTHING random about ingeneau- it is all worked out ahead of time, starting points are given with informations already inplace, and ready to react to a new set of instructions when they come passing by. As well, the Proff. completely ignores where all the informations came from to start with, and his Johnny come lately ‘random’ program is nothign but random and has been soundly refuted in many forums- not just ‘christian’ ones.

[[The stuff you link to, almost entirely gleaned from creationist or creation “science” websites, does not pertain to real science at all, let alone rebut any of it.]]

You’ve YET to show how any of what I do post fro msites isn’t lgiti science- Saying it aint don’t make it so Coyoteman- you’ve got to do more than stomp your foot and insist- you’ve got to actually do a little bit of work and actually address issues- not run from them screaming that they aint ligit.

Once again- Your beloved Ingeneau program fails to take into account several key factors when they’re ‘simulating random assembly”. The only thing your program prudueced was a neural network, but yet these networks are useless by themselves. Single cells, which are suppsoed to be simplistic, contain hundreds of traits already present, accoutned for, and functioning properly in order for hte cell to survive- there was no ‘step-wise’ process leading up to the assembly of htese complex systems.

As well, your program, like every other designed algorithm program, protects the ‘most fit’, ensuring that nothing happens to it while it awaits more ‘random’ algorithmically designed mutations to occur, and nature does no such thing- this is another design feature of Ingeneau that simply is not present in nature.

How true to nature was the ‘mutation’ rate of the program Coyote? Was it true to nature? or was it artificially inflated thousands of times beyond what nature does? Organisms would have to be subject4ed to unnaturaly high radioactive environments in order to see the mumbers of mutations that these programs spit out, and which can only produce simple neural networks minus all the complexities of actual living systems. Your program produces simplistic ‘complexities’ and calls it good enough, infering that systems FAR greater incomplexities can result from these simplistic ‘complexity’ models ‘created’ by a DESIGNED netowrk that already has all the parameters and figures worked out in advance, and which works with information that somehow makes it onto the scenne without any help from a designer.

Your program targets specific points for mutations, and as you full well know, nature doesn’t target- it simply TRULY Randomly hits wherever and whenever- Your program needed target points in order to ‘get the ball working’, and it needed guided and artificially high numbers of mutations working on only a select few samples whereas nature has to work on billions.

I’ve only gone through about 3/4 of the lecture (once again) and it is clear that this is anythign but a random process so far- I’ll listen to the rest tomorrow, but I’m sure the rest will just amount to the proff. explanining away the problems with the model, or at best, just be more of the same programmed ‘randomness’ disguised as undirected algorithms

Then you have not read the right rebuttles because the ones I’ve read do EXACTLY touch on all the relevent issues

[[except to say the conclusions can’t be right because, well, they just can’t!]]

That’s a load of horsecrap- I’m not sure what sites you listened to or read, but “Bob’sBigBookofScience” blog isn’t the place to go for actual scientific rebuttles- try looking a little harder- you’ll find what you’re itching to read I’m sure.

woops- forgot the link:

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_americasobsession.htm

Coyote and the good proff. know full well that computer models are rife with problems and that they in no way represent the natural process, but coyote continuously posts this link in the hopes that some unsuspeciting dupes won’t see any rebuttles to the genetic algorithms, and will buy into it thiunking it’s an impressive display of the possibilties of Macroevolution. It is not- it’s a wasted effort and wasted money that show that desing is needed, but Coyote declare at his last breath that it is wonderful example of the possibility of Macroevolution. It’s nothign but more of the same equivicableness that declares that 3 bricks setting atop each other after a storm is enough to show that brick buildings could have naturally evovled “given enough time”

Anyway- I’ll post about more problems with the gentic algorthims tomorrow- But really- despite repeated postings rebuttling the issue, it will simply be ignored and the same link to hte program will be posted again in the future in the hopes that noone challenges it with facts and that some peopel will swallow the deceitfulness hook line and sinker. Coyote seems ot think that waving the magic wand of dismissal and calling any rebuttles ‘propoganda’ is a good defense, but I’’ll simply let the facts speak for themselves.

The story so far:
[[One more time: the flora of islands is quite limited.]]
“The southwest Pacific island of New Caledonia, covering approximately 17,000 km², has a remarkably diverse and highly endemic flora for an area its size, with an estimated 3,137 native species of angiosperms and gymnosperms (79% endemic), representing about 763 genera (14% endemic), and 169 families (3% endemic).”
“The flora of Andaman and Nicobar group of islands, India, comprises approx 2200 species of flowering plants; of these, “
“Cuba. Cuba is by far the most important island in the region in terms of biodiversity, particularly for plant diversity, with more than 6,500 vascular plants, of which about half are endemic.”
There are many more examples- All are islands which cropped up and which had zero flora in the beginning and hwich grew diverse flora over time- all of which made hteir way there in various ways- some through birds carrying seeds in excrement, some through other animals doing hte same, some through drift. From the basic KINDS that did survive, we now have a variety of subspecies- all of which science is finding out can occure quite rapidly and with great variety.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You have (inadvertently, I assume) reinforced my point. Those numbers, while large for the size for the island, are actually quite small in terms of plant biodiversity, thus reinforcing the position that very few plants can survive a prolonged flood.

“Animals age and die; when they die, rot sets in. Obviously the 2nd law is at work even now. It’s obviously at work because of the aging process and the deterioration that sets in, even while the organism is alive.”

1. not all animals age in the sense of senescence.
a collection of google refs:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=rockfish+senescence&spell=1

2. (same ref) it appears that some animals have the potential to be immortal

3. rot is not the terrible thing you seem to think... it is simply the preparation for recycling, the first step being feeding microorganisms and fungi.

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.