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.

[[All the phenomena and processes required for evolution have been observed both in the wild and in the laboratory. You are asking science to disregard observed principles in favor of what?]]

Lol- Nope- sorry not even close- your assertion is such a broad sweeping generalization that it’s unsound. All the phenomena have NOT been observed. ALL that has been observed is the fact that nature works on the adapability designed into species to accomplish MICROevoltuion.

[[Step wise evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory.]]

No it hasn’t- a Simplistic Stepwise MICROevoltuion has been observed that obey the species specific parameters that keep KINDS within their own KINDS- BIG difference JS.

[[till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.]]

I’m not hteo ne going against htis- it is Macroevolutionists that go against this as the last 150 years of research have shown the impossible nature of evolution, AND that design is both observably irreducible, and that design is present in everything - those insisting otherwise are doing so purely on religious beliefs that a process as yet undocumented ‘could have been possible’ despite hte incredible problems associated with the process as a whole and at every level. Macroevo’s can’t even demonstrate one small aspect of Macroevolution, and yet they ask that we teach our students that trillions of law violating steps took place and that NEW information just appeared out of nowhere due to a manipulation of a species specific information and that NEW parts and systems arose that violate the biological process. The ONLY way for NEW ifnormation to come about is through leteral gene transference, yet the Macroevo insists that stepwise accumulations that violate hte second law could create NEW information- Everythign science has found contradicts this, and every experiment to show the creation of NEW information has failed. The Macroevo is forced then to insist that CHANGED information within species specific parameters is equivelent to NEW information, and that CHANGED information can produce NEW organs- and htere simply isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest htis- ONLY assumptions driven hypothesis.

[[Not being able to completely model a physical process, such as a hurricane or earthquake, does not suggest that fairies are in charge of thes phenomena.]]

Noone is suggestingh such a simplified rediculous notion JS- Design has FAR more evidence to support it than does faries- your analogy isn’t relevent to this discussion

[[Your argument boils down to saying anything we do not fully understand must have a supernatural explanation.]]

Not at all- My argument boils down to the scientifically legitimate conclusion that the evidence of Design at trillions of levels, and hte complexities observed and understood in systems shows the very scientifically plausibility that a designer was needed- just as ANY other forensic scientist validly concludes when faced with design on the grand scale as seen in nature. Throwing out the plausibility of htere being a designer is practicing subjective a priori science- NOT objective science. When htere is enough evidence for intelligence, then it is simply dogma to insist that intellgience could not possibly have been the cause.

[[Describe exactly where microevolution ends and macroevolution begins]]

non species specific NEW information. When you or any other person can demonstrate NEW information can coem from any amount of accumulations of mutations, then and only then will you have a case for Macroevolution being the same process as MICROevolution. Microevolution is a very demonstratable process of information CHANGE that must work within the parameters of the species specific information database of isntructions. No amount of change within these parameters will tun- to illustraTE simply, the letters C A T into B A T- the ONLY way to get the necessary Bat specific iformation into a Cat is to laterally transfere the B from the Bat to the Cat- no amount of manipulation will turn the Cat’s C into a B (Yes, I know this is simplistic and has problems, however, it illustrates the necessary lateral gene trasference needed to start moving a Cat toward a Bat- And since Macreolvulution is an upward process, IF the Cat came first, there would be NO B above it for the transference to occure- there woudl be no Bats from which to get this NEW non species specific information/instructions from. Somehow, Macroevos MUST demonstrate how simple manipulations could produce the B instructions to occure in the Cat- however, ALL science has is assumptions= not evidence, about past events that they THINK took place. (I’m not suggesting Macroevos think Cats evolved into Bats, I just used the two species as a simple illustration cuz they were easy to spell lol)

Anyway- Frame shifts, Deletions, insertions etc etc all of which have been documented by science, can do nothign to create the B instructions in a cat. All they can do is manipulate trait characteristics unique top the Cat KIND- somethign which genetic bredding experiments have proven out tiem and time again, and somethign science confirms. Anythign that goes beyond the observable demonstratable evidence is simply assumptions that have no support scientifically.

There are many htings which come close to being seen as NEW infromation, however, these ALL turn out to be sybiotic relationships, and NOT NEW non species specific info being adopted by the host. The host can and often does Adapt- but not adopt as it’;s own.

The only TRUE examples of lateral gene transference in nature are between the same KINDS- Soem Bacteria can TRUELY transfere gene material to create TRUE NEW information, but it must be pointed out that these are the same KINDS of Bacteria that do so.

Sciecne has managed to INTELLIGENTLY transfer gene material under ideal lab conditions between dissimiliar species (they managed to transfer the genetic info for spiders silk into a goat who then produced silk in it’s milk. However, this presented a lot of problems and it also demonstrated that species are specifically DESIGNED to rteject and correct such invasive transferences. Other than ideal lab conditions, TRUE lateral gene transferences hbave NOT been observed or manipulated i nthe wild between dissimiliar KINDS, and as stated, sdpecies have several built in protection levels that protect against such invasive anomylies and prevent it from happeneing except between very simple like KINDS like Bacteria.

Late for nap- be back later if you have more objections.

[Looking around, things clearly survive. This is again the error of assuming we’re going for *these* results, rather than just *some* result.]]

{That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point Batten brings to the table}

Sure it does. Here is Batten’s criticism: “Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected.”

Notice his use of the phrase “the desired outcome”—that right there betrays his assumption that the purpose of a GA is to produce a particular outcome rather than just some functional outcome. Some GAs are aimed at a specific result—like his example, Dawkins’s “weasel” sentence generator—but many are just aimed at finding *a* solution or *the best* solution without defining in advance what that is. The only “right direction” is fitness. Yes, the writer of the algorithm has to define what “fitness” consists of—in evolution, nature defines what “fitness” consists of by changing the environment (mostly). It’s possible that Batten doesn’t understand the distinction between a “desired outcome” in the sense of a predefined result, and a “desired outcome” in the sense of “anything that works.” But it’s an important distinction and one often overlooked by creationists.

I also see that in Batten’s essay, he says “Note that we are *not* saying that mutations and natural selection *cannot* generate information.” He seems not to share your belief that new information is impossible.

[[Notice his use of the phrase “the desired outcome”—that right there betrays his assumption that the purpose of a GA is to produce a particular outcome rather than just some functional outcome.]]

Good golly- th4e only thing it exposes is the fact that the programs aren’t random as are claimed- That is the whole premise of his points-

[[ Some GAs are aimed at a specific result—like his example, Dawkins’s “weasel” sentence generator—but many are just aimed at finding *a* solution or *the best* solution without defining in advance what that is.]]

Not “A” solution but “THE BEST solution- which makes them absolutely not representative of nature- end of story- Next point?

[[I also see that in Batten’s essay, he says “Note that we are *not* saying that mutations and natural selection *cannot* generate information.” He seems not to share your belief that new information is impossible.]]

A generation of CHANGED informaiton is NOT a generation of NEW information-

[[Yes, the writer of the algorithm has to define what “fitness” consists of—in evolution, nature defines what “fitness” consists of by changing the environment (mostly). It’s possible that Batten doesn’t understand the distinction between a “desired outcome” in the sense of a predefined result, and a “desired outcome” in the sense of “anything that works.” But it’s an important distinction and one often overlooked by creationists.]]

You missed again the whole crux of issue- that GA’s are directed intelligence programs which have to rely on unrealistic environments in order to direct a process to produce insignificant pattern results which in no way coem even close to hte compelxities of nature’s designs.

Tired of pointing htis out- if you have valid criticisms, then present them- otherwise you’re doing nothign but trying to explain away the design of the programs and the unrealistic environments and artificial inflations intended to produce predetermiend outcomes. ALL of the points/problems have been dealt with- I’ll not continue re-explaning it over and over again as it seems that you can’t grasp the seriousness of the problems associated with the programs- not being belittlign here- but you’re tryign to salvage a borken vessel that went down long ago.

[[You haven’t actually given an example of microevolution vs macroevolution. Give me a specific example of a structure in biology that does not have functional subcomponents, and can therefore not have evolved via stepwise changes.]]

I mostr certainly have described the differences.- what you are now askign for is an example of irreducible complexity- make up your mind- do you want an explanation for the differences between macroe and microe? which I’ve already provided? Or do you now wish to change the playing rules and midstream and want an example of irreducible complexity- IF so, there are many examples- google them- but I’ll put the onus on you becuase it is your hypothesis that is being defended here- give us scientific evidences of ANY systems that did infact stepwise evolve to produce non species specific NEW systems- You can’t- all you can produce are assumptions and hypothesis despite 150 years of intense research into the hypothesis.

[[Do you agree with Ken Ham of AIG that “kinds” can include groups of organisms at the level of Family?]]

I agree with the definitions of Baraminology in the link I gave soem posts ago

[[Intelligent lacks any theory of who done it or how or when or where or why.]]

ID isn’t required to explain who, when where or why- it only has to investigate and identify the design- Identifyign the who what when why is somethign critics of ID falsely assume ID msut do. A forensic scientist doesn’t need to identify thsoe qualities of Design, they only need to identify the design itself. Now, ID goes a step further and explains the HOW of design as well by examining hte relevent codependent designs that support the design as a whole as well, and enough evidence emerges to show that a designer is indeed a very plausible and objective scientific determination- just as any forensic scienctist woudl be scientifically allowed to do- IF enough design isn’t present, then the ID scientist, or any scientist for that matter, simply can’t put forth the idea that a designer is needed, but that isn’t the case with Nature- there IS enough design present to show hte fingerprints of a designer.

[[It has exactly zero attributes it can assign to the designer]

Yuo can wallow in stubborn denial if you like- but that’s your perrogative- just don’t expect others who are more objective to share that view

[[Intelligent Design says exactly nothing about where intermediate fossils should be found, or where we should look]]

And why should it? First of all- Are you suggesting that for any sciecne endeavor to be valid and ligit, that it must agree with Macroevos and must beleive that htere must be itnermediary fossils somewhere? Certainly you’re not suggesting that? Secondly, ID’s focus is on both Design AND on discontinuities- to suggest that htey must share the beleifs of Macroevos and think that there must be transitionals is a bit heavy handed subjectivity on your part dontcha think? Of course they don’t predict transtiionals will be found- Transitionals do NOT exist- Can’t predict somethign is gopign to be foudn that doesn’t exist, now can they?

[[It is entirely incapable of suggesting a dig like the one that found Tiktaalik. It has nothing to say about which animals would make good subjects for the development of drugs vaccines. It has nothing to say on the subject of antibiotic resistance.]]

Pure BS- it DOES predict many things important to science- AND it even predicts exactly what will be foudn at digs- discontinuous examples, AND it predicts that we will find htem en mass- just as we DO find htem- The science of ID ALSO studies the designs in nature to (this is important- so please pay attention) BETTER UNDERSTAND medicine- IF design is a fact, and intelligence has constructed htem by including instructions, THEN ID science can better udnerstand how linked systems itneract and respond to other systems- when the desigs are known, one can better understyand how more ocmpelx systems work- to suggest that ID makes no contribution to science is utter rediculousness. The potential for discovery after udnerstanding design is huge. ID is investigating the clues al lthe time to understand how the designs function- just as I explaiend in response to your false accusation about ID at the beginnign of your post. It might come as quite a shock to you- but the Discovery Institute isn’t hte be all end all of ID science- IF indeed that is Phillip’s feeligns, then he is mistsaken, BUT that doesn’t render all the ID science articles presented by DI as invalid-

Ask Behe about whether or not ID can make any contributions to medical science or not- I’m sure you’ll get quite a folder full of ideas how it can, does, and will continue to help medical science. There is a whole world of ID science and investigations outside of DI- Ya might want ot check some of it out sometime- Heck- there are even branches made up of agnostics and atheists who still beleive the hypothesis of Macroevolutoin is true but who still beleive an itnellgience is responsible for kickstarting the whoel process- but again, it’s not the job of ID science to show the who or why- just hte how, and to investigate hte design itself.

Perhaps we shoudl outlaw ID research and not discover the how that runs the systems, eh? Woudln’t that be an advancvement in science to do so eh?

>> Tired of pointing htis out- if you have valid criticisms,

I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to be belittling either, but just like when we were talking about the geological dates, you’re proving yourself incapable of understanding the criticisms I’m making. This will be my last attempt:

1. If I ask you to flip a coin until you get five heads in a row, I have set a desired outcome. You will eventually achieve that outcome. That does not mean the algorithm isn’t random. It does not mean the process is directed.

2. “Generate” means “to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.” When Batten says, “we are *not* saying that mutations and natural selection *cannot* generate information,” he’s talking about NEW information, by the very meaning of the words.

3. >>Not “A” solution but “THE BEST solution- which makes them absolutely not representative of nature- end of story

Umm...because you say so?

[[I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to be belittling either, but just like when we were talking about the geological dates, you’re proving yourself incapable of understanding the criticisms I’m making. This will be my last attempt:]]

I understand htem fine- it’s you sir that are attempting to wave aside the obvious as thouigh they are meaninglyess. You aren’t offering criticisms but rather denials.

[[1. If I ask you to flip a coin until you get five heads in a row, I have set a desired outcome. You will eventually achieve that outcome. That does not mean the algorithm isn’t random. It does not mean the process is directed.]]

Lol- The program doesn’t simply ‘wait for the right combinations’ it DIRECTS them. In a coin flop, unless you control the flip in midair, it is indeed random- however with these GA systems- what you are in essence doing is controlling the flip in midair. These GA systems ENSURE that ONLY the ‘good mutations’ affect the outcome- comprende? The patterns are protected against the ‘bad mutations’- they aren’t simply ‘looking for a desired result- they are ENSURING a desired result- BIG difference. The magic wand of dismissal and denial doesn’t work here.

[[2. “Generate” means “to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.” When Batten says, “we are *not* saying that mutations and natural selection *cannot* generate information,” he’s talking about NEW information, by the very meaning of the words.]]

Lol- manipulation of a definition doesn’t help your case here- Generate also means to ‘brign forth from existing’ - A person ‘generating ideas’ does what? Yes, that’s right- using ALREADY established information/words, and using htose to generate an ourcome. He isn’t ‘creating’ anything, he is utilizing the information he already has and generating an idea. Generating information utilizing information already present is nothign more than MICROEvoltuion- you’ll have to do better than that- Besides- I really don’t care what a person’s PERSONAL OPINIONS are on an issue-= All I concern myself with are demonstratable scientific facts- not assumptions- Even if He personally believes NEW infromation can be produced- he would have ZERO evidence to back that up and it would be nothing but a personal opinion of his- I love ity when people say stuff like “What are you quoting Behe and his examples of irreducible complexity for? He beleives in Common Decent” As though Behe’;s person opinion means absolutely squat in light of hte issue of the facts of irreducible complexity that are being discussed. I guess to osme people that unless a person agrees 100% with another, then they can’t use any of the person’s relevent scientific facts lol-

[[3. >>Not “A” solution but “THE BEST solution- which makes them absolutely not representative of nature- end of story

Umm...because you say so?]]

No- because the facts say so. The proffesor in the lecture presented his material in the hopes of duping people into thinking that those who hold the idea that design is intellgiently caused are thick skulled idiots- however, his program is nothign but a lie disguised as science. He tried to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by presenting only the facts that were favorable to his proposition and left out all the relevent information that was devestatign to his proposal- call it sins of ommission- somethign that is VERY common when scientists intend to malign and belittle those who don’t beleive in Macroevolution. The proffessor left out all the relevent points that the Dr. Batten exposed why? Because his lecture would have had NO merrit had he disclosed them- that’s why! While it might be fascinating to work on such projects, to then take and deceitful present them as somethign they are not isn’t science- it’s propoganda coupled with biased agenda! The proffessor CLEARLY stated that he created “Unintelligent Design” by purely random means- ‘just like evolution does’ was his inferrence. Bzzzzt! Wrong!

Folsk like the Proff. Aren’t content with objectively studying science- nope- they step outside hte bounds of objective science and wallow in the deceitful practice of Subjective agenda, and apparently, they will go to any lengths to try to malign those with whom they don’t agree. If you wish to fall for his indoctination, then by all means do so, but don’t expect those who are able to look at hte facts- ALL of the facts, and come to objective conclusions to follow suit. The proffessor’s whole intention was to refute the idea of intelligent design, but unfortunately he failed miserably- While the program was interesting- it sure as heck wasn’t what he claimed it to be!

>> A person ‘generating ideas’ does what? Yes, that’s right- using ALREADY established information/words, and using htose to generate an ourcome. He isn’t ‘creating’ anything, he is utilizing the information he already has and generating an idea. <<

Are you arguing that a new idea never represents new information? Because ideas are expressed in words, and the words already exist, so there is no new information generated? So E=mc^2 didn’t represent new information because the letters E, m, and c and the equals sign already existed, and Beethoven’s Ninth didn’t represent new information because all those notes already existed. Is that right?

But more to the point, it sounds like you don’t like any kind of computer simulation. Any computer model is going to have conditions built in—predetermined, if you will—that affect the outcome. It seems to me that, from your point of view, any attempt to model natural processes is inherently flawed for that reason—the programmer has to decide what influences to program in and how they’re going to affect the process. Rather than simply throwing out the whole model on that basis, you need to explain why the programmer’s choices are flawed. And I mean “explain”—Batten just says that programming in a faster rate of reproduction ruins the model without ever explaining why that’s a problem.

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.