PZ Myers responds to a question from a creationist about evolution

Pharyngula ^ | June 6, 2008 | PZ Myers

[Nicholas Conradin]

A good question

Sometimes my email contains a few good and sincere questions — and here's an example. This is probably the most common rock on which creationists founder: a profound misconception about what evolution says, and a natural human desire to see a guiding plan to the world.

-- begin email quote
I'm tormented. I appreciate the struggle many creationists are having about evolutionary science. I find myself tormented as I observe the world around me. What I seem to be focused on is how a plant or animal is self aware of it's need to evolve? How does a tree know how to "evolve" it's seed to fly on the wind? How would a lizard "know" that it needed to develop camouflage to survive? I can't imagine who any plant or animal other than human would have the ability to "know" and as well as pass it along via DNA to future hundreds of thousands of generations? I'd appreciate your feedback…this is really starting to bother me.
-- end email quote

The first part of the answer is that the organism doesn't know that it must evolve. There is no plan, no guidance, no goal imposed ahead of time, the tree or lizard are not following a program that says they have a goal. The outcome emerges as a consequence of selection and chance.

The tree did not plan ahead. In a population of trees, there was chance variation in how far seeds fell from the parent; seeds that fell in the shade of the parent would not flourish, while seeds that were fortuitously caught by the wind and fell further away were more likely to thrive, and produce more offspring. Lizards that blended in with their environment were less likely to be eaten, and had more offspring that, inheriting their parents inconspicuousness, were also less likely to be eaten, and variation in their progeny was selected further approximations to camouflage.

There is no "know", no awareness. Darwin's insight was that life didn't need it to produce a pattern of change — unguided random variation, filtered after the fact by natural selection, produces an appearance of design.

And yes, this is a fact that many people find troubling. We're brought up thinking we're cuddled in the swaddling hands of a god who has a grand plan for us all, and that every little up and down in our life is the product of some cosmic intent — it's reassuring and makes us feel important. It's an interpretation unsupported by any evidence, too, and often contradicted. We live in a world of chance, and we're all on our own.

OK, readers, maybe you have a better explanation. Go ahead, chime in with a comment and explain how we're going to wean the general public away from their imaginary sky father.

[Nicholas Conradin]

PZ Myers responds to a question on his blog.

[weegee]

Lizards that blended in with their environment were less likely to be eaten, and had more offspring that, inheriting their parents inconspicuousness, were also less likely to be eaten, and variation in their progeny was selected further approximations to camouflage. There is no "know", no awareness.

A chameleon changes its colors by CHOICE. There IS awareness.

[SkyDancer]

My question is: Has everything evolved to the point where evolution is no longer happening? If not, then what are humans going to evolve to? Will hummingbirds evolve into eagles?

[Das Outsider]

Go ahead, chime in with a comment and explain how we're going to wean the general public away from their imaginary sky father.

By pushing them into the arms of Big Brother, perhaps?

[Mogollon]

So does this putz think he has proved the case for atheism now? Gregor Mendels' experiments on sweet peas demonstrated variability and hybridization but his sweet peas were still just sweet peas in the end. Just once why don't the evolutionists actually reproduce a verifiable example of mutation followed by natural selection that shows the emergence of a new species using species that have very short lifespans?....The answer is they have tried, but instead they have shown that resistance to change in species is the norm:

Fruit Flys Speak Up

I suspect that the lizards mentioned in the article would also resist change if they were exposed to millions of mutagens as the Fruit Flys have been. Also, I want to know why no mutations and natural selection followed Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 thus producing a japanese version of the Incredible Hulk or some such? Smugly sitting around and claiming the infallibility of darwinism isn't going to cut it anymore. Show us the data!

[abclily]

Humans did not evolve here. If we had evolved here, we would not need shelter.

By the way, I like your questions.

[Diamond]

" We're brought up thinking we're cuddled in the swaddling hands of a god who has a grand plan for us all, and that every little up and down in our life is the product of some cosmic intent — it's reassuring and makes us feel important. It's an interpretation unsupported by any evidence, too, and often contradicted. We live in a world of chance, and we're all on our own."

For some reason certain metaphysical assertions above will not provoke the usual howls of protest from the "IT"S NOT SCIENCE" ^TM crowd.

Cordially,

[Cicero]

A good question? It seems pretty naive to me. Neither Darwinists nor Creationists nor Intelligent Design exponents (ID is quite different from Creationism) nor Biblical literalists every claimed that any plant or animal is “aware” of a need to evolve.

I think he found it a “good question” because it offered him a good opportunity for a gentle put-down of Creationists.

[SkyDancer]

I remember one time someone told me a watermelon is 98% water and 97% for a human; I remarked that OK so we’re just a water molecule away from being a watermelon ... I’m trying to figure out why Liberals haven’t evolved yet ....

[SkyDancer]

You can have all sorts of fruit flies ... green ones, red ones but no matter - they’re still all fruit flies ... not one has evolved into an elephant ....

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

I remember one time someone told me a watermelon is 98% water and 97% for a human; I remarked that OK so we’re just a water molecule away from being a watermelon ... I’m trying to figure out why Liberals haven’t evolved yet ....

I remember seeing this controversy on television decades ago when I still watched the stupid thing. It was a preacher making this analogy above to a congregation. At that point I saw the depths of ignorance to which some religionists could descend.

[TexasKamaAina]

He’s describing natural selection,not evolution of one species into another.

[abclily]

Liberals cannot evolve intellectually until they admit that humans are spiritual creatures with souls.

[Matchett-PI]

When I update my profile page soon, this link will be among those that will be on it:

Science, Worldviews & Education - Hugh Gauch, Jr.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p668904p854h5t6x/fulltext.pdf

Note: Hugh Gauch Jr is able to respectfully and coherently discuss the official views of the AAAS and other scientific organizations. He wrote the above-linked article which is online now and will be part of a special issue from Springer early next year. Hugh will also have an article in that issue responding to other authors in the issue. The above is linked from:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p668904p854h5t6x/

bttt

[cob201]

So long as you present your argument in the cartoonish, straw man way, you’ll have no hope of either understanding nor convincing others. Nobody I know believes in an “invisible sky father.”

The fact that you can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I can’t see the “invisible atoms in my chair.” Do you believe in invisible atoms? How are we going to ween you from that silliness?

[Das Outsider]

So long as you present your argument in the cartoonish, straw man way, you’ll have no hope of either understanding nor convincing others. Nobody I know believes in an “invisible sky father.”

You're responding to Myers's quote that I cited? If so, then good on you. My response to Dr. Myers's invitation was that perhaps they could get these ignorant, backward Dark Ages types (myself included) some re-edumatcation via an an all-powerful totalitarian state, exalted in the place of God. Tongue-in-cheek? Just a little bit. ;)

The fact that you can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

And if it is made manifest in the flesh, we aren't dealing with some imaginary Casper-type entity that skeptics are so fond of attacking.

How are we going to ween you from that silliness?

You say "silliness" as though it were a bad thing. I'll admit that methodological naturalism--and many of the other drab "-ism"s that the atheistic Darwinist crowd accepts--is a blight on an otherwise lively and exuberant world of All Things Silly. ;)

[Das Outsider]

For some reason certain metaphysical assertions above will not provoke the usual howls of protest from the "IT"S NOT SCIENCE" TM crowd.

Bingo. I was wondering if someone would bring that up.

[Jo Nuvark]

What you’re really saying is that evo-relativists
are narrow minded totem worshippers. And I agree.

NOT A CHRISTOPHOBE!

[Das Outsider]

What you’re really saying is that evo-relativists are narrow minded totem worshippers. And I agree.

Pretty much. Myers is of the mind that greater science education will--in fact, should--lead to a diminution of religion in public life; the replacement of the old order for the new.

It's the old "learn some science and you'll ditch this God nonsense" canard. There are plenty of false beliefs to go around, and one's own peculiar epistemological stance doesn't make them exempt from that.

[Jo Nuvark]

[... We’re brought up thinking we’re cuddled in the swaddling hands of a god who has a grand plan for us all...]

Don’t speak for me. I was brought up believing I was god and didn’t need to go to doctors. MOST people I know were NOT raised knowing or talking about God.

[... every little up and down in our life is the product of some cosmic intent ...]

Nearly everyone I talk to believes in some kind of fate or controlling power outside of themselves, but few really believe in God.

[... it’s reassuring and makes us feel important...]

Evolution erases any accountability man may have toward his Creator. THIS is what makes man feel important.

[... It’s an interpretation unsupported by any evidence, too, and often contradicted...]

This can easily be said of evolution as well. However, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look around and see that there is design in the universe. A design must have a designer.

NOT A CHRISTOPHOBE!