A Revolution in Evolution Is Underway

Thomas More Lawcenter ^ | Tue, Jan 18, 2005

[StJacques]

I have not been able to come in here for about a week or so because I have been out of town working, but I see that I have missed a lot of discussion.

Over several threads I have been waiting patiently for a decent discussion of the Theory of Intelligent Design, which I find fatally flawed, and its overlap with the Theory of Evolution and theories (there are several) of Abiogenesis. I have always tried to treat points of view in opposition to my own with respect, but in light of the recent events now occurring in public education I must say that I have reached a point where I must point out that proponents of Intelligent Design and opponents of the Theory of Evolution and, in many cases, opponents of theories of Abiogenesis must be held to account for the most basic error of all; they refuse to submit their own views to scientific testing, which means that they invariably retreat to either a religious justification which they believe trumps science or, with some exceptions to those who argue against Abiogenesis, they rely upon axiomatic reasoning rooted in mathematics that establishes a construct which is basically Nominalist in its form (its utility follows from its definitions). And I have now concluded further that it is this axiomatic reasoning which makes Intelligent Design a truly dangerous proposition, because it creates a body of jargon that presents itself as intellectually sound in its formulation, giving its adherents a list of catch-phrases they can rely upon in argumentation while simultaneously avoiding the meaning that attaches to any real study of scientific phenomena.

When presented as a free-flowing discussion with no other end than a search for truth, I can treat all of this as legitimate philosophical inquiry, since I believe philosophy should know no bounds. But when the proponents of Intelligent Design, who very interestingly seemed to have garnered the support of New World Creationists -- a very odd mix indeed I think, since Intelligent Design recognizes the evolution of species and even holds out the possibility that life on earth may have been created by extraterrestrial aliens -- go into the public schools and command science teachers to present their theory, which is not capable of being disproven and thus fails the critical test of being "scientific," they cross a crucial line with me. I place an extremely high premium upon education as a worthy social value in and of itself. When science teachers are commanded to present the Theory of Intelligent Design, which is not scientific since it postulates that higher levels of biological complexity cannot have formed as a result of natural processes without submitting its case to scientific testing, that Intelligent Design becomes a lie. For those who are attached to the theory as a reaction to their religious beliefs I must point out that truthfulness is at the heart of every major religion on earth. Why is it not here?

I know many posters on this board for whom I have great respect disagree with me on this and I apologize in advance if I have offended you. But I am not going to sit in silence while the study of science, one of the keys to a viable education, is undermined by those who refuse to submit theoretical constructs they wish to see taught in science classes to the rigors of scientific method.

If anyone wants to respond that Intelligent Design is scientific, I have one simple challenge:

State the Theory of Intelligent Design in a manner in which its precepts can be submitted to scientific testing capable of disproving it. And to anyone who wants to respond that the Theory of Evolution is not scientific, I suggest you take discostu's comments to heart, and take your hands out of your ears and listen. There are entire sub-disciplines within science that study evolution in its various aspects and the entirety of this body of knowledge can be tested against observed scientific evidence.

[PatrickHenry]

And I have now concluded further that it is this axiomatic reasoning which makes Intelligent Design a truly dangerous proposition, because it creates a body of jargon that presents itself as intellectually sound in its formulation, giving its adherents a list of catch-phrases they can rely upon in argumentation while simultaneously avoiding the meaning that attaches to any real study of scientific phenomena.

I just posted these links in another thread, but I don't think it's really spamming if I repeat them here:
One Nation, Under the Designer. The true goals of the ID movement.
Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project". Replacing science with theism.
The Wedge at Work. The Discovery Institute's war against reason.
The Wedge strategy. In their own words.

[StJacques]

Nice followup Patrick.

Good to "see" you again.

[DannyTN]

"It's based upon the fact that it's the best explanation for the current evidence."

No, it's not. The Cambrian Explosion and sudden appearance of the major body types in the fossil record would be much better explained by God or Intelligent Design, than it would be by natural selection.

Evolution is only the best choice when all the other choices are deemed "supernatural" and excluded from consideration.

[Alamo-Girl]

Welcome back, StJacques!

You've said something that has me scratching my head, so I'm asking some of the most powerful philosophers on the forum to clarify the concept. You said (emphasis mine):

they refuse to submit their own views to scientific testing, which means that they invariably retreat to either a religious justification which they believe trumps science or, with some exceptions to those who argue against Abiogenesis, they rely upon axiomatic reasoning rooted in mathematics that establishes a construct which is basically Nominalist in its form (its utility follows from its definitions). And I have now concluded further that it is this axiomatic reasoning which makes Intelligent Design a truly dangerous proposition, because it creates a body of jargon that presents itself as intellectually sound in its formulation, giving its adherents a list of catch-phrases they can rely upon in argumentation while simultaneously avoiding the meaning that attaches to any real study of scientific phenomena.

That is not what I understand Nominalism to be all about. Here from Wikipedia:

Nominalism is the position in metaphysics that there exist no universals outside of the mind.

Nominalism is best understood in contrast to Realism. Philosophical Realism holds that descriptive terms we use such as "Green" or "Tree" are not merely descriptive words, but that the Forms of those concepts really exist, independently and somehow prior to the world, in an abstract realm; such thought is associated with Plato. Nominalism, by contrast, holds that such things as "Green" and "Tree" are no more than words we use to describe specific objects; they do not name identify anything real, and have no real existence beyond our imaginations.

The problem of universals

Nominalism arose in reaction to the problem of universals. Namely: accounting for the fact that some things are of the same type--for example, Fluffy and Kitzler are both cats--or, to put it another way, the fact that certain properties are repeatable--such as: the grass is green, my shirt is green, Kermit the Frog is green, etc... One wants to know in virtue of what makes Fluffy and Kitzler both cats; in virtue of what makes the grass, my shirt and Kermit all green.

The realist's answer is that all the green things are green in virtue of the existence of a universal--a single abstract thing. In this case, that is a part of all the green things. That is to say, with respect to the colour of the grass, my shirt and Kermit, one of their parts is identical. In this respect, the three parts are literally one. Greenness is repeatable because there is one thing, the universal, that manifests itself wherever there are green things.

Nominalism denies that there are such things as universals. The motivation to deny universals flows from several concerns. First, where are they? Plato famously held that there is a realm of abstract forms or universals apart from the natural world of particulars we see with our own eyes. Particular real-world objects merely exemplify or instantiate the universal up in universal heaven. But where is universal heaven? Is it outside of space and time? But some assert that nothing is outside of space and time. And in any case, what is the nature of the instantiation or exemplification relation? It seems mysterious.

Moderate realists, a variety of realists, hold that there is no heaven in which universals live, but rather universals are located in space and time wherever they are manifest. Now, recall that a universal, like greenness, is supposed to be a single thing. Nominalists find it weird that there could be a single thing that exists in a bunch of places all at once. The realist maintains that all the instances of greenness are held together by the exemplification relation, but, again, this relation seems mysterious.

Finally, many philosophers prefer stripped down ontologies populated with only the bare minimum of kinds of entities (they have a taste for "desert landscapes," as W. V. Quine put it). Since everyone has to include particulars like cats in their inventory of being anyway, wouldn't it be nice if we could explain everything we want to explain without adding univerals like "catness" into the mix?

Or to put my head scratching another way, since I am one of the more vocal proponents of the mathematical approach to theories of evolution and abiogenesis --- all along I've been consistent with Tegmark and Barrow's radical Platonist view of mathematical structures actually existing, that the mathematician only comes along and discovers them. (Why pi?, etc.)

It is the "unreasonable effectiveness of math" spoken of by Cumrun Vafa, Wigner, etc. - argued by Penrose and Godel - and evidenced by Mandelbrot sets, mirror imaging in string theory, dualities easily explained by math, Einstein's pulling Riemannian geometry off the shelf to describe relativity, von Neumann's model applicable across disciplines, ditto for Shannon, Kolmogorov complexity and (who can forget) algorithmic information theory!

Truly, I cannot see myself as a Nominalist. Or were you speaking of others in the debate here on the forum?

[Dimensio]

The Cambrian Explosion and sudden appearance of the major body types in the fossil record would be much better explained by God

What "God"?

[FederalistVet]

The one and only.

[DannyTN]

What "God"?

The God that didn't give you a very good memory. Because I know I've answered that question for you at least three or four times already.

[cornelis]

not capable of being disproven and thus fails the critical test of being "scientific," they cross a crucial line with me

Sorry, I can't resist:
(a) you hold a theory (b) I disprove it, (c) therefore it is science!

Dr. Stochastic would be interested in such reversals!

[DannyTN]

It doesn't matter. You can define the alternative solutions as simply "intelligent external inteference" OR "intelligent design". You don't have to pick a God or pick between God and ET to recognize "external influence" as fitting the observations better than "natural selection".

YOU need to pick a God, because there are eternal consequences riding on you choice, including the choice not to pick or to pick no God. But that's your problem and responsibility and your's alone.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the links! But, Jeepers, I was reading from the bottom up, had googled to find any such material on the Discovery.org site (wasn't there) and continued reading up until I finally got to the article that mentions the wedge "white paper" has not been authenticated as actually originating from the Discovery Institute.

If the wedge "white paper" has never been authenticated that fact ought to be fully disclosed each and every time it is copied on the internet. Otherwise, it reflects poorly on the ones doing the proliferating - much like CBS/Rather/Maples/60 minutes with the National Guard letters asserted their documents as if they were authenticated.

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm not fussing at your posting links, PatrickHenry! You did in fact post the article which explains that it wasn't authenticated.

My fussing is at the myriad copies of the "white paper" being proliferated around the internet without disclosure. Though, perhaps the posters don't realize it hasn't been authenticated.

[PatrickHenry]

I finally got to the article that mentions the wedge "white paper" has not been authenticated as actually originating from the Discovery Institute.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've just added an appropriate disclaimer before those links appear at my freeper homepage. (I wish creationist websites were as fastidious.)

[PatrickHenry]

Actually, after Googling around, there's not much doubt about the existence of the "Wedge" program: The Wedge of Truth, by Phillip E. Johnson. So although I'm leaving the disclaimer at my homepage, I'm not worried that I'm spreading any bogus ideas around.

[StJacques]

I wrote:

". . . they rely upon axiomatic reasoning rooted in mathematics that establishes a construct which is basically Nominalist in its form (its utility follows from its definitions). . . ."

You wrote:

". . . Nominalism is the position in metaphysics that there exist no universals outside of the mind. . . ."

Yes; exactly. If no universals exist outside of the mind then the truth or falsity of a proposition follows from the definitions and/or assumptions upon which it is based.

[StJacques]

". . . Sorry, I can't resist:

(a) you hold a theory (b) I disprove it, (c) therefore it is science! . . ."

As an exercise in epistemological reasoning, you are correct cornelis.

But no one has disproved the Theory of Evolution. There are debates over a number of theoretical issues and specific applications of the theory, but no "scientific" critique that disproves its major points has yet been offered.

Or were you suggesting that Intelligent Design and/or Young Earth Creationism had been scientifically disproven and could therefore be considered scientific by default? I'm not really sure here.

[cornelis]

Ok, we'll go from smoking cigarettes to smoking cigars.

Since "no one has disproved the Theory of Evolution" it isn't science. For, ToE is "not capable of being disproven and thus fails the critical test of being "scientific,"

I'm really not suggesting anything. I'm just very sure that what you've introduced with your language is more than a mere exercise in logic.

[StJacques]

". . . The Cambrian Explosion and sudden appearance of the major body types in the fossil record would be much better explained by God"

Intelligent Design proponents act as though the fossil record is empty and then suddenly full when they point to the Cambrian Explosion. This is false. Ongoing paleontological study of the Vendian Period, approximately 650 to 540 million years ago, which precedes the Cambrian, shows a marked development of macroscopic life of increasing complexity and which belies the argument that evolutionary theorists are searching for a non-existent explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. They are not.

There is a problem in collecting and identifying large bodies of fossil evidence for the Vendian Period, because most Vendian rocks are igneous and of the few sedimentary deposits, which is where we find fossils, most are either near subduction zones or buried deep beneath other younger sedimentary rocks. This means that most Vendian fossils have already been destroyed by the natural processes of eithter plate tectonics, in which sedimentary rocks approaching subduction zones are "metamorphosed" into compressed metamorphic rocks and/or destroyed completely when suducted and converted into volcanic magma. Or they are destroyed by the pressures of over 500 million years of deposits of younger sedimentary rocks above them, which causes them to metamorphose into various types of metamorphic rock.

But there are Vendian fossils that have been found in a few sites which do demonstrate the existence of more complex life forms than mere protozoan bacteria and single-celled organisms. Included among these are the Ediacara Hills in Australia, the White Sea in the northernmost reaches of Russia, and Mistaken Point in Newfoundland.

So what has been found in the Vendian Period. Here are some examples:

---

A Cyclomedusa found on the Winter Coast of the White Sea in Northern Russia

A Cyclomedusa is usually considered to be a bottom-dwelling polyp similar to a Sea Anenome, though some believe it may have been more similar to a floating jellyfish.

---

An Eoporpita, also from the White Sea fossil beds in northernmost Russia

An Eoporpita is also generally considered to be a bottom-dwelling polyp, but is noted for its advanced development of tentacles.

---

A specimen of Spriggina from the Ediacara Hills in Australia

Spriggina was originally thought to be an annelid, similar to a worm, but most paleontologists now consider it to have been an arthropod and perhaps an ancestor of the Trilobite, which many who comment on what they consider to have been an unlikely development of complex life in the Cambrian Explosion use as an example.

---

The Intelligent Design proponents who continually return to the argument that the Cambrian Explosion is so sudden and unexpected in its breadth and complexity need to rethink their argument. The evidence from the fossil record grows every day to establish a body of evidence that says there WAS a long period spanning over a hundred million years in which increasingly varied and complex forms of life developed as a precursor to the Cambrian

---

You can read more at An Introduction to the Vendian Period

[PatrickHenry]

Good post. There is also the fact (uncomfortable for creationists, and thus ignored) that the Cambrian period was about 50 million years in duration. A very slow explosion. For small, short-lived creatures, there were hundreds of millions of generations. Not a problem for evolution.

[DannyTN]

A handful of multicelled finds are not sufficient to explain away the cambrian explosion.

Don't the fossils prove evolution?