Posted on 04/17/2007 8:13:01 PM PDT by conmanning1
Dr. Steven Novella doesnt think much of people who disagree with him about Darwinism. Dr. Novella, a Yale neurologist, assistant professor and specialist in neuromuscular disorders, is also a skeptic and co-founder and president of the New England Skeptical Society. Hes quite unskeptical about Darwinism:
evolutionary theory is complex. Evolution is a beautiful and subtle theory one of my favorite scientific theories to study. I have spent years reading about it, learning from the best like Dawkins, Leakey, and Gould
He took issue recently with those of us who doubt the adequacy of Darwins theory to account for all natural biological complexity:
there is enough complexity in all of this that if someone smart and eloquent like IDers Behe or Demski [sic] want to create confusion they easily can. They pull an intellectual three card monte and the evolutionary rubes buy it.
Im an "evolutionary rube" myself. Dr. Novella insists:
This is not an excuse for Dr. Egnors ignorance he threw his hat into the ring, he deserves what he gets. He should have had the proper humility to stay out.
Actually, all I did was ask a question: how much biologically relevant information can Darwins mechanism of chance and necessity actually generate? I didnt settle for hand-waving or for reassurances that "Darwins theory is a fact." I wanted a measurement of biological complexity, with empirical verification, in a way that was meaningful to biology. I never got an answer to my question.
Nonetheless, Dr. Novella is disdainful of Darwin-doubting "evolutionary rubes" who lack his immersion in the field:
Now I dont blame the rank and file for not having read dozens of books and hundreds of articles on evolution. But I do blame them for thinking they deserve to have an opinion if they havent
It seems that those of use who "dont deserve to have an opinion" also havent been thinking the right way:
Also, it is obvious in their arguments that they do not have a proper mental image of what genetic information is like.
He tells us that "a proper mental image" of genetic information is books:
Each time this volume of books is copied there is the potential to make mistakes. Because of the complexity, the arrangement of paragraphs in a chapter can change, altering the meaning of the chapter in some way. Entire chapters that are active can become skipped, and vice versa. Entire chapters can be copied twice, and rarely entire volumes can be duplicated. Imagine the text of these books. A change might cause a sentence to go from today is a sunny day to today is a foggy day (remember, in this language every possible three letter combination has meaning there are no nonsense words).
With a reasonable working model of genetics, it is much easier to imagine how shuffling around information, duplicating, and altering the information could easily result in meaningful and even useful new information.
Distancing himself from his literary metaphor (it's hard for rubes to relate), he switches to a farm-machinery metaphor. Dr. Novella explains how Darwins theory of chance and necessity can account for all natural biological complexity:
Evolution is like a two-cycle engine: mutations increase the amount of information and then natural selection gives that information specificity.
Dr. Novella is missing a much better example of random mutation and natural selection thats not metaphorical at all. Cancer is a test of Darwins theory. Cancer is real biological evolution by random mutation and natural selection, writ fast. Theres no reason to invoke encyclopedia typos or tractor engines in order to understand what "chance and necessity" can do to a living system. Brain tumors are perfect little Novellian "two-cycle engines" nestled inside the skull, "random mutations" coming out the ears, and "natural selection" like theres no tomorrow (excuse the metaphors). Brain tumors are constantly generating new biological variation, and they are avatars of natural selection. They provide a tremendous spectrum of variation, from "variation jet-engines" like malignant glioblastoma multiforme to "variation tortoises" like benign pilocytic astrocytomas. Cancer wards are full of patients brimming with "two-stroke engines" of evolutionary change.
Dr. Novella, again:
it is [easy] to imagine how shuffling around information, duplicating, and altering the information could easily result in meaningful and even useful new information.
The best real biological test of "shuffling around information, duplicating, and altering the information" is cancer. According to Dr. Novellas reasoning, brain tumors ought to be generating quite a bit of "meaningful and even useful new information." Better neuroanatomy and better neurophysiology ought to be popping up "easily." Better frontal lobes and cognition, from cancer. Better temporal lobes and memory, from cancer. Better cerebellums and coordination, from cancer. If random mutations and natural selectionDr. Novellas "two stroke engine"is the source of all functional integrated biological complexity, brain tumors ought to help our brains evolve in some way.
Perhaps Dr. Novella has data that show real evolutionary improvements in the brain caused by brain tumors. If he has, he should show us.
I'm just a rube, not a Darwinist from Yale. But Ive never seen cancer make a brain better.
Besides, American history, at least the non-revisionist, pro-American variety, is one of the things disappearing from middle and high school education. Evolution and other materialistic themes are not disappearing or threatened. Far from it.
Evolution is not "basic science." Quit claiming it is.
Or, some of us are driven by a burning desire to learn as much as we can about the world(s) around us.
I may have to eat my words. The Latin theoria does in fact appear to be based on the root theo (God). Getready, you seem to be correct.
And pretend we will never die.
BS. That is your biased, apologetic, interpretation of what scientists do.
It has no necessary relationship to the real world.
Thanks for your honesty. The next question is: what does theory have to do with God? Do we become a bit like God when we understand a theory (a correct one, that is)?
What kids should be learning in middle school is math and basic physics and chemistry. Those are what biology is based on. Evolution can come later, and only for those who need it. I think the real reason for teaching it to young impressionable middle school students is to inculcate a materialistic, reductionist view of human nature, which is encouraged by evolutionary thinking in the absence of other values; values which have been purged from our schools.
There is no serious, massive threat that evolution will be purged from the curriculum. That's hype and paranoia. However, American students are woefully deficient in hard science and math.
“Well, you are talking to an atheist ...”
Are you an atheorist too? 8^)
I’m not talking about science but philosophy.
Actually, all I did was ask a question: how much biologically relevant information can Darwins mechanism of chance and necessity actually generate? I didnt settle for hand-waving or for reassurances that "Darwins theory is a fact." I wanted a measurement of biological complexity, with empirical verification, in a way that was meaningful to biology. I never got an answer to my question.
Hey, Doc -- Calculate the total entropy generated since the beginning of time, or stop all the hand-waving and reassurances that "the second law of thermodynamics is a fact."
It's interesting that both sides of this debate quote Yockey. He says we cannot learn the origin of life, but he also demolishes the concept of irreducible complexity and argues that common descent is proved beyond doubt.
From an online etymological dictionary:
theory 1592, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1613. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1638. The verb theorize is recorded from 1638.
So the root is theoros, i.e., spectator. And that's an apt description of a scientist...
The true test is whether one thinks Artificial Intelligence is possible.
repetitio est mater studiorum
The answer to which will not be known until it is possible.
Huh?
Cancer is cancer. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Non-Sequitur.
You are only allowed to have an opinion if....
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.