Posted on 03/23/2009 8:47:12 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
'Live Evolution' Not Witnessed After All
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Some science media outlets are hailing a recent study as “live evolution witnessed,” but what researchers at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique actually saw isn’t evolution at all. They observed, over the course of 300 generations, predator bacteria adapting to overcome certain defenses erected by its prey.
The kinds of minor changes that these bacteria experienced, however, do not support the broad Darwinian philosophy that life continually evolves upward...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Of course a visit to the factory in question would confirm the hypothesis. My point was that it is not necessary to visit the factory to be reasonably convinced. What is needed is not "philosophical reasoning" but scientific induction - that is, an understanding of the operation of natural processes such that we can predict both what nature does and does not do. From your mockery it seems you refuse to admit to the existence of factories and engineers unless you have seen them personally. This is not reasonable.
It is the scientifically knowledgeable person who knows with confidence what nature can and cannot do. A scientific illiterate can say with blind faith both "God must have done that" OR "nature did that, no designer was needed" depending on their prejudice. History is full of examples of people wrongly ascribing divine special activity to natual events, but increasingly it is also full of naive and pretentious declarations that nature has achieved something that is quite contrary to scientific laws and principles.
Why so coy? Please, share your grasp of history and correct me.
I don't know (no one does) exactly what forms, with what combinations of arms, legs, and feathers, were around and for how long. But we've got essentially flightless birds that also don't run very well living today, so I don't see why there couldn't have been some then. The key probably is living in a jungle.
Really? Tell me moa!
It’s not my job to educate you and do the research you won’t do. But since it wasn’t coyness, rather, as I said, charity, I will point you to some areas you might explore at this site: cghs.dadeschools.net/ib_holocaust2001/Ideology_Death/aryanmyth.
Here is the introduction to the article,
“The Aryan Myth: Ideological Backgrounds of the Third Reich
The crisis of the Third Reich was not as radical a distortion of the German state as it might first appear. The intense racism, anti-Semitism, and genocidal action that characterizes Hitler’s rule had been building up among the German people for decades. The acceptance of the German public of Hitler and his government was not irrational, and is not unexplainable. The Third Reich was a culmination of centuries of German history.”
You might also try a few books like, “Biology as Ideology.,Lewontin, Richard. Biology as Ideology. Concord, Ontario: Anasi Press, 1991.
I look forward to hearing the results of your investigations.
As for the millions of German people who accepted and supported the Third Reich, they were only the products of their history (Mosse 9). The ferocity of the racism and anti-Semitism that existed in pre-Nazi Germany was sustained by the nature of the German Volkish beliefs. These views had been held by many Germans well before the Third Reich began; they permitted its existence. But the actions of the Reich, the aggressive war of Germany against the people of Europe, was instigated by the political outcomes of the First World War and the fate of the Weimar Republic, and would not have come about with the Volkish and racist sentiments alone.
"Volk" beliefs were themselves integral in German Christianity and in the predominant strains of regional protestantism ("Christian faith is a heroic, manly thing. God speaks in blood and Volk a more powerful language than He does in the idea of humanity." -Joachim Hossenfelder, Bishop of Brandenburg). When coupled with the Church's historical antisemitism (as neatly encapsulated in the writings of Luther), the two formed fertile ground for the antisemitic propaganda of the Nazi party.
This toxic combination of Church and culture is not at all dissimilar to the toxic combination of Mosque and culture being manipulated by propagandists in the Middle East today.
Hence my questions: "[Do] you mean the Germany of 70 years ago? The Germany whose population at the time was manipulated by antisemitic propaganda that appealed to their protestant heritage, much like the middle eastern population today is being manipulated by antisemitic propaganda that appeals to their Islamic heritage? That Germany?"
So, perhaps we can cut to the chase. Exactly what in my post do you disagree with and why?
“Who is the threat today? The western societies that have accepted the reality of rational scientific investigation? Or the middle eastern societies that are mired in the mythological mumbo-jumbo of creationism?”
Exactly how is creationism driving middle eastern crazies? Was it creationism that produced two world wars? or did they arise amongst those claiming, “rational scientific
investigation”?
The biggest threat to Western society today is the decline of moral clarity into an amoral materialist view of human life.
Like it or not, economic circumstances and nationalism operating under an umbrella of religious and cultural justification drove Nazi hegemony, and many of the same circumstances are conspiring today in the Middle East.
That “rational scientific investigation” you scoff at, with its objective methodologies and its appeals to reason and disinterested outcome, was little in evidence in 1930’s and 40’s Germany, and is less in evidence in the Middle East today. And pretenses to it with predetermined cultural and religious outcomes in mind are not substitutes for it.
I happen to view as an insidious leading indicator the role of creationism as a mythological justifier for the rejection of that “rational scientific investigation” you malign so freely. I'm sure you disagree.
As for your morality canard, simply compare the contemporary west to the Middle East. The choice is yours.
Just doin’ the Lord’s Work.
Okay. So can you show how philosophical reasoning 'scientific induction' demonstrates that bluejeans are manmade? Exactly what 'natural processes' do you have to understand to conclude that these crazy pants are made by people?
Me, I think I'll stick with evidence, thanks. And just because my general levity, you needn't assume that admissible evidence is only constituted of physical eye-sight inspection of bluejean factories.
"It is the scientifically knowledgeable person who knows with confidence what nature can and cannot do."
WHAT
You've a pretty bizarre view of science there son.
"History...is also full of naive and pretentious declarations that nature has achieved something that is quite contrary to scientific laws and principles."
Quite so good sir, it is nothing more than impudence for those Wright brothers to claim their gadgetistical contraption allows them to fly through the air. Why, human flight violates all scientific laws and principles! I say this, for I am a scientifically knowledgeable person, and I know with confidence what nature can and cannot do. Harrumph!
And don't get me started on that despicable wench Mrs Curie and her 'radium'.
As I said, you don’t have much of a grasp of history even when you’re pointed to it so you make silly statements like this:
“That “rational scientific investigation” you scoff at, with its objective methodologies and its appeals to reason and disinterested outcome, was little in evidence in 1930’s and 40’s Germany, and is less in evidence in the Middle East today. And pretenses to it with predetermined cultural and religious outcomes in mind are not substitutes for it.”
Even a cursory and brief examination of the facts would find this bit of information in Wikipedia:
“Chemistry
At the start of the 20th century, Germany garnered fourteen of the first thirty-one Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, starting with Hermann Emil Fischer in 1901 and until Carl Bosch and Friedrich Bergius in 1931.[4]
Otto Hahn is considered a pioneer of radioactivity and radiochemistry.”
That’s just one area. No I don’t scoff at science but neither do I see it as a savior or bow down before it.
Compare? To what can I compare the enshrining in law the snuffing out of a couple of million live each year for the sake of convenience? Canard indeed.
Scientific prowess is not morality nor does it produce it.
You've a pretty bizarre view of science there son.
Is it bizarre to conclude, for example, that if water boils at 100 degrees C at 1 atmosphere pressure, then it will not boil at 105 C or 95 C under the same conditions? I don't think I am the one with a bizarre view if you deny the fact that science tells us not only what nature does, but what it does not do.
I find it peculiar that you would first ask me to provide a detailed accounting for how we know blue jeans are designed artifacts, and then admit to me that you believe the same yourself. You seem to be saying that you believe they are designed without being able to provide criteria. Indeed your reaction above about my 'bizarre' views indicates a hostility to the whole idea of using criterion besides direct observation to identify design.
So it is you, not I, who should be justifying just how you claim to believe blue jeans are designed artifacts.
To take it a step further, how would you identify the activity of an unknown genetic engineer (a bio-terrorist for example), who actively altered DNA to create a new plague? Consistent methodological naturalists of the sort you represent cannot allow people to even speculate that such a thing can happen, even if a million people were dying of it in the streets and a portion of the altered DNA was coded "COURTESY OF AL-QUAIDA" in morse code. This philosophy has boxed you into an absurd straitjacket of naturalism.
First, you know perfectly well that no one disputes the fact that the Germans had a great deal of technological and scientific know-how (which translates into a request that you stop with the juvenile "you're stupid" introductions). This know-how is what made the German war and extermination machines of the time so formidable.
Unfortunately, a popular and disingenuous spin on this fact is the Ben Stein formulation -- "Look, Germans had science! And Germans had the Nazis and the Holocaust! Therefore (in Ben Stein's words) 'science leads you to killing people!'"
This ankle-deep syllogism is deployed as a precursor to the argument that supernaturalism is the preferable methodology for decision making. It twists the very concept of rational scientific investigation into a synonym for evil, and indeed equates rationality itself with evil.
But (as I am sure you are well aware as a regular participant in these discussions) my use of the phrase "rational scientific investigation" isn't a narrow reference to labs, pocket protectors, and chemical invention. It is a concept that encompasses science, economics, politics, law, etc., and it is a reference to empiricism, reason, and forensic historical investigation as the basis for knowledge and decision making.
Indeed, this country is a product of rational scientific investigation. As opposed to supernatural, royal, or dictatorial edict, we rely on a distinctly individualistic and humanistic combination of reason, law, and rational inquiry to govern our affairs (some times more successfully than others). One need only look at the secular and objective nature of the constitution to know this. That document was the product of reason and forensic historical inquiry, not Archbishop Bob's unverifiable edicts from above.
Juxtapose this against the Germany of the 1930's and 40's and the Middle East of today. Rational scientific investigation did not produce the virulent antisemitism of Nazi Germany or the modern day Middle East - supernatural and cultural myth-making did.
Antisemitic Nazi and Islamic propaganda manipulates people by playing on caricatures of Jews that have their source in the predominant religious and cultural mythologies. Hitler blamed Jews for “two great wounds upon humanity: Circumcision of the Body and Conscience of the Soul.” Der Stürmer spread the blood libel, telling Germans that Jews kidnapped small children before Passover because they needed the blood of a Christian child to mix with Matzah. As the dissident Catholic priest Hans Küng noted: "Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years' pre-history of 'Christian' anti-Judaism..."
And when this supernaturalism and folk mythology is superimposed on scientific inquiry, you sanction fraud in both the inquiry and the results. The inquiry and the outcome are predetermined by the need to support the mythology, and science is in turn twisted to service of the mythology. Hence, because my mythology tells me that Jews are evil, eugenic elimination of them is warranted, and both my mythology and my pseudo-science are thereby justified. (Which was the point of the last sentence in the paragraph of mine that you chose to quote - "And pretenses to it [rational scientific inquiry] with predetermined cultural and religious outcomes in mind are not substitutes for it.”)
My quibble with creationism is its "camel's nose" effect. It imposes its selective mythology on scientific process. It warps rational inquiry to support its predetermined, supernatural outcome, and it co-opts in a hypocritical and fraudulent way the very process of rational scientific investigation it otherwise condemns as a source of evil. In short, by manipulation and fabrication, it pretends that its mythology is verified by science, and it fraudulently turns science to the service of that mythology.
It is no surprise to me that Islamic radicals are creationist to the core. Their self-proclaimed supernatural destiny is part and parcel of the same thought process that justifies creationism - reality, rationality, and reason be damned.
As for the morality issue, I agree with your statement that "[s]cientific prowess is not morality nor does it produce it." Nazi Germany is proof enough of that. But prowess is not synonymous with process. I would argue that scientific process is a preferable source of morality to supernatural edict. Supernatural edicts are a dime a dozen, and they are inherently unverifiable and capricious. "Thou shalt stone to death the defiled daughter" supernaturally justifies the murder of a daughter who has been raped. Rational inquiry does not. What we learned from the Nazi experience is valuable to the rationalist. It is disposable to the supernaturalist.
Uhhhh, I asked you first chief, and you have magnificently failed to answer. It's just common courtesy not to answer a question with another question. But I'm a generous fellow, so I'll excuse your ignorance of etiquette and give you some of the reasons I am persuaded that bluejeans are made by humans:
YOUR TURN: Lets see that process of 'scientific induction' that persuades you blue jeans are man-made. Since this is the third time I've asked you this question, if you don't answer the boogeyman is gonna getcha.
PS:
Your assertion that 'consistent methodological naturalists' cannot identify a genetically engineered organism is laughably insane, and contradicted by the plain facts. Are Monsanto not being 'consistent methodological naturalists' when they sue somebody for stealing their organisms? Please explain the exact reasoning that would forbid me from concluding Al Qaeda made a disease if they in fact wrote "Made by Al Qaeda" in the genetic code.
That is what is missing from your list. Consider a seeming random arrangement of stones on a beach. You could give all kinds of reasons for supposing the stones are there due to the actions of an intelligent designer. You could speak of seeing children produce similar arrangements while playing, or workers leaving such an arrangement of stones for one reason or another. And it is true that an intelligent designer can mimic nature. Yet if we had no direct evidence for this particular set of random stones, it would be unreasonable to demand that anything more than natural forces were involved.
To rule out the possibility that blue jeans are the product of natural forces alone, we need to bring to bear observations about what nature does not do (I will now, thus, answer your original query). This would include observations such as the following:
-Cotton in nature does not form into tight-woven threads free of impurities and of substantial length.
-Threads left to themselves in nature will not weave together into tight patterns free of impurities (twigs, leaves, etc.)
-Clothe left to itself will not form together into the shape of a human body.
-relatively pure brass will not form in nature.
-If it it present, there is no reason to suppose it will form the shape of a button.
-If a button is left in nature, it will not integrate itself with tight-woven cotton cloth to wind up in the right spot on a pair of blue jeans.
Etc.
Are Monsanto not being 'consistent methodological naturalists' when they sue somebody for stealing their organisms?
No, precisely because they are following the Intelligent Design methodology of unambiguously identifying the actions of an intelligent designer. To the extent that they fail to prove that the 'theft' could not be the result of natural forces, they will lose their case in a court of law.
This is exactly the sort of thing that is discussed repeatdly in ID books, and that methodological naturalists are failing to cope with. You admit that Monsanto can unambiguously identify the actions of an intelligent designer, yet you refuse to admit the criteria by which they are doing so!
Please explain the exact reasoning that would forbid me from concluding Al Qaeda made a disease if they in fact wrote "Made by Al Qaeda" in the genetic code.
Again, it is because (as shown by your list and reasoning above) you refuse to evaluate the evidence from the standpoint of "what can't nature do?" This is the key question in identifying what in biology is the product of evolution and what is the result of an intelligent designer. A designer can mimic chance and natural forces, but the reverse is not true.
Again, citing evidence that people can do something and are doing something (making blue jeans, etc.) is not the same as proving that nature can't do those same things. Thus if I was ignorant of science and the considerations I list above, you would have given me no reason whatsoever to have confidence that a particular set of blue jeans was made by an intelligent designer.
As this seems to be gist of your argument, I'll ask in response: What moral code or system of morality has arisen from the scientific process?
The men who founded this country attributed the moral foundation of the country to an endowment from our Creator, not rationalism or empiricism.
“Thou shalt stone to death the defiled daughter” supernaturally justifies the murder of a daughter who has been raped.”
Then what justifies the death of a million daughters year after year if not the rationalism, empiricism, utilitarianism, pragmatism?
Actually, you'll recall that you raised the morality issue. However, I concede that it is an interesting (if exceedingly broad and often divisive) topic. For a view from 10,000 feet:
Moral rationalism has a rather long history, from Plato to Kant to Gewirth. Some of the arguments supporting moral rationalism I find persuasive, but I also find some of Hume's moral sense ideas persuasive. The difficulty with the topic, I think, is rooted in our currently under-developed and somewhat murky understanding of conscious thought and decision making.
That said, I should disclose certain biases that I bring to the table when discussing the topic. Being a lawyer with a science background (speaks volumes, doesn't it?), I tend to view all moral codifications as works in progress, with positive developments generally the product of the same principles underlying scientific investigation, and negative developments generally the product of retrogression to empirically and forensically unsupportable supernatural edict (please note the word "generally," a caveat necessitated by the sheer breadth of the topic).
In addition, as a Christian my bias is towards those moral codifications consonant with Christ's teachings. Thus, I tend to analyze morality through the lens of New Testament principles and the Judaic history underlying those principles, understanding, of course, that those principles did not arise in a vacuum and have not subsisted since without modulation and adaptation.
Bearing these biases in mind, my view is that God vested us with a knowledge of good and evil (an ability to exercise independent discretion, if you will), and I take a distinctly Judaic view of a contract with God that includes an argumentation clause. Hence, it is not by edict that we have selected our moral permutations, but by empirical and forensic analysis. For example, the history of our laws and mores regarding theft, killing, slavery, appropriate punishment, religious tolerance, diet, dress, etc., reflect our independent analyses from an increasing base of historical and scientific knowledge. In short, as our data base grows, our understanding and appreciation of right and wrong grows (in a gross or scaled sense, of course, as there is always a supply of discrete and aberrational cases).
The western jurisprudential concept of case by case analysis under a secular set of generalized, constitutional principals reflects this rational process of adaptive law and morality. So you could say that countries that operate under a common-law/constitutional system (the U.S. in particular) constitute examples of "moral code[s] or system[s] of morality [that have] arisen from the scientific process" (to a greater or lesser degree depending on your specific samples).
Your reference to abortion presents an interesting case study. There are no specific Biblical instructions regarding the practice, and indeed, there is little in the overall supernatural-edict-realm that provides discrete guidance. This isn't particularly surprising, since supernatural edicts themselves are (for the most part) a product of pre-scientific society, a time when miscarriage and infant mortality were more prevalent realities than today, and a time when an abundance of children was both an antidote to those realities and a physical asset.
As societies developed from agrarian to merchant to industrial, increasing opportunity for the practice accompanied the increasing individualized wealth, class advancement, leisure, and discretionary family planning (some would also add increasing vanity and self-centeredness, though that's another topic).
Moral reactions to the practice have fluctuated pretty widely throughout history. But just as negative views of slavery have solidified around increasing scientific knowledge of the insignificance of racial distinction, negative views of abortion have been solidifying around both increasing scientific knowledge of the gestation process and increasing technological availability of contraceptive alternatives.
While the practice remains widespread, and opponents are still striving to eliminate it, defeat of the practice seems more likely through scientific analysis than through vague or nonexistent supernatural admonition.
While that's obviously just the tip of the analytic iceberg, I look forward to your thoughts.
Do you approve of science creating infertle humans where evil people decide what person is allowed to bring a child into this world?
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.