Posted on 06/03/2009 8:42:23 PM PDT by gobucks
Charles Darwin’s discovery of evolution is common knowledge but Darwin the person is barely known. Even on his 200th birth anniversary this year — he was born in England on Feb. 12, 1809 — much has been said about his works but little about his inner life of contrasts.
Darwin loved the natural world from childhood. He roamed the wilderness to study insects while neglecting Greek and Latin, the essential subjects. He said of his schooling, “I was considered by all my masters and by my Father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect.”
Sent to medical school at age 16, he quit after seeing an operation on a child. Anesthesia was not yet introduced, and frightened patients stayed awake while surgeons sawed through their legs. His father was upset with him for leaving medicine, as fathers are when their offspring disappoint them. Charles was warned that he would be a disgrace.
He then went to Cambridge University to be a minister. There he found a mentor who would change his life, the Rev. John Henslow, a botanist. He and a geology professor taught Darwin how to observe and interpret nature’s ways.
After Cambridge, while Darwin was pondering entering the ministry, Henslow recommended him as a naturalist for a British survey ship, HMS Beagle, which planned an around-the-globe voyage. Darwin’s father was opposed, calling it a waste of time, but Charles prevailed with the help of his maternal uncle.
After four years, in 1835, the Beagle landed in the Galapagos Archipelago in the Pacific. What Darwin saw there changed our concept of biology. For millions of years, the animals and birds in these isolated islands had evolved in their unique way to survive and propagate. And they had no fear of humans. How and why did these creatures become the way they did? These questions germinated the idea of evolution in Darwin’s mind.
At 29, Darwin married Emma Wedgwood, his first cousin. The marriage saved his life. Emma was 30. An educated woman, she spoke French, German and Italian. And despite their differences in belief — she was a devoted Christian while he turned agnostic — she read Darwin’s papers before they were sent out. Emma, however, is not given the recognition she deserves for supporting her husband’s works, and accepting the demands of his almost constant illness. Moreover, she bore 10 children; the last one, born when she was 48, had Down syndrome.
Darwin’s favorite child, Annie, died of tuberculosis when she was 10. His anguish expresses a father’s loss and his deep love for a child: “Her face now rises before me ... her whole form radiant with the pleasure of giving pleasure ... her dear face bright all the time, with sweetest smiles. ... We have lost the joy of the household, and the solace of our old age.” This loss, some say, turned him into an agnostic.
Darwin’s radical idea — evolution of species over millions of years — starkly contradicted the doctrine on creation. Fearing the church’s hostile reactions, he waited about 20 years before publishing his seminal book, “The Origin of Species,” in 1859. The book transformed science and human thought forever.
Though zealots impede teaching evolution in school, some churches now believe that evolution is compatible with faith. Zealotry diminishes both religion and science.
Why is Darwin universally remembered while other original minds have remained obscure? It’s not just because of his big idea on evolution and change. After all, the idea was not his alone. Another naturalist, Alfred Wallace, came to the same conclusion as that of Darwin. Even philosopher Heraclitus said 2,500 years ago, “There is nothing permanent except change.”
What has kept Darwin alive is the power of his observations and his writings. He has integrated diverse fields of knowledge — including geology, zoology, botany, marine biology, horticulture, animal husbandry and history — to make compelling points for evolution.
We are part of nature, not above it. The poetic conclusion of “The Origin of Species” pictures our kinship to nature: “Contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and ... reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other ... have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
Waiting,.....still waiting.......
And yet Newtonian science has not been "replaced" by a "better" theory. It continues to be the best description we have of Nature when the phenomena under observation are so little affected by relativistic and quantum effects that such effects are for all practical purposes negligible. E.g., the trajectory of an apple falling from a tree is not observably affected by relativity and quantum effects. Though they are still present, the extremely high velocities involved in relativistic effects, and the extreme smallness and indeterminacy of quantum "objects" are typically not necessary considerations in describing the gravitational motion, to a sufficient degree of accuracy, of a falling apple in the "macroworld" of the Newtonian paradigm..
Now, post-relativity and quantum theory, the Newtonian science of motion and mechanics is widely regarded as a "'special case" of a more general description of nature which has its root in the quantum world. Yet for all practical purposes, it continues to serve as our "trusty friend."
Something similar may eventually happen with Darwin's theory. (I wouldn't rule it out in principle.) It may end up being a "special case" of a more general and universal description of Nature. To the extent that Nature itself increasingly gives evidence of being "informed" in some fashion, and given the fact that Darwin's theory is incapable (evidently) of dealing with the problems of life and consciousness, we shouldn't find this surprising.
“He observed minor variations within species”
You probably aren’t qualified to decide what is minor and what is not. I suggest Darwin probably was.
“assumed without any scientific evidence whatsoever”
You just said he “observed” - that would be scientific evidence at that time, and even now.
“that said variations could cross every taxonomic boundary”
“could” leaves the door open for more research, doesn’t it?
“and further assumed without evidence that this had been going on for millions of years”
That would be a reasonable assumption, based on observation - which qualifies as evidence, would it not?
“that this traced all the way back to a mythical first protocell.” It could have. Is this that big a stretch for a theoretical concept?
“In other words, Darwinian evolution is a materialist religion, not science.””
No, in other words, creation “science” is for folks who can’t separate science and religion, and lack faith and understanding of both.
You just described the development and extension of scientific data into a theory that was published for actual peer review and has survived, in concept, for 150 years.
It seems from the innumerable posts on creation “science” by you, that really, you object that science that follows a scientific process exists at all.
But what if there were nothing to find, for the simple reason that such evidence isn't there, because such a thing — the contemporeity of humans and dinosaurs — never was? Then we'd just be "waiting for Godot"....
But assuming the fossil record were to show that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time, how does that help corroborate Darwin's theory of speciation?
“Of one thing I have no doubt. They’d explain it away SOMEHOW rather than admit that the ToE was falsified, because they have nothing else to fall back on, and special creation is not an option. “
Yes, the labcoat conspiracy, keeping Christian creation “science” down so they can corner the market on grant money.
Creation, my friend, IS an option. It is just that there is no credible scientific evidence presented that contradicts the hundreds of years of scientific research that provides evidence of evolution and an “old” earth.
Paranoia is a self-destroyer /kinks
Indeed we do, gobucks. Much more so than most people realize. Yet we are confident that we can achieve "certainty" of knowledge about this world. It seems to me nothing could be further from the truth....
Thank you so much for your kind words!
>>If it wasn’t dismissed as an outright fraud, the scientific community would declare *Human Evolution pushed back millions of years. Evidence now suggests that humans evolved earlier than previously thought* Or *Humans (or horses) now classified as a living fossil*.<<
Pure speculation on your part. There would be quite the hubub in the Life Sciences crowd, I am sure.
The analogy — ONLY an analogy so calm down — would be finding the remains Christ’s body (like in the movie “The Body”) and what that would do to religion in general and Christianity in particular.
I am speaking of the Einsteinien "replacement" of Newtonian physics. As I said, when the new theory replaced the older, the underlying events did not magically disappear, and the replacement theory did account for all known facts and events. You accurately pick up on the nuances.
Now, post-relativity and quantum theory, the Newtonian science of motion and mechanics is widely regarded as a "'special case" of a more general description of nature which has its root in the quantum world. Yet for all practical purposes, it continues to serve as our "trusty friend."
Well stated, BB. A "larger" theory or "super theory" certainly stepped in and was eventually embraced by science -- using the scientific tools which we use now.
I am truly pleased that you note that Newtonian Physics wasn't really "replaced" but it is close enough to make my point. F=ma applies across the board for most situations and almost all we encounter on the planet Earth (again, using an example). Obviously I need an example of a Scientific Theory that was usurped by another to note the downstream effects and the ability of science to accommodate new information.
Something similar may eventually happen with Darwin's theory. (I wouldn't rule it out in principle.) It may end up being a "special case" of a more general and universal description of Nature. To the extent that Nature itself increasingly gives evidence of being "informed" in some fashion, and given the fact that Darwin's theory is incapable (evidently) of dealing with the problems of life and consciousness, we shouldn't find this surprising.
Indeed it may, BB. But it hasn't. And those who are pursuing abiogenesis know that there is a possibility that what they discover may change some of the linchpins in TToE, But I suspect the concept won't be defeated or undermined -- Evolution as a stochastic process is pretty much a given (unless and until your new theory comes to light).
As far as consciousness goes, you do indeed walk up to the problem -- when did God introduce a soul into what we now call Homo Sapiens? Which step along the evolutionary path did God point to and say "this shall be the first being with morals?" I am not sure science can or should answer this question, although there are indeed anthropologists working on it.
After a point, one must just give it up to God and say "well, I know you created all these processes, and I will work to understand them, but some things will have to wait until I stand before You -- and I hope I live my life good enough to see You and get the answers."
That changes the underlying science not a whit.
You asked for the ability to falsify. I provided the criteria. A theory that can be falsified sort of loses. The fact that falsification data have not come to light does not undermine the theory. It merely means that such data are not available.
TToE is, indeed, falsifiable. Easily. Thus it meets all criteria for a Scientific Theory.
The day science stops asking hard questions and challenging its own assumptions is the day we fall into Hari Seldon's scientific atrophy.
But unless and until we MEET and can physically incorporate the supernatural (using the classical definition "that which is above the physical world" which includes God or an Intelligent Designer) then the supernatural can not be a part of scientific inquiry.
An obvious example would be the supplanting of geocentrism by heliocentric theory.
But to get back to Darwin's evolution theory, the main problem seems to be that it really has no method to explain complex systems. Its evolution is linear, local, and historical and focuses on species (and that mainly through the lens of "survival fitness" for "reproductive success" — how reductive can you get!), not on individual biological organisms as complexes of functions (which imply non-linearity, non-locality, and purpose). Which they obviously are.
Further, Darwinism seems to function wholly within the Newtonian paradigm, with its emphasis on mechanism and material bodies. What research into complexity is beginning to show, however, is that complex systems are not inherently mechanical, and an immaterial element — information — is present in their composition.
I came across a notable paper the other day, by Donald C. Mikulecky — Robert Rosen: The Well Posed Question and Its Answer — Why Are Organisms Different from Machines?. The following excerpt addresses our present question as follows:
What is a complex system and why is a complex system different from a machine?I find this "stuff" so fascinating, freedumb2003! Truly exciting. Liberating!
A complex system falls outside the formalism called the Newtonian Paradigm. That is not to say that complex systems cannot be seen as machines for limited kinds of analysis. This is, in fact, what traditional science does. Using [mathematician Robert] Rosen's general characteristics to separate the two kinds of objects, we see that complex systems contain semantic aspects [meaning of a communication] which cannot be reduced to syntax [the grammar or parts of speech of a communication]. Therefore they are not simulatable even though, when viewed as machines, the machine model is simulatable. They have no largest model from which all other models can be derived. This is simply because complex systems, by their very nature, require multiple distinct ways of interacting with them to capture their qualities. Their models are now distinct. Analytic models, which are expressed mathematically as direct products of quotient spaces are no longer equivalent to synthetic models which are built up from disjoint pieces as direct sums. Using this formulation every synthetic model is an analytic model, but there are analytic models which are not synthetic models. In other words, these analytic models are not reducible to disjoint sets of parts. This is a most profound distinction and requires some elaboration, for in it lies the essence of the failure of reductionism. In the machine, each model analytic or synthetic, is formulated in terms of the material parts of the system. Thus any model will be reducible and can be reconstructed from its parts.This is not the case in a complex system. There are certain key models which are formulated in an entirely different way. These models are made up of functional components which do not map to the material parts in any one to one manner. The functional component itself is totally dependent on the context of the whole system and has no meaning outside that context. This is why reducing the system to its material parts loses information irreversibly. This is a cornerstone to the overall discovery Rosen made. It captures a real difference between complexity and reductionism which no other approach seems to have been able to formulate. This distinction makes it impossible to confuse computer models with complex systems. It also explains how there can be real "objective" aspects of a complex system that are to be considered along with the material parts, but which have a totally different character [i.e., they are immaterial].... [emphasis added]
If you have the time and interest, please do take a look — and let me know what you think?
Thank you so very much for your excellent essay/post freedumb2003!
Darwin already provided criteria by which his theory could be falsified, as he should have according to evos, and that criteria has been met from all I’ve seen on these threads, and the evo crowd (in general) has not accepted that, but instead rambles on about tweaking and adjusting the theory as new data comes in.
Which is exactly the position I hold, that the evos will not allow anything to falsify the ToE.
BWAHAHAHA!!!!
The day that the *supernatural* is met and incorporated, is the day that scientists will declare it to not be supernatural after all, but declare it to merely be a as yet undiscovered past of the physical realm.
Unless God Himself were to come down and tell people Himself, scientists will not accept any evidence that the supernatural exists.
Oh, wait a minute now......
>>Unless God Himself were to come down and tell people Himself, scientists will not accept any evidence that the supernatural exists.<<
mm, you hit it (even if you were attempting to be snarky).
Science cannot evaluate God, cannot predict what He will do, cannot put His will into any formulae.
Instead, God gave us a wondrous Universe with consistent and discoverable rules and the mental acuity to discover them. Then He said “have at it my Children! Learn and Love!”
What a loving and lovely God we have indeed.
Do you disagree?
I would think that the game of "Fizzbin" is an appropriate response to this challenge.
I am sorry, mm, maybe I missed both the criteria and the answer. I am pretty sure my criteria are the proper ones but if you have something to add, please do so now.
Which is exactly the position I hold, that the evos will not allow anything to falsify the ToE.
Since such falsification has not happened yet, so you continue to indulge in conjecture.
Good grief, freedumb2003! The "classical" definition seems a tad arbitrary — if by supernatural we mean "that which is above the physical world." What does "'above' the physical world" mean? If you define "natural" as "physical," such that only physical things are "natural," where do you fit the natural laws into this picture — which are thoroughgoingly NOT physical? Indeed, if you want to restrict the "natural" only to physical objects, then the laws' very unphysicality would render them "supernatural." And yet we all believe the natural laws directly have something to do with Nature.
And ditto with respect to mathematics and geometry — but they are not physical things either. Are they thus to be considered supernatural? Yet they, too, seem to have something to do with the natural world. And how about time — how "physical" is time? Does its lack of physicality mean that it is supernatural?
Then again, perception and consciousness are not "physical." Certainly they are not less "objective" for all that; nor arguably can they be "supernatural," for the simple reason that we observe that natural entities like human beings have percepts and are conscious.
In the end, it seems that the fundamental presupposition of methodological naturalism is questionable. It states that natural entities MUST have natural causes exclusively.
The question then becomes: What exactly is a "natural" cause? Does it have to be physically observable? Is Nature really reduced to physical causation only?
If so, a whole lot of things in this universe would be utterly inexplicable.
Lovely turns of phrases there, darlin', but they all net to zero. We can observe and measure things. We can deduce things from those measurements. Nowhere in those deductions can we say "here a supernatural entity stepped in." That conclusion has no applicability, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.
And ditto with respect to mathematics and geometry — but they are not physical things either. Are they thus to be considered supernatural? Yet they, too, seem to have something to do with the natural world. And how about time — how "physical" is time? Does its lack of physicality mean that it is supernatural?
The nature of "time" is a fun subject and the basis for many a Star Trek episode. And quantum physics is the are that attempts to deal with it. But nowhere is there a spot for "here is where God intervened." Again, even if true, it has no applicability.
Then again, perception and consciousness are not "physical." Certainly they are not less "objective" for all that; nor arguably can they be "supernatural," for the simple reason that we observe that natural entities like human beings have percepts and are conscious. In the end, it seems that the fundamental presupposition of methodological naturalism is questionable. It states that natural entities MUST have natural causes exclusively.
These are interesting philosophical questions. Yet, in the realm of physical science they are best left to the individual scientists's musings after they have had a hard day where the results are not forthcoming. But you can only measure "exclusive natural causes."
The question then becomes: What exactly is a "natural" cause? Does it have to be physically observable? Is Nature really reduced to physical causation only? If so, a whole lot of things in this universe would be utterly inexplicable.
In a word: yes. Philosophy deals with the questions you pose. Science has to deal with the physical world.
"Of what observation, hypothesis, and verified prediction are the following statements?"
"Cordially,"
Is it perpetually your purpose to answer a question with a question?
Incidentally, those statements appear to come from the sixth chapter of Origin of Species, wherein Darwin himself points out places where his theory could be shown to be weak. However, even with such hints, the theory has held up well.
Even so, this statement in particular should warm your cockles:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."For clearly there are indeed countless examples of evolution for mutual benefit in the complex ecologies of tropical rainforests. Of course, "mutual benefit" and "exclusive good" are not identical concepts.
I wonder how his system of analysis of the difference between a complex system and a machine would distinguish between a lit candle and an unlit one? (Not trying to be snarky; I'm really curious about that.)
If you disassemble a candle, you can presumably reassemble it, and it remains unchanged.
However, if you disassemble a lit candle, you may "extinguish" an ineffable property of the candle that cannot be reassembled readily.
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.