I agree with the first statement, but not the second. As I -- and others far better informed than I -- have pointed out, you can't do work in astrohpysics without taking into account Einstein's coordinates. You can work all your life in biology without paying the slightest bit of attention to neo-Darwinian theory -- which, like ID, raises the question of the origin of life without adequately answering it in the proper scientific manner, i.e., with hard evidence. Coulda, woulda, shoulda is not science. I cited the link because it makes the useful point that anthropologists -- who are scientists -- have no problem inferring design when they come upon artifacts. So to infer design when something looks like it couldn't have just happened is not an entirely irrational procedure. Science has mostly to do with the mechanics of things. Minus a complete account of the mechanics of life, any theory about its origins must remain speculative. Richard Dawkins, who long ago gave up doing any work in his field of expertise -- arachnids -- preaches about evolution precisely because he sees the theory as proof against the existence of a creator. Is not that a religious position? Just for the record: I lean toward the Teilhardian view that intelligence is inherent in matter and that life is an ongoing elaboration of that intelligence.
Well, Melville, you're not going to get me to defend ID theory, because as I've said repeatedly it's an obvious category error. But the practical application of neo-Darwinian theory (which is what we are talking about precisely) has not been demonstrated. In fact, Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equlibrium gives us "evolution" -- properly defined as a gradual developmental unfolding by slow increments -- that is not evolution at all. No reasonable person denies that life has developed, that simple organisms have been followed by more complex ones. But no one really knows for sure what the process of that development has been. I grew up going to Catholic schools where evolution was taught and I agree that it does not necessarily involve any challenge to faith. (By the way, the introduction to Teilhard de Chardin's "The Phenomenon of Man" is by Julian Huxley, who was key to the development of neo-Darwinian theory.) My point in all of this is that there are serious, legitmate scientific objections that have been raised about neo-Drawinian theory. Again, I recommend looking at Gert Korthof's Web site: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/. Science involves looking for the facts, not defending theory. I certainly don't want anybody teaching Genesis in a biology class, but I'm not sure if "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design" belongs there either.
Neither Dawkins nor Gould are entirely typical of biologists or current biological thought. Lots of perfectly respectable biologists have problems with their work and "neo-Darwinism" in general. However, that doesn't mean they reject evolution. Criticizing ID ISN'T "defending a theory." It's defending science against quackery with a political agenda.
Ah, but I haven't been defending -- or advocating -- ID theory (though I once interviewed Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box," and found him to be much more reasonable and open-minded than the caricature his critics make him out to be). I am simply suggesting that neo-Darwinisn ought not to accepted uncritically -- or, shall we say, on faith. At the same time I see no reason why ID theory should be banned from discussion in schools. I believe in the free market of ideas. I don't like any ideas being declared off limits -- because I think reasonable, intelligent people are fully capable of discerning error.
No, no, no, Melville. One idea is not as good as another. Some ideas -- maybe most -- are false. But falsity must be demonstrated and that can only be done by allowing the ideas to be examined openly and fairly. I guess maybe it's because the argument from design can be traced back to at least Plato that I find it strange for it to elicit such hostility as it does. Plato and Aristotle were pretty sharp cookies. Come to think of it, Alfred Wallace, who actually formulated the idea of evolution by natural selection, wrote regarding adaptation that it displayed "very much the appearance of design by an intelligent designer on which the well being and very existence of the organism depends." Since we both agree that so-called intelligent design theory does not meet adequate scientific criteria, the question regarding our differences comes down to this: Are there or are there not valid scientific objections to the neo-Darwinian model of evolution? Please note I am not suggesting that the idea of evolution itself is false. I am suggesting that the poster child model for evolution may have some serious zits that ought to be looked at.
I agree with the first statement, but not the second. As I -- and others far better informed than I -- have pointed out, you can't do work in astrohpysics without taking into account Einstein's coordinates. You can work all your life in biology without paying the slightest bit of attention to neo-Darwinian theory -- which, like ID, raises the question of the origin of life without adequately answering it in the proper scientific manner, i.e., with hard evidence. Coulda, woulda, shoulda is not science. I cited the link because it makes the useful point that anthropologists -- who are scientists -- have no problem inferring design when they come upon artifacts. So to infer design when something looks like it couldn't have just happened is not an entirely irrational procedure. Science has mostly to do with the mechanics of things. Minus a complete account of the mechanics of life, any theory about its origins must remain speculative. Richard Dawkins, who long ago gave up doing any work in his field of expertise -- arachnids -- preaches about evolution precisely because he sees the theory as proof against the existence of a creator. Is not that a religious position? Just for the record: I lean toward the Teilhardian view that intelligence is inherent in matter and that life is an ongoing elaboration of that intelligence.
ReplyDeleteWell, Melville, you're not going to get me to defend ID theory, because as I've said repeatedly it's an obvious category error. But the practical application of neo-Darwinian theory (which is what we are talking about precisely) has not been demonstrated. In fact, Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equlibrium gives us "evolution" -- properly defined as a gradual developmental unfolding by slow increments -- that is not evolution at all. No reasonable person denies that life has developed, that simple organisms have been followed by more complex ones. But no one really knows for sure what the process of that development has been. I grew up going to Catholic schools where evolution was taught and I agree that it does not necessarily involve any challenge to faith. (By the way, the introduction to Teilhard de Chardin's "The Phenomenon of Man" is by Julian Huxley, who was key to the development of neo-Darwinian theory.) My point in all of this is that there are serious, legitmate scientific objections that have been raised about neo-Drawinian theory. Again, I recommend looking at Gert Korthof's Web site: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/.
ReplyDeleteScience involves looking for the facts, not defending theory. I certainly don't want anybody teaching Genesis in a biology class, but I'm not sure if "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design" belongs there either.
Neither Dawkins nor Gould are entirely typical of biologists or current biological thought. Lots of perfectly respectable biologists have problems with their work and "neo-Darwinism" in general. However, that doesn't mean they reject evolution. Criticizing ID ISN'T "defending a theory." It's defending science against quackery with a political agenda.
ReplyDeleteAh, but I haven't been defending -- or advocating -- ID theory (though I once interviewed Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box," and found him to be much more reasonable and open-minded than the caricature his critics make him out to be). I am simply suggesting that neo-Darwinisn ought not to accepted uncritically -- or, shall we say, on faith. At the same time I see no reason why ID theory should be banned from discussion in schools. I believe in the free market of ideas. I don't like any ideas being declared off limits -- because I think reasonable, intelligent people are fully capable of discerning error.
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no, Melville. One idea is not as good as another. Some ideas -- maybe most -- are false. But falsity must be demonstrated and that can only be done by allowing the ideas to be examined openly and fairly.
ReplyDeleteI guess maybe it's because the argument from design can be traced back to at least Plato that I find it strange for it to elicit such hostility as it does. Plato and Aristotle were pretty sharp cookies. Come to think of it, Alfred Wallace, who actually formulated the idea of evolution by natural selection, wrote regarding adaptation that it displayed "very much the appearance of design by an intelligent designer on which the well being and very existence of the organism depends."
Since we both agree that so-called intelligent design theory does not meet adequate scientific criteria, the question regarding our differences comes down to this: Are there or are there not valid scientific objections to the neo-Darwinian model of evolution? Please note I am not suggesting that the idea of evolution itself is false. I am suggesting that the poster child model for evolution may have some serious zits that ought to be looked at.