|
The barrenness of Darwinism
Carol Iannone asks,
“When Thomas Edison spent months experimenting with hundreds of different materials in his quest to create a workable incandescent light bulb, why—according to the evolutionists—did he do it? In order to find more mates? In order to spread his genes? In order to gain status, so as to find more mates and spread his genes?”
Original carbon-filament bulb from Thomas Edison.
Comments
Josh W. writes:
Carol Iannone’s inquiry demonstrates not the inviability of the theory of evolution but rather her own ignorance of its predictions. The theory does not propose that organisms are consciously motivated by the desire to propagate their genes through generations. Rather, it is the organism’s fitness to do so, regardless of conscious intent, that permits its traits to be passed to its offspring and so on across generations.
LA replies:
First, as I have shown numerous times, proponents of the theory of evolution themselves constantly speak in terms of intent, e.g., they will say that a certain animal engages in a certain behavior “in order to spread its genes,” even though the theory itself utterly precludes intent.
Second, though you implicitly claim to have knowledge of the Darwinian theory of evolution as compared with Carol Iannone’s “ignorance,” you have not answered or even addressed her question. Why, according to the Darwinian theory of evolution, did Edison work so assiduously to develop the light bulb?
November 29
Josh W. writes:
Just because certain proponents of the theory of evolution are ignorant of the theory’s content does not, itself, make the theory incorrect. If it is incorrect, it is in spite of this, not because of it. I’m not aware of your specific examples, but I would guess that the language being used by these proponents is meant to abbreviate something more complicated: that the behavior has been encoded in the animals’ DNA as a result of natural selection, and thus all specimens will exhibit/engage in this behavior. This is a subject that is extremely sensitive to phrasing and language, but unfortunately too few people engaged in the discussion pay adequate attention to this fact.
Your second question is akin to asking “Why, according to the theory of general relativity, did Edison work so assiduously to develop the light bulb?” There is no answer to this question because it assumes that said theory makes predictions of the intentions of individual human beings, but in fact it does not.
LA replies:
This is a topic I’ve written about a lot (see this, this, and this). It’s not that “certain proponents of the theory” are ignorant of it, but that virtually ALL proponents of the theory—scientists AND popularizers—talk this way. My argument is not that this incorrect way of talking about the theory proves in itself that the theory is false. Rather, it shows that human beings, including Darwinians, cannot (even despite their conscious belief system) conceive of or articulate to themselves a purposeless universe, and so keep irresistibly using language redolent of purpose. Furthermore, since human beings are a part of the universe, the fact that human beings cannot conceive of a universe devoid of purpose says something about the nature of the universe. As I wrote in the entry, “Did Darwin say that selection was teleological?”
[T]he Darwinists, being human, cannot accept a non-teleological description of the world, because a non-teleological description of the world is radically untrue and fails to account for reality as we experience it, and so they add teleology onto their non-teleological scheme. Just as consistent liberalism (demanding total non-discrimination) is incompatible with existence in this world, making unprincipled exceptions to liberalism necessary, in the same way, consistent, non-teleological Darwinism is incompatible both with existence in this world and with our experience of existence in this world, making unprincipled exceptions necessary.
Neither the Darwinians not the liberals should be allowed to get away with their unprincipled exceptions. They must be made to face the truth of their reductive and unlivable ideologies, with no softening, “humanizing” escapes allowed. This is the only way to defeat these false belief systems.
As for your second point,
Your second question is akin to asking “Why, according to the theory of general relativity, did Edison work so assiduously to develop the light bulb?” There is no answer to this question because it assumes that said theory makes predictions of the intentions of individual human beings, but in fact it does not.
the fact is that proponents of Darwinian evolution or evolutionary biology use the theory to explain EVERYTHING about life, and EVERYTHING about human beings. So my question is perfectly legitimate.
Elena G. writes:
Most people have a poor understanding of the scientific method, how it is applied, and what it means to follow it correctly. The theory of evolution is just that—a theory. Any Darwin adherent who claims that theory is equivalent to fact is missing the point of the scientific method: come up with an idea, test it, alter it to fit the facts. A theory is always (or should always be) in flux, and subject to alteration and rethinking. The theory of gravity is also just a theory. We know it works—here, on Earth, at least, and within our experience—but we don’t know how it works, we haven’t found the theorized graviton quantum, and it’s possible that what we do think we know about it is wrong in some ways. Most people would call gravity a fact. It’s a working fact, but it’s still a theory. Evolution is much fuzzier, and anyone who claims that it’s a fact is simply not thinking like a scientist. Anyone who claims evolution as a fact is not worthy of being debated, because they’re an idiot, and they’re not a scientist. In my not so humble and devotedly scientific opinion, that is. [LA replies: In fact, the leading evolutionary scientists declare, repeatedly, that the Darwinian theory of evolution is as well established as the law of gravity. E.O. Wilson calls Darwinian evolution a “virtual law of nature.” By saying that only dumb and ignorant people say this, and implicitly denying that the most influential and respected biologists say it, you are in effect (not intentionally) playing Darwinian “good cop.” That is, you are making it appear that responsible evolutionary scientists understand that Darwinian evolution is only a theory, and that only unrepresentative whack jobs say that it’s a law of nature. But in fact the top people in the field say that it’s a law of nature, and, further, they say that anyone who doubts this law of nature is a whack job.]
Not to mention, many poorly-informed Darwinists have a limited understanding of the theory itself. They seem to think that the theory can be proven by directly relating each and every human trait to reproduction, which isn’t a particularly subtle or thoughtful viewpoint.
And that’s my critique of the people you often critique yourself for their fuzzy thinking, for what it’s worth.
Ben S. writes:
In his endeavor to invent the light bulb, Edison manifested intelligence, imagination, diligence, and determination. Each of these traits could plausibly have a genetic component, and genes for these traits would be positively selected for because they are each applicable to many things more obviously related to survival than inventing lightbulbs. Examples would include devising a better spear (more food), finding a way over a mountain range (new places to live), and engineering the conquest of a neighboring nation (a lot of people are named Khan). Since inherited traits are merely traits, they will have many effects on behavior, only some of which need be conducive to their propagation.
LA replies:
Your argument sounds plausible on a first reading, but it’s not sustainable. The problem is that you are doing what Darwinian proponents always do, which is to segue from traits that came into existence by accidental mutations and were passed on because they helped survival/reproduction, to traits that are intentional and purposeful and have nothing to do with survival/reproduction. You are making an illegitimate leap from the realm of the naturalistic and purposeless, to the realm of the conscious and intentional, including science, art, religion, civilization itself. Darwinism (a.k.a. evolutionary biology) cannot explain the human reality in which we live. That is why I call it barren. It is a “scientific law” which arrogantly claims to explain how all living beings including man came into existence and acquired the traits they have, but in reality cannot explain the most interesting and important things about living beings, particularly man.
LA continues:
Here’s another problem with Ben’s argument as I see it. He’s supposing that the genes for perseverance, determination, etc. came into existence in one set of circumstances long ago, where they were selected and spread through the population because they helped in survival; and then, in the person of Edison, these same genes/traits were applied to the making of the lightbulb. But according to Darwinian/evolutionary theory, evolution only selects those genes that help in the spreading of genes. How was Edison spreading his genes when he spent many months of exhausting toil immersed in the problem of developing a workable lightbulb? If anything, his work on the lightbulb distracted him from activities that would help spread his genes.
Now once again the Darwinian proponents will inevitably say that I don’t understand evolutionary theory. But what they don’t understand is that I am not letting them play the game wherein they assert that a process that brings all living beings into existence solely by the principles of chance, survival, and the spreading of genes, can produce living beings that intentionally engage in activities that transcend survival and the spreading of genes.
Gordon M. writes:
Josh W. complains that critics of Darwinism have misunderstood or misformulated the theory of evolution. How is that possible? If evolution is the process through which we came to be what we are, how could the brain, an organ formed by evolution, misunderstand its own development? If the theory of evolution is true, then how can anything formed through that process misunderstand that process? This implies that the thing formed can be at odds with the “truth” of that process. Is the process then at odds with the thing it formed?
Can Josh enlighten us as to how a thing formed by a process comes to misunderstand the process? “Ignorance” is not an answer.
Philip M. writes from England:
You write:
The problem is that you are doing what Darwinian proponents always do, which is to segue from traits that came into existence by accidental mutations and were passed on because they helped survival/reproduction, to traits that are intentional and purposeful and have nothing to do with survival/reproduction. You are making an illegitimate leap from the realm of the naturalistic and purposeless, to the realm of the conscious and intentional, including science, art, religion, civilization itself.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think there is a need to define terms here, particularly the word ”trait” because I think you may be unconsciously using the word in two different ways, depending on whether you are talking about the physical or mental. Take for example the opposable thumb. The thumb itself is the trait that came about through mutation, but the way that the thumb is used, the dexterity, is not the trait itself, but the expression of the trait.
You talk about “traits that are intentional and purposeful” but how can any trait be intentional? I think you are thinking of things like diligence and problem solving, as these require conscious effort, but surely the actual trait is the mutation in the brain that allows these things (diminution or increases of various chemicals or hormones, for example) rather than the diligence, which is the expression of the trait—like dexterity for the thumb?
So, with the physical body, the mutation itself, e.g. the thumb, is what you are calling the trait, but with the world of the brain, it is the effects, such as diligence, that you are calling the trait. Presumably this is why you talk of some traits as having ”intent”?
Maybe I am off-base here, I have been thinking and re-thinking the original question so much today that it is possible that I have got my own brain into a twist thinking about it….
LA replies:
I think I see what you are trying to get at. There are two distinct things, which, you say, I am failing to distinguish from each other. First, there is a physical feature (which I previously called a “trait”), let’s say the thumb, which comes into existence by the naturalistic, non-teleological process of random mutation and natural selection. Second, there is the way that this feature, once it has come into existence, may be expressed or used, and the way that the feature may be used is, you argue, not necessarily limited by naturalistic and purposeless processes, but can go beyond the naturalistic and purposeless and be the expression of an intention.
If I’ve understood you correctly so far, then my answer is the same as it’s been to other commenters. You are making a leap for which the Darwinian evolutionary theory, properly understood, provides zero justification. According to the theory, every single feature of the living organism has come into existence as a result of the naturalistic, purposeless process of random mutation and natural selection. Whence, then, come the qualities of mind which use the thumb to pursue problem-solving purposes? You speak of a “mutation in the brain that allows these things.” But this is just words—words that fail to meet the fundamental problem of how accidental bad copies of the genes controlling cell chemistry resulted in human consciousness, self-awareness, intention, language, logical thought, the experience of selfhood, and all the other qualities that distinguish the human from the vegetable and animal. According to that most esteemed of evolutionists, E.O. Wilson, science has no idea how this happened. As I wrote in 2009:
Indeed, E.O. Wilson, the eminent biologist, Darwinian thinker, and founder of sociobiology, agrees with me. In 2006 he wrote in USA Today:
“Although as many as half of Americans choose not to believe it, evolution, including the origin of species [LA adds: meaning the origin of species by random genetic accidents and natural selection], is an undeniable fact. Furthermore, the evidence supporting the principle of natural selection has improved year by year, and it is accepted with virtual unanimity by the biologists who have put it to the test.
“The great question remaining is whether the human mind originated the same way. Many scientists, I among them, believe it did so evolve. Nevertheless, how all of the complex operations of the brain fit together to generate consciousness remains one of the major unsolved problems of science.”
So, Wilson BELIEVES that the human mind originated by random mutation and natural selection. But he DOESN’T KNOW THIS. It hasn’t been demonstrated. Since the Darwinian evolution of the thing that is most characteristic of man, the human mind, has not been demonstrated by science and indeed is a “major unsolved problem,” why should Darwinists be so arrogant as to say that Darwinism is an undeniable fact … ?
[end of excerpt from 2009 entry]
Philip replies to LA:
That was an interesting answer. Thank you.
Whatever the particularities of Carol’s original question, it is, as you intimated in your first answer, the issue of consciousness, both how it could have evolved and what it is for, that is the real problem for modern science. Dawkins has said as much himself. Your quote from E.O. Wilson that he ”believes” in the Darwinian evolution of the brain, yet he knows that evolution is true, seems pretty damning given his status.
November 30
Ben S. writes:
Responding to me you write:
But according to Darwinian/evolutionary theory, evolution only selects those genes that help in the spreading of genes. How was Edison spreading his genes when he spent many months of exhausting toil immersed in the problem of developing a workable lightbulb? If anything, his work on the lightbulb distracted him from activities that would help spread his genes.
The answer to this question is simple: Natural selection is not an intelligent process. In a Darwinian framework, genes first arise from random mutation, and then are spread through a combination of luck and their actual effects on the organisms that bear them. A “good” gene is merely one that has a greater likelihood, based on its effects, of being passed on than a “bad” gene does. Because organisms are extremely complex systems, a gene that is selected due to one of its effects is likely to have other effects, which may be more or less obviously related. Evolution is a fundamentally stochastic process: It need not imply all observed human behavior; it merely has to be consistent with human behavior taken as a whole. [LA replies: I must say that this is a lot of verbiage without concrete meaning. For example, over and over Darwinian proponents throw in the fancy word “stochastic,” as though the mere introduction of the word settles the issue. Also, the idea that a selected gene has additional effects that are also passed along is largely speculation. How many real examples of this, illustrating complex animal or human capacities, have ever been demonstrated?] Furthermore, it is not expected under a Darwinian framework that modern humans will be optimized to spread their genes in modern societies, since modern societies change on time scales of centuries or decades, but human evolution would require millennia to optimize humans for any given environment.
But let us dissect “Darwinism” into its component concepts, so that the matter under dispute can be made clear. The evidence (genetic, biochemical, fossil, etc.) that all known animals (including man) are derived from the same ancestral stock is quite conclusive; it is fair to call this a scientific fact, even if it is not as physically fundamental as gravity. [LA replies: You should not have thrown “fossil” into that mix, since, as everyone knows, the fossil record showing transitional forms is pathetically lacking, a lack that is one of the most devastating arguments against the Darwinian theory. Leaving aside the fossil record, I grant you, as I have granted before, that the genetic commonalities among life forms are the best evidence the Darwinians have, both for the idea that later life forms are descended from earlier ones and for Darwinian evolution. But it is not at all conclusive. It could also mean that Evolution (or Intelligent Design or the Creator or what have you) has used the same basic genetic material over and over again with each life form instead of starting afresh each time. When we further remember the logical impossibility of new organs and life forms arising by random genetic mutations naturally selected, something I’ve demonstrated at length, combined with the complete failure of evolutionary science to demonstrate the Darwinian evolution of new life forms, the latter interpretation of the genetic commonality of life forms becomes far more plausible that the Darwinian interpretation.] Natural selection is a matter distinct from common descent, but it is likewise more than a hypothesis; there is a great deal of evidence (genomic, anatomical, anthropological, etc.) that it has occurred, and humans have changed the nature of various species by applying selective pressures, both intentionally (poodles), and unintentionally (drug-resistant tuberculosis). In fact, natural selection would be expected to occur a priori for any species in which hereditary variation affects survival. [LA replies: Now you are resorting to the oldest false argument in the Darwinian quiver, the false argument that goes all the way back to Darwin himself in The Origin of Species: using changes by natural or artificial selection within a species as supposed proof that entirely new species and new life forms arose by the same means. If Darwinian evolution were really so well established as The Darwinians claim, would they keep resorting to such a transparently weak and false argument as their “proof”?]
You seem to object most to attribution of “conscious” or “intentional” human behavior to natural selection. I admit that Darwin’s framework explains only part of conscious behavior, which is no surprise given that intelligent beings change their environments in myriad ways, and vice versa, so that the resulting feedback produces chaotic change in both. I would ask you, though, why people of recent European ancestry naturally tend to be more intelligent and less impulsive than people of recent African ancestry. [LA replies: Perhaps you are not familiar with my position on this. I have many times acknowledged that different environments with different selective pressures may have given rise to changes within a species. But such “micro-evolution” within a species or life form is NOT macro-evolution, the origin of new species and life forms. And macro-evolution, a.k.a. the origin of species, is what is meant by “evolution.” The fact that Darwinian proponents continue to present changes within a species as proof of the Darwinian evolution of new species is a spectacular demonstration either of bad faith (I don’t accuse Ben of bad faith) or of ignorance and a failure to think through the meaning of the theory they are defending. People have so often heard that a change in the color of the wings of moths on a tree in England was a proof of evolution that they feel that all they have to do is repeat that phrase, and they’ve “proved” evolution. And again I ask, if Darwinian evolution were true, why would its proponents continue to use such a weak and indeed dishonest argument?]
Natural selection explains these differences in conscious, intentional traits: cold European winters require sophistication in clothing, shelter, and food conservation beyond what is required in Africa, so dumb or impulsive Europeans were more disadvantaged than dumb or impulsive Africans, hence there was more attrition of genes corresponding to such traits (and more selection for their opposites) in Europe.
What is your explanation? God made Black people not to be as smart as White people? Why the heck would He do that? [LA replies: I’ve replied to this above. Variation and natural selection may operate within a species to produce different sub-species. But the arguments against Darwinian evolution as the cause of the origin of new species and life forms are overwhelming. Furthermore, evolutionary scientists themselves keep admitting that they have not shown how macro-evolution could occur. (See The Darwinians admit that Darwinism is not proved. Macro-evolution by Darwinian processes remains a mere extrapolation from Darwinian changes within a species.]
Chuck Darwin writes:
If 100 percent of the world believed that the theory of evolution was right, would that not make the theory fact? If every single person, through every single mind accepted the theory of evolution to be the correct story of origin, would that not make the story of evolution the true narrative of life’s beginnings?
For truth to exist, there has to be a mind and a witness. If every mind believed that evolution described accurately and truthfully biological origin, would that not settle the issue as to whether evolution was true or not? After all, if there was no mind to disbelieve evolution, then there would be no occasion to describe it as false. It’s objectivity would be established through the 100% agreement of all subjectivity.
There is no concept apart from mind. There are no ideas without brains. There is no objectivity without subjectivity. The social consensus that evolution is true is now the majority view and expanding.
The day is coming when all minds will be of one accord concerning evolution … Resistance is futile.
LA replies:
Thank you for explaining that to me, Mr. O’Brien, I mean, Mr. Darwin.
Patrick H. writes:
We recently had a rather mild, and I think narrow, disagreement where I argued you were being too hard on “evolutionary psychology,” for reasons that don’t matter here. Now I must write to you in disagreement again, this time from the other side. You are being too easy on Darwinists who claim that evolutionary theory explains consciousness.
You correctly point out that Darwinism has not provided an explanation for how consciousness evolved.
Since the Darwinian evolution of the thing that is most characteristic of man, the human mind, has not been demonstrated by science and indeed is a “major unsolved problem,” why should Darwinists be so arrogant as to say that Darwinism is an undeniable fact … ?
But it’s much worse than that for the Darwinians. Not only is consciousness a “major unsolved problem” for them (and materialists generally), they cannot even begin to sketch out in the most preliminary, general way what their solution would even be like. They cannot describe, in the most basic and simple terms, how they would even recognize that they have made any progress in solving the question. Their complete inability to sketch out even the beginnings of the outline of a first draft of a tentative preliminary approach to the earliest steps needed to get underway in launching the initial phase of a basic start to the onset of an exploratory research programme to ascertain the general shape of a partially suggestive hint of a possible but limited solution … ahem, sorry … is the giveaway that their error is not simply a mistaken theory or hypothesis or model or whatever … it is a category error, the worst, most damaging kind of intellectual mistake one can make. Category errors are mistakes like asking “what colour is a mile?” Or: “how much does a thought weigh?” Or: “what is the location of the Schrodinger wave function?” Or for that matter, “what is the survival value of originality?”
The materialists and their Darwinian epigones cannot even begin to describe how evolution begat consciousness, because no-one can begin to describe how a colour begat a mile or a weight gave birth to a thought or a location houses an equation or how the differential reproductive rate of certain deoxyribonucleic acid chains leads to an act of invention. It isn’t simply that they haven’t gotten the right answer yet. It’s that they are not even asking the right questions. Worse, they are not even asking the right kind of questions. They are lost in a desert of category errors, and they have ensured through their commitment to utterly barren materialist metaphysics, that they will never find their way out. They try to slake their thirst with sand, and turn their backs on the oasis in front of them, because they think it’s a mirage. Which every oasis is, of course, if the world is nothing but sand.
So I must insist that you really were too easy on them. It’s not that they are wrong. It’s that they are not even wrong. They are, in a certain sense, intellectually insane. I would pray for them, but it’s too late, I fear. I will pray instead for their students.
LA replies:
That long sentence is better than James Joyce.
Patrick replies:
Parodies of materialist argy-bargy write themselves. Thanks.
LA replies:
Ha ha. That’s true.
Gintas writes:
Subject: Steve Burton Works the Footpedal to start the Grindstone, Lifts Axe.
He is really bothered that you are “on the rampage against evolutionary psychology”:
Auster has been on the rampage against evolutionary psychology, lately. Most recently, under the title “The Barrenness of Darwinism,” he quotes with approval Carol Iannone’s question, “When Thomas Edison spent months experimenting with hundreds of different materials in his quest to create a workable incandescent light bulb, why—according to the evolutionists—did he do it? In order to find more mates? In order to spread his genes? In order to gain status, so as to find more mates and spread his genes?”
Well, sigh, no, Carol & Larry. Most “evolutionists” would offer pretty much the same surface-level explanation for Edison’s strange behavior as anybody else: among other things, he was very smart, very determined, very creative, and avid of wealth, fame and power.
It’s at the next level down that “evolutionists” start saying something interesting & different:
Why are people smart? Why are they determined? Why are they creative? Why are they avid of wealth, fame & power (to the extent that they are)?
Because, up to a point, intelligence, determination, creativity, and the desire for wealth, fame and power were qualitites that tended to result, in the circumstances of human evolution, in greater inclusive fitness—i.e., in genes that contributed to intelligence, determination, creativity, and the desire for wealth, fame and power tended to spread, while genes that detracted from same tended to die out.
It’s a great puzzle to me why sharp gals and guys like Carol and Larry seem to find this rather obvious point so difficult to grasp.
Don’t you just love the condescension? It’s true to the type.
LA replies:
Actually, the condescension represents a high degree of politeness compared to Steve Burton’s usual writings about me.
But consider what he considers the heart of his argument:
Because, up to a point, intelligence, determination, creativity, and the desire for wealth, fame and power were qualitites that tended to result, in the circumstances of human evolution, in greater inclusive fitness—i.e., in genes that contributed to intelligence, determination, creativity, and the desire for wealth, fame and power tended to spread, while genes that detracted from same tended to die out.
This is empty verbiage, the equivalent of saying that evolution led to greater fitness because it led to greater fitness. Not only is Burton not intellectually engaged in the issue, he is not even at the beginning of approaching the start of sketching out an outline of a tentative preliminary approach to the earliest steps needed to get underway in launching the initial phase of being intellectually engaged in the issue. He’s just repeating slogans. But he imagines that his slogans represent the truth—the truth that certain other people perversely refuse to acknowledge.
The Darwinians are like the democratization supporters, endlessly repeating disconnected-from-reality phrases which they think represent the conclusive truth in the matter and the answer to all questions: “Despotism hasn’t worked. All people long for freedom.” The self-adoring Condoleezza Rice gave a long interview to Sean Hannity a few weeks ago and in response to every critical question he raised about Muslim democratization, she smilingly and condescendingly answered, “Sean, we know that all people desire freedom.” That’s essentially the intellectual level of the Darwinism proponents. They already have the truth, so they don’t have to think.
Stogie writes:
I read through the arguments you posted from “Secular Right” and found the atheist arguments shallow and superficial. Of course, this is not the first time I have encountered atheistic thought. Atheists argue from a set of unproven assumptions and premises, for example:
1. Any belief in a higher power is naive, illogical and unreasonable. This position ignores the existence of the vast universe and myriad life forms that have existed on Earth. One of these ideologues suggested that you cannot deny Darwinism without an alternative theory; what alternative theory do they have for the existence of the cosmos? They have none.
2. That any phenomena that cannot be detected with man’s five senses or some instrumental extension thereof, do not exist. This belief is based on the false assumption that man’s senses and intellect are even capable of discerning every question and possible answer. I liken atheists arguing about the existence of deity as similar to a couple of boll weevils arguing about the existence of higher math. Neither has the intellectual capacity to consider such an argument.
3. Human logic and reasoning are the only valid forms of knowledge. This is false because human logic is based on human experience; it works only within the human sphere. Logic is therefore a completely inadequate tool for considering the existence of God. If the atheists in this discussion were mature and honest, they would admit that, at best, they cannot know whether any kind of god exists. Instead, they arrogantly compare the concept of deity to a belief in Darth Vader or “the flying spaghetti monster.” In other words, they believe that if human beings cannot see it or measure it, it does not exist, and therefore they elevate themselves to the status of gods, believing themselves to be omniscient.
Finally, faith is not merely blind belief without foundation; it is a form of higher knowledge that does not derive from everyday human experience. People who have had the mystical experience (as I have) have seen, very briefly, the divine nature of the cosmos, after which it is impossible to deny. I have also been very interested in near death experiences which, like the mystical experience, support the existence of God and the immortal soul.
Buck O. writes:
I notice that Ben S. casually attached a touch of morality to articulate his explanation, while also trying to distract from it with scare quotes: A “good” gene is merely one that has a greater likelihood, based on its effects, of being passed on than a “bad” gene does.
Does the following illustrate natural selection and evolution in action?
If an antibiotic is added to a dish of bacteria, so that some of the bacteria die and some survive, bacterial resistance is seen.
What happens in the dish?
Some of the bacteria are naturally equipped with enzymes that give them immunity to the antibiotic. So, they survive, while most of the bacteria die and now serve as nutrients for the resistant strain, which multiplies. Before, it couldn’t “compete” with the more abundant strain, which is now wiped out. So the existing resistant strain becomes more numerous. There is a multiplication of something that already existed. There is nothing new.
LA replies:
What you are saying is closer to the way Darwin originally explained variation. It wasn’t that a wholly new feature appeared, but that a more extreme form of a feature became more numerous. The same duality is in evolutionary thought today. Sometimes the posited change comes about because of a new feature appearing as a result of a mutation; sometimes the change comes about as a result of an already existent feature spreading and becoming dominant in a population.
Thomas Bertonneau writes:
On a topic related to speciation, here is my essay of a couple of years ago on the inability of biological science to explain the origin of life from non-living matter and on the related issue of existence and intentionality.
LA replies:
Mr. Bertonneau’s article is not on the question of evolution but the attempts of scientists to create life in laboratory conditions. The article ends with a incisive point about what it would mean if scientists succeeded in doing that. Far from demonstrating that life could have appeared on its own in a primal soup, it would show that life could only appear out of non-life if there was an intelligent agent trying to make it happen—the very opposite of the point that the Darwinian scientists doing these experiments are trying to establish.
Leon M. writes:
Ben S. wrote,
“Genes first arise from random mutation, and then are spread through a combination of luck.”
Luck? What is “luck?” Is it good luck or bad luck? If the gene spread and survived, is that good luck? If it is good luck, “good” implies purpose. If it did not survive, was that bad luck? If it survived or did not survive just out of any luck (neither good or bad), then survival or not is the same thing.
Now if the process is “meaningless,” why are Darwinians using logic to describe the process? If it’s meaningless, who cares? Why write books about a meaningless thing? Why use logic to describe an illogical process?
Brandon F. writes:
The confusion people have with natural selection and evolution is astounding. In David Berlinski’s book, The Deniable Darwin, he prints the responses of actual evolutionary scientists to his essays. One of the scientists said that of course we have seen evolution occur and gave the example of drug-resistant bacteria as an example. Even the “educated” evolutionists are confused.
LA replies:
There you have it. It’s the evolutionary scientists themselves who don’t understand their own theory. They’ve gotten so used to hearing, e.g., that the appearance of drug resistant strains of bacteria is “proof” of evolution, i.e., proof of the Darwinian evolution of new species, that they feel that all they have to do to prove “evolution” is refer to drug resistant strains of bacteria. The House of Darwin is a house of cards.
Philip M. writes:
I have been reading through your responses and trying to understand your position on evolution and look at the world through your eyes on this issue. You believe in evolution within species and all the various processes this implies, and you believe that the Earth has been around for long enough for species to become sub-species. [I didn’t say that I believe in evolution within species, since evolution properly means the evolution of new species; I said that I think it’s reasonable and possible that there is differentiation within species by mutation plus natural selection] So would there be any reason in principal in your worldview why evolution from one species to another could not have happened in isolated cases? [Phil, you’re asking me to replicate everything I’ve written on the subject. But one thing you should understand. I have never said that insufficiency of time is the reason why there couldn’t be Darwinian evolution by mutation and natural selection. I’ve said that no matter how much time you have, Darwinian evolution of new life forms by mutation and natural selection is inherently impossible. Among my articles on this subject, check out An absolute refutation of Darwinism (on how the appearance of internal fertilization in reptiles by Darwinian processes is impossible), and The evolution of internal fertilization in vertebrates, cont.] You do not actually believe there is any physical force preventing evolution from happening, so in theory could there have been isolated cases of evolution, but that for various reasons it happened rarely? [My position is that the appearance of new biological forms, new organs, new species and genuses and phyla by accidental genetic bad copies which help the organism live longer and have more offspring is inherently impossible. I make just one possible exception to this. There are species that are so close to each other, such as the Galapagos finches, among which almost the only difference is a difference in the shape of the beak, that they seem like subspecies within a species rather than different species. I admit the possibility that such closely related species—so closely related that it’s questionable whether they are different species—could differentiate from each other by mutation and natural selection. This does not change my position that the evolution of new life forms by Darwinian processes is impossible. Nature does have grey areas. Also note the distinction I have just made between differentiation of an existing form, such as a beak, and the evolution of new forms.] Would it be more accurate to say that in your eyes Darwinism cannot be the PRIMARY cause of speciation, rather than evolution cannot be the cause of any of it? Or, it now occurs to me, would you find it problematic for God to have not created certain species, as this would mean a lack of control or dominion in some way, too much of a departure from the Christian creation narrative? [Haven’t you read my speculative scenario (and by the way, when I speculate, I admit it, unlike the Darwinians who call their rampant speculations “settled science”), involving a combination of “inventiveness” at the small scale and “archetypes” at the big scale? That is not exactly the Christian narrative! The existence of closely related yet different frog species is strong evidence for an “unfolding” of potentialities that does not fit at all with the biblical narrative in which the Creator creates all species ex nihilo. How that unfolding occurred we do not know. But we do know, or at least I know to my satisfaction, that it did not and could not have occurred by random genetic mutations naturally selected. ]
I hope this question doesn’t seem pedantic or an attempt to nit-pick, that is not the ‘angle’ I am coming from, this is just pure curiosity. There are certain things I am trying to understand about your position, and I think that answering this question (if you choose to, I’m aware it probably would not be much use in the thread) would tie up those areas.
Jonathan M. writes:
Philip M. wrote:
So would there be any reason in principal in your worldview why evolution from one species to another could not have happened in isolated cases?
You do not actually believe there is any physical force preventing evolution from happening, so in theory could there have been isolated cases of evolution, but that for various reasons it happened rarely?
This tenor of asking questions “as if something can happen” when it has never been demonstrably shown to happen is spurious. “Do you deny that X can happen?”, when X has not been shown to happen. Why not ask “Do you deny that the Titanic could have sunk to the bottom and formed an air bubble to protect all the people who stayed on the ship?”
Could’ve, should’ve, would’ve … giving Darwinism a credibility based on the possibility of something happening if we just admit it can happen.
Philip M. writes:
You wrote:
Haven’t you read my speculative scenario … involving a combination of “inventiveness” at the small scale and “archetypes” at the big scale?
Yes, yes, I am aware of this, my comment about the Christian “narrative” was my extrapolating and exploring various possibilities about the way you might view the elements of Genesis and how they may be taken in different ways, sort of semi-literal in some ways and poetic in others. It was a fairly meandering and hard to explain thought on my part, not worth going into in detail, with hindsight, should have left it out.
You wrote:
My position is that the appearance of new biological forms, new organs, new species and genuses and phyla by accidental genetic bad copies which help the organism live longer and have more offspring is inherently impossible.
OK, this is the key part. If you say I am asking you to repeat things you have said then I assume there is somewhere on the side bar of your site where I can see your reasons for this. And I’m sure even the disciples had to ask Jesus what he meant a second time on occasion, Lawrence ;)
LA replies:
I will try to be more patient. :-) In the posted version of your previous comment with my interspersed replies I linked two articles, having to do with the appearance of copulation and internal fertilization in amphibians and reptiles, which to my mind demonstrate the absolute impossibility of Darwinian evolution, There are other such articles in my anti-Darwin collection, but I think those two are as strong as anything I’ve written.
Philip M. writes:
Jonathan M. wrote:
“Could’ve, should’ve, would’ve … giving Darwinism a credibility based on the possibility of something happening if we just admit it can happen.”
It’s a shame Jonathan M. went so far out of his way to misconstrue a question in spite of the fact that I went to pains to preclude this. My question was, as I said, a way of trying to understand, and was not intended as part of a debate, whether the one on this site or the one I am apparently having in Jonathan M.’s head.
LA writes:
Here is another discussion, “If Darwinism is true, can a Darwinian have a desire to remain alive?”, in which I demonstrate that Darwinian evolution is inherently impossible. My argument is that the Darwinian theory of evolution precludes that living beings have conscious desires and intentions, and since human beings have the conscious desire to remain alive, therefore the Darwinian theory of evolution cannot be true.
December 1
Ben S. writes:
I would like to post replies to certain respondents, since they seem to have misconstrued some of my points.
Buck O. wrote:
I notice that Ben S. casually attached a touch of morality to articulate his explanation, while also trying to distract from it with scare quotes: A “good” gene is merely one that has a greater likelihood, based on its effects, of being passed on than a “bad” gene does.
My reply:
I was in fact explaining precisely what others mean when they speak of “good” and “bad” genes. The “scare quotes” were to emphasize that the words were imperfect, which is not to say that the actual concept I imperfectly used them to express is ill-defined; I gave a precise definition.
Leon M. wrote:
Genes first arise from random mutation, and then are spread through a combination of luck.
Luck? What is “luck?” Is it good luck or bad luck? If the gene spread and survived, is that good luck? If it is good luck, “good” implies purpose. If it did not survive, was that bad luck? If it survived or did not survive just out of any luck (neither good or bad), then survival or not is the same thing.
Now if the process is “meaningless,” why are Darwinians using logic to describe the process? If it’s meaningless, who cares? Why write books about a meaningless thing? Why use logic to describe an illogical process?
My reply:
You have falsely appended a period to my sentence, which reads ” … and then are spread through a combination of luck and their actual effects on the organisms that bear them.”
I was in fact acknowledging that even a gene variant that makes survival more likely (one that confers immunity to AIDS, to take an example) can be lost from the gene pool if it has not spread widely (the person in which the mutation arises could die in infancy of malaria, starve, etc.). This is properly expressed as “bad luck” (and please do not obsess over the supposed moral connotations of the word “bad”).
Secondly, I do not know where you got the quote “meaningless” from, but I did not use that word.
And Mr. Auster wrote:
a reader inadvertently demonstrates the barrenness of Darwinism himself by re-hashing the hoariest and most discredited Darwinian arguments, such as … that manmade changes in poodles prove the Darwinian evolution of new species.
My reply:
I never stated that artificial selection of poodles or anything else proved natural selection by itself. I casually mentioned poodles to illustrate my point that humans alter species both intentionally and unintentionally, with the latter being far more significant to my point then the former, since (to take the risk of providing another example) a fungus does not breed dogs, but it may secrete an antibiotic, and since human use of antibiotics creates a selective pressure on bacteria favoring antibiotic resistance, it can reasonably be inferred that fungal use (slightly imprecise language in the absence of intention, I know) of antibiotics creates a similar, if much lesser selective pressure (the fungus is less widespread and produces less of the compound). Really the only difference between unintentional natural selection and unintentional artificial selection is that the word “artificial” means that Homo sapiens is a participant in the latter activity; since intention is not involved, the phenomenology may be essentially the same. [LA replies: Here’s what you wrote: “there is a great deal of evidence (genomic, anatomical, anthropological, etc.) that [natural selection] has occurred, and humans have changed the nature of various species by applying selective pressures, both intentionally (poodles), and unintentionally (drug-resistant tuberculosis). In fact, natural selection would be expected to occur a priori for any species in which hereditary variation affects survival.” Your point, as I understood it, was to back up Darwinian evolution by showing that natural selection has occurred. But the examples you gave—just like the examples Darwin misleadingly gave in The Origin of Species—relate to changes within a species. The use of changes within a species to demonstrate the evolution of new species is a central false argument of Darwinism, and I was holding you to account for it. I realize my language was tough, probably too tough as applied to you, but it’s the language I regularly use about an argument which is blatantly false and yet goes on being used as though it were legitimate.]
As an aside, I notice that arguments about Darwinian theory here often get snarled in semantics, with opponents of the theory interpreting any slightly metaphorical or imprecise language on the part of supporters completely literally and inflexibly, and then burning the resulting straw man. This can be seen in your criticism of Darwinists who use language of intention to describe processes that they assert are mindless. You are correct that their lapse indicates a human urge to explain things in teleological terms; you err in inferring from this urge that speciation must in fact be teleological. Nature often works in a counterintuitive manner, and an ordinary human response to this is to describe nonintuitive nature in intuitive terms by way of metaphor. When we say that “water seeks its own level” we are not actually claiming that water intends to minimize its gravitational potential; it just does, though even to say that “water minimizes its gravitational potential” is to suggest agency on the part of the water. Nobody quibbles about this, since it is understood that our language is polyvalent, and has to be interpreted with the intention of finding sense. When you systematically interpret someone’s language with the intention of finding nonsense, you often will, through no fault of that person.
LA replies:
There is no question or controversy over whether water is actually “seeking” its own level; so the metaphorical use of the word “seeking” is not a problem. It is, however, a mighty question indeed—the very center of the topic of Darwinism—whether the evolution of living things is the result of an intention or of a mindless, purposeless process. Darwinism is celebrated by its proponents precisely because it supposedly removed the idea of mind or intention from the phenomena of life and established a wholly materialistic basis for biology. Therefore the constant application of teleological language by Darwinian proponents to phenomena which according to the proponents are utterly mindless and purposeless is a highly significant and revealing problem for the Darwinian orthodoxy.
Art A. writes:
Stogie writes thusly:
Human logic and reasoning are the only valid forms of knowledge. This is false because human logic is based on human experience; it works only within the human sphere. Logic is therefore a completely inadequate tool for considering the existence of God. If the atheists in this discussion were mature and honest, they would admit that, at best, they cannot know whether any kind of god exists. Instead, they arrogantly compare the concept of deity to a belief in Darth Vader or “the flying spaghetti monster.” In other words, they believe that if human beings cannot see it or measure it, it does not exist, and therefore they elevate themselves to the status of gods, believing themselves to be omniscient.
What Stogie describes is the self-refuting or self-contradictory ideology of logical positivism: i.e., I can only know that which can be empirically verified. But that statement itself cannot be empirically verified, and is therefore false.
Roland D. (previously accidentally identified in this comment as D. from Seattle) writes:
The best refutation of Darwinian evolution in humans—at least, the best refutation to date I’ve read—is David Stove’s Darwinian Fairytales.
In my opinion, Stove was the single most important philosopher of the 20th Century.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 28, 2011 11:25 AM | Send
|