Darwinism Must Die So Evolution Can Live 951
Pickens writes "MacArthur fellow Carl Safina, an adjunct professor at Stony Brook University, has an interesting essay in the NYTimes that says that equating evolution with Charles Darwin opened the door for creationism by ignoring 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution — Gregor Mendel's patterns of heredity, the discovery of DNA, developmental biology, studies documenting evolution in nature, and evolution's role in medicine and disease. Darwinism implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates, like Marxism, says Safina. He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism, and that by making Darwin 'into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching.' By turning Darwin into an 'ism,' scientists created the opening for creationism, with the 'isms' implying equivalence. 'By propounding "Darwinism," even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one theory,' writes Safina. '"Darwinism" implies that biological scientists "believe in" Darwin's "theory." It's as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.'"
neodarwinism (Score:5, Informative)
This is why most biologist refer to Darwins theory plus all the addition thoughts of the last 150 year as neodarwinism
Darwins basic idea still stands so it doesn't seem illogical to use his name for the theory
Re:neodarwinism (Score:5, Informative)
Re:neodarwinism (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought that "Darwinism" was a term thought up by the religious anti-evolution side.
Why? I suspect that it is because they associate their beliefs with an entity, God in this case, and thus cannot see how other people don't need to also do that. Thus they ultimately project this viewpoint that people who believe in evolution are actually believing in a false God as part of their propaganda against evolution.
Darwin, of course, studied theology at Cambridge University. He was also a depressive, presumably because of how stupid (and stubbornly-so) most people were. I think he would be depressed today. Especially if he saw the creationism museum.
Btw, there was a pretty good David Attenborough programme on BBC TV last week about Darwin and Evolution that showed many of the subsequent discoveries. I forget the title, but it must be available on popular video sharing sites.
Re:neodarwinism (Score:5, Informative)
Some people say he was depressed because he was a devout Christian, but his work was contradicting his beliefs.
I think that "Darwinism" is used by scientists to describe classical evolution. "Post-Darwinist" theories include punctuated (or stepped) evolution, founder affects, modern genetics, and a lot of other things. The rate of mutations is often evolved - so evolution is itself evolving - groovy hey! I haven't studied that stuff for years, but "Darwinism" has not been the alpha and omega of evolution for quite some time.
Some interesting developments outside ecology would include the use of evolution in programming (genetic algorithms), the evolution of cancers, the evolution of ideas and institutions, the evolution of ecologies, and basically anything else that satisfies the replication, competition, and mutation criteria. Myopic? I don't think so.
Re:neodarwinism (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't studied that stuff for years, but "Darwinism" has not been the alpha and omega of evolution for quite some time.
I've read about some of that stuff as well, but having to gone to public school and been stuck in 'regular' classes on occasion, I'd say that 'Darwinism' is about the right level for basic grade school scientific theory. Just don't go trying to apply it to bacteria too much. Bacteria sex is one of the weirder things out there. Mendel's Pea experiments are good for heredity.
Honestly enough, I've never really understood any but the most literal creationist's objections to evolution. I mean, why aren't they protesting dinosaurs? Isn't the Earth supposed to be too young for them to have existed?
Re:neodarwinism (Score:4, Insightful)
"I mean, why aren't they protesting dinosaurs?"
I'm pretty sure they used to. There's a whole set of Fundy arguments about the validity of carbon (and other) dating methods, and a load of stock rants on how it's all based on faulty assumptions and circular reasoning.
They tend not to even touch on the fact we have records of humans and human civilisation back before they think the world was created...
Bunch of hateful, wilfully ignorant assholes. Wilful ignorance on this scale should be the greatest sin.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, the "carbon dating is only accurate for 5,000 years argument".
Sadly for them it's accurate for 60,000 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating#cite_note-0). Even so, it's not the dating method used for things like dinosaurs, or even pre-homo-sapiens times. There are other elements that decay slower and are thus far more useful as a metric - Potassium-Argon and Uranium-Lead are some I believe, but don't quote me, and I'm at work so can't keep on hunting down references.
Re:neodarwinism (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed they have. This doesn't, however, mean that they respect the rules of debate or any sort of historical precedent. I think it's because the general public, even the religious general public, laugh out loud when they say that dinosaurs are a lie/a test/all fake/a set of species that lived with humans 4K years ago.
They've moved on to evolution in general because it's a complicated issue, and the rhetoric they can use on their congregations becomes simpler - "you don't want to understand what all these egghead sciency guys are saying do you? That would be a lot of effort and you like easy answers! They're all elitist and liberal and stuff! They believe this really complicated thing that I'm going to summarise as them saying there's no God! You believe in God right? Right!?!"
It's not really a debate as such, it's them trying to turn the tide of popular opinion and latching on to whatever they can, whilst trying to persuade people that "we can do science talk too!" and then talking in circles and trying to keep their ideas from too much scrutiny.
Re:neodarwinism (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if you get too literal, you run into other problems. After all, there are passages in Genesis that make reference to God setting up the pillars that support the four corners of the earth... While I'm sure there were still plenty of them in Darwin's time, I doubt you'd find even the staunchest creationists today that still believe that the earth has corners. So somehow they have to pick and choose which parts are literal and which are not. I suppose they use the same logic that they used to decide that homosexuality is still a heinous sin, but the restrictions on eating pork and seafood, when it's acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery, and most of the other old testament laws no longer apply in today's society.
As far as dinosaurs go, maybe you just weren't paying attention... Most of them claim that our dating mechanisms aren't accurate. They claim that dinosaurs lived side by side with humans up until the flood or until the expulsion from Eden. Others claim that the dinosaurs never really existed at all, and that fossils are part of the earth God created, to test our faith (or planted by the devil to mislead us). I've also heard the claim that our current measures of time and human lifespan were not applicable until the expulsion from Eden, meaning that Adam and Eve may have lived happily in Eden for millions of years before the beginning of the supposed 6,000 year recorded history in the Bible. (Although, you're starting to get away from strict Creationism there, because that interpretation can also be stretched to imply that the "seven days" of creation actually lasted about 4 billion years by our current measurements.)
I am surprised to see a high ranking Scientist make a statement like this, though. I agree with the reasoning behind it, but I had assumed that the Scientific community had already gotten away from using the term "Darwinism". The only times I can ever remember hearing it used were either 1) Religious types who use the term as a sort of straw man for attacking evolutionary theory, or 2) attempts to apply Darwin's ideas to areas outside of biology, e.g. "Social Darwinism". Is "Darwinism" really still in widespread use among scientists? Or is this more of an attempt to convince non-scientists to give up a term that scientists have already abandoned long ago?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it depends on where you were taught and who you were teaching. I've known both sane biology professors, and some who practically canonized Darwin as their patron saint. I agree with the Author's premise; there is too much religious zeal among many biologists. Religion is not science, and confusing the two is detrimental to both.
I say this as a deeply religious man, and a scientist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He wasn't a devout Christian. He was a Christian at first but no more or less so than anybody else of his time. Yes, he studied Divinity at Cambridge with the aim of becoming a country parson, but that was really only to provide him with a respectable position so that he could carry on collecting beetles
Re:neodarwinism (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought that "Darwinism" was a term thought up by the religious anti-evolution side.
I was taught 'Darwin's theory of natural selection' in school, as part of the basic theory of evolution. Mendel and his peas were in there as well. I'll also note that the theory of evolution in my textbook explicitly didn't cover the start of life; there was some mention of 'primordial soup', but fully admitted that scientists don't really have a clue.
I have never heard it called 'Darwinism' by anything other than creationists and the people handing out awards in a bit of black humor.
I wonder if the anti-evolutionists were around when I was a kid; I don't remember ever hearing about them. I wouldn't be surprised if a big part of the yelling right now is the last gasp of the creationists, as they can no longer hide in small areas in local or church schools. News is far more national now than it was even 20 years ago. If my study of history has shown me anything; it's that rarely is anything having to do with the human condition new or unique. There's creationists over in Europe; in China and India.
Re:neodarwinism (Score:5, Informative)
Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life [bbc.co.uk]?
There's also an interesting quote [guardian.co.uk] from David Attenborough in response to people asking "why he did not give "credit" to God" for the subjects of his nature documentaries:
All Things Dull And Ugly (Score:5, Funny)
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot;
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid.
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small.
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
Re:neodarwinism (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely.
I don't know where the author got his information from, but equating Darwin directly with evolution and setting him up as the absolute authority on evolution and natural select is exactly the straw man argument used by the ID/creation morons.
They try, in their pathetic attempt to debate, to equate "The Origin of the Species" with the bible and insinuate that it is a text that "atheists" (i.e. everyone that doesn't agree with their exact take on biblical inerrancy) hold to be inerrant, holy and the subject of religious fervour. Or that "atheists" hold Darwin to be some sort of messiah, and ascribe that view to belief and faith. This then allows them to knock down their hastily erected straw man by saying "my religion is as valid as yours". It's not only an invalid argument, it's intellectually dishonest, as is the entire ID movement.
That the NYT thinks this is really the case is shocking.
Darwin was a smart guy. He wasn't *the* smart guy, and in fact some others around his time were starting to explore similar ideas. A lot has happened since then, some of his work has been extended, some parts contradicted or corrected.
Re:neodarwinism (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought that "Darwinism" was a term thought up by the religious anti-evolution side.
Ideas are easier to attack when they can be pinned to a particular individual, and the attacks made ad hominem. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's a tactic most often used by conservatives. For example, I find it difficult to discuss global warming with conservatives without veering into a debate on the merits of Al Gore and whether he invented the Internet. Similarly, debates on other matters have been "settled" with assertions that Michael Moore is undeniably fat and doesn't dress nicely.
You'll start hearing about "Newtonism" and "Einsteinism" the moment that some conservative (most likely religious) constituency realizes that modern physics challenges their worldview every bit as much as evolutionary biology. After all, Relativity is only a theory, and why should anyone listen to a guy who can't comb his hair properly?
But don't listen to me - I didn't shave today...
Re:neodarwinism (Score:5, Insightful)
but what hope do people have who REFUSE to believe in ANY higher power?
Hope for what? Life after death? Why do you need "hope" in *anything*? What's going to happen is going to happen, regardless of what you believe. And what's going to happen is that you wink out of existence when you die.
This is what I don't understand. How is it better to believe in a lie that you know isn't true?
[I'm fairly convinced that all religious people know, in their deepest, darkest, secret place that most will never admit, they know that the God and the bible is a bunch of nonsense. But the idea frightens them to their core.]
Re:neodarwinism (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not very scientific. It may follow logically that consciousness ends at death, but if you're going to be totally honest, you can neither prove nor disprove that there is life after death, because human consciousness post-death is not observable (and therefore not reportable).
Of course nothing about life after death is "provable", but then, nothing about the physical universe is provable either, except your own existence (your senses could be lying to you). At some point, we have to fall back on Occaam's Razor [wikipedia.org], which tells us that, all else being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the "best". And all the major religions of the world have absolutely no evidence for them. So if they're all equally likely, then the best conclusion is that they are equally false.
The simplest explanation is that life is exactly as it appears to be: a very, very complex self-reproducing chemical reaction that is powered by the sun. THAT is the simplest explanation that fits the facts that we have.
Re:neodarwinism (Score:4, Funny)
I used to think the brain was the most amazing organ in the body... and then I realized what was telling me that. -Emo Philips
Re:neodarwinism (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the other part is that scientists use Darwinian, not Darwinism. This is like Einsteinian and Newtonian in physics. Nobody kvetches about those. I have yet to hear an evolutionary scientist mention Darwinism when discussing the topic.
Neosuperstitionism or intellectual terrorism? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be a pity if we had to purge the name "Charles Darwin" from the history of science in order to satisfy some religious fanatics who simply refuse to live in a world where not everyone shares their superstitious beliefs. That they would insinuate themselves at all in the world of Reason is outrageous. How many advances in biology and medicine have been delayed because of researchers' fear of these medieval god-botherers getting all up in their beeswax?
I'm starting the countdown until we tell all th
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, other, bigger scale "experiments" over evolution have been made and passed: astronomers at the time rejected the idea of evolution because the earth couldn't possibly have been around for long enough to allow the process to take as long as suggested. Of course, that statement was based on the idea that the sun was a ball of fire (ie, combustion) and there wasn't enough fuel in there to make the fire burn that long. When the two scientific theories were put against each other, astronomy lost: they eventually figured out that stars work with nuclear processes and, therefore, last that much longer.
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:5, Informative)
...they eventually figured out that stars work with nuclear processes...
There is also the fact that the sun's mass is not enough to gravitationally oppose the huge outward pressures generated by a thermonuclear reaction at the needed temperatures. Gravity is simply too weak to overcome the strong nuclear and electrical forces that would have to be present in such a thermonuclear reaction furnace.
What? Balancing the pressure equation of state is how we numerically predict the structure of the Sun in the first place. Where did you hear that?
Then there is the missing neutrino problem. From thermonuclear fusion experiments and bombs, we know what the production rate of associated neutrinos should be for the sun IF it were indeed powered by fusion, as theorized. However, the actual neutrino flux from the sun is only a tiny fraction of what should be measured if fusion were the energy source of the sun. At this point scientists really are back to square one in determining the power source of the sun and similar sized stars.
This was a problem before 10 or so years ago, though (a) the solution was guessed at 30 years ago, and (b) it's not a "tiny" fraction, it was about a third. Neutrinos change species. There is no more mystery
There is also radar evidence that the sun is not a big gas ball, but actually has a solid iron core, similar to the earth, surrounded by an atmosphere of seething plasma kept hot by an as yet unknown external electrical power grid, in the same way as a metal arc lamp here on earth. There is some evidence that the sun, along with other stars in the spiral arms of our galaxy, is part of a galactic scale electrical power distribution system powered from the center of our galaxy.
A solid iron core??? Where are you getting this stuff? The central density is around 15 times higher than iron! Chemical reactions cannot power the Sun at its current luminosity for billions of years. Can I recommend to you a nice introductory astronomy (science) book?
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:4, Funny)
By pure extrapolation slashdotters _will_ be able to live on pizzas and coke in approximately:
25 years/generation * 40000 generations = 1 million years. Assuming of course that slashdotters reproduce.
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.transitional-fossil.com/ [transitional-fossil.com]
now fuck off
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How to Falsify Intelligent Design (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a brilliant Doonesbury on this irony a few years ago. A doctor discovers his patient has drug resistant TB, and asks him if he is a creationist (knowing the answer in advance, presumably from previous discussion). The patient says, "Why yes, I am. Why do you ask?" The Doctor replies:
It gets even funnier from there.
People who want to "believe" superstitious whatnot can certainly do so, but when they insist we teach this in schools, society should revoke their rights to use the fruits of science to sustain their standard of living, until they evolve their thinking. (That prohibition to include guns, which would remain strictly under the control of those who do not believe in armageddon or any other such garbage.)
They can have access to educational materials, but they really need to get back in touch with their superstitious roots, which include praying all winter for warmer weather, as structural engineering requires a scientific understanding of the world which is in conflict with their belief in a benevolent god who magically provides them with whatever they need.
Northern climates are effective at demonstrating that god (for lack of a better term) is ambivalent. Let's set aside a portion of a national forest where they can evolve their belief in science from first principles, like making fire and skinning bears with stone knives.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
unfortunately i can't muster enough stamina to read all the statement form this AC, but if he whant an example of evolution he should read this
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html [newscientist.com]
an article about an evolution of a new genetic trait in bacteria, and it is a reproducible experiment!
that perhaps prove evolution?
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
http://talkingtotheists.blogspot.com/2008/05/story-thus-far-noted-youtube.html [blogspot.com]
Let's poke some holes in your argument though, even though I'm sure you won't be back, it may serve as an amusement for slashdotters and a deterrent for more of your ilk with their recycled arguments.
1)Your first argument that in order for a theory to be considered valid that it must be proven "not false" is patently untrue.
When a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific theory it is because all evidence to that point provides overwhelming support for the hypothesis. Redefining what science is not a justification for an argument, and invalidates most of your following reasoning. A theory is a theory not because experiments prove it "true" or even "not false", but because experiments have failed to prove it false.
2) If your blue watermelon example were a proper scientific hypothesis, it could be disproven, because a requirement of a scientific hypothesis is that it must be disprovable (and not necessarily provable). Add in your hypothesis of why it turns red when opened, and you have a true scientific, disprovable, hypothesis. (I'd open it under argon because if that were the case, rapid oxidation would most likely be the cause).
3) Quote:If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design.
A scientific hypothesis or experiment does NOT pose an ultimatum like this. Science is not an either/or endeavor. It is a pursuit of truth, with each experiment leaving a puzzle piece.
4) Quote:Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy)....since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.
I'm going to take a red car, and over the process of 10000 coats paint it slightly darker red each time. At the end,it will be black. I will then show you a picture of the original car. Will they look the same?
I also point you to the origin of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells. Any microbiologist or decent microbiology text will show that they were obtained, rather quickly, by endocytosis, and altered by the cell to work for it.
4) Quote:Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants
It is very convenient how you leave out bacteria, which have been proven over and over again to evolve on an observable timescale.
5) Quote:A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line
I won't even go into how uncouth it is to define your own terms in an argument. However, as evolution is a slow process (and you use it in your argument and thus cannot come back and say that you disagree), where would you draw the line of a "prototype"? The transition of species from a common ancestor is a gradient, not a series of steps.
6) My final argument.
Quote:If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias
That one statement says more than enough.If someone's logic trumps your own, you will cry "bias". Quite simply, that makes it "not false" that you are not a scientist.
- Sol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Find a fossil that doesn't fit the record. You show us a 200 million year old fossilized Koala..
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.
Carl Popper thoroughly dismantled that idea in his 1935 book "Logic der Forschung". You should try reading it; the English translation of the main text is quite accessible. Looking at the problems you have with logic you may struggle with some of the appendices, but they're not necessary for the main argument. It may help bring your thinking from the 19th to the 20th century. Incidentally, I am aware about the controversy in science regarding falsification, but it doesn't apply here -- I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claim that what Popper described isn't science (isn't to "be taken seriously"); the controversy is whether Popper's method is the only thing science is.
Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven
A perfect illustration of what the RA was saying. You think the claim that Darwin didn't do it is the same as the claim that it hasn't been done. You think work stopped on the subject 150 years ago.
As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true
That's not what you said before. What you said before was "if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true" (my emphasis), which is a completely different statement.
The whole issue of what is valid science and what isn't is a fascinating one, and you touch on some important issues, but you bury them in such sloppy logic it's no wonder you've been modded down. If you really care about this stuff -- and it seems you do -- then, seriously, take a philosophy 101 course where they'll teach you the basics of how to put an argument together (and how to take one apart.
For the moment, it might be worth a look at this article [talkorigins.org], which addresses some of the issues you raise and describes more current thinking on those issues (although it's a bit unfair to Popper: it claims that "One thing [Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos] thought in opposition to Popper - there was no point that could be ruled off as the dividing line between 'rational' science and 'non-rational' non-science." In fact, Popper argued the same thing: "My criterion of demarcation will accordingly have to be regarded as a proposal for an agreement or convention" (Carl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", Routledge Classics 2002, p15, author's emphasis) -- in other words Popper doesn't believe the dividing line to be absolute either).
Come back when you can discuss coherently the 21st century questions about the relationship between evolutionary theory and the scientific method, instead of the 19th century questions.
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Utter tosh, both the article and this comment. We refer to Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian space time so why not Darwinian Evolution. As for creationism, its just another religious ideology and you either fight its proponents to the death or you let them kill you. Politics is not civilized and grown up and we still settle political (read religious) differences with war. Darwinian evolution does not need proof in the terms offered by this post because it is a theory not a law. We use it because its predictions work. Find a better theory and we will adopt it, otherwise shut the F up.
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design.
Uh, no. There are other "theories" with just as much evidence as intelligent design.
For instance, there's my "poof" theory. In the "poof" theory, all of the life forms on earth "poofed" into place from another universe. Or universes. Doesn't matter. Anyway, my "poof" theory explains the variety of life on earth, because these alternate universes from which life is "poofing" have much more variety than Earth does. How come we don't see it happening now? We do, actually. Haven't you heard of unicorns? Not everything that poofs into place survives, and you don't always get a breeding pair, either.
What's that? Intelligent Design is better? Nope. We have exactly as much evidence for your Designer and your Designer's methods as we do for my "poof" theory. Sure, I can't show you my alternate universes, but you can's show me your Designer, His Workshop or anything else.
For that matter, there are plenty of other whackos out there who've got a theory with just about as much evidence as mine, such as Michael Cremo (author of "Forbidden Archaeology" and sort of a Hindu creationist), the late Fred Hoyle (panspermia), or Periannan Senapathy (author of "Independent Birth of Origins"). You have to show your Intelligent Design is better than them, too.
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:5, Funny)
Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.
Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?
Exactly!
My electronics theory professor theorized that electronic devices work by the flow of magic smoke. He then proved his theory by releasing the smoke from an electronic device and showing us it no longer worked.
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How to Falsify Evolution (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not just a straight copy paste, every time this is posted it's slightly different. After a few thousand posts, it may turn into a cogent argument!
That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, as the Brits say, bollocks.
The issue is that this ignorant view may be perpetuated in America. I have never heard anyone in Europe utter such crap.
Let us pray that Obama can wipe public references to deities into oblivion.
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
You beat me to it.
No-one in science calls themselves a Darwinist anyway, they'd say they were an evolutionary biologist. They do believe in natural selection obviously, since you can't make predictions (hence, do any science at all) from ID. I have appeared as co-author on a paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution, so I know whereof I speak.
OK, it wouldn't hurt to stop calling it Darwinism, in the same way that we don't talk about Feynmannism (QED), or Einsteinism (relativity). But that's just a name.
*Believing* isn't the correct verb (Score:5, Insightful)
They do believe in natural selection obviously, since you can't make predictions (hence, do any science at all) from ID.
From a strict technical, linguistic-nazi, point of view : they don't *believe in* natural selection, they *believe that natural selection is an useful model they can use*.
Usually the phrase *believe in* implies some form of faith.
Whereas scientist *just pick up* a model they consider the best for the situation, based on how much usable it is for making accurate predictions.
No faith required.
But apart from the nit-picking about words, I agree with you : ID is useless because its principle simply contradict the way science work - it's not a model you can use to make any useful prediction at all.
Sometimes deprecated model are used because they are accurate enough in a simpler subset of problems : Newton's physic is simpler to use than Einstein's, yet still good enough at low energy/speed/mass.
In the case of evolution and natural selection, the model is currently still the best one, considering the tons of additional material that has been added to it.
And considering the fact that each time a completely brand new branch of biology appears (like genetics), the data produced results still in accordance to what would expect when using the evolution and natural selection models.
Currently that's the best model we have and a better one has yet to come.
ID is no possible contender, as its fundamental principle aren't scientific : scientific model are made to be used to make prediction, and to model the world in order to understand it better. ID tells us that everything is done on the will of some higher being (and thus nothing could be predicted) and some things are just too complex to be explainable (and thus you can't model the world).
Re:*Believing* isn't the correct verb (Score:5, Insightful)
This is utter rubbish. The people running the Large Hadron Collider believe that hadrons really exist as actual tangible particles rather than mere mathematical models and really collide inside the collider (or would if the darn thing worked). The astronomers believe that there really was an Earth-shattering kaboom at the beginning. And biologists believe that species really evolved from slime sitting on ocean waves to slime sitting on corporate boards.
There's a difference between healthy scepticism and insane paranoia. Confusing the two and implying the latter is some kind of scientific ideal will do nothing but make the general populace see scientists as lunatics. And making patently absurd claims like "no faith required" - Really? Then how do you build those models if you have no faith in logic or your observations? - might make for nice soundbites but will make you sound like an arrogant megalomaniac as soon as someone starts analyzing them a little deeper.
The basic problem seems to be that "faith" has become associated with religion, despite being a necessary and unavoidable component of everything a non-omniscient being does, and religion has for whatever reason been painted as the antithesis of science, from which a conclusion that they can't have anything in common has been drawn. Consequently, some people feel the need to defend the "purity" of science against such horrible accusations as scientists having faith; in extreme cases not even religious faith but faith in anything, even the reality of whatever they're examining. This whole thing is slowly but surely becoming a farce.
Re:*Believing* isn't the correct verb (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists don't believe in evolution, they see it confirmed over and over again, so accept it as a very good theory. Therefore religion is not an alternative for evolution, it's a whole different game.
Nobody will oppose that "there are particles", but what a particle actually is, no one can really say.
I work in quantum physics, and to me, an electron is just a bunch of so-called quantum numbers, such as mass, electric charge etc.
Logical fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)
You are equivocating on the word faith. This is a common error, please don't perpetuate it.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/equivocation.html [logicalfallacies.info]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Friend1: Do you believe in god?
Me: Yep.
Friend: Do you think the devil is real?
Me: Yeah, I believe in the devil.
Friend2: You believe in the devil?!
Me: Yeah, it's in the bible...
Friend1: You can't believe in god AND the devil!
Me: What?
Friend2: You just said you believed in the devil!
And unfortunately, this fucking "believe in" vaguery (if that's a word) nonsense still means something to people.
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:4, Insightful)
And in TFA "Using phrases like 'Darwinian selection' or 'Darwinian evolution' implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective."
However, there are and were other theories of evolution. Aside from "Intelligent Design", there was also "Lamarckism". Probably others. So "Darwinism" is a useful adjective to mean "the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Change your name to Mr Fuckwit. It won't change who you are.
It will however change how people receive you, how they think about you and, in all likely hood, your chances of success in life.
This isn't about changing what evolution is, it's about framing it in a way that gives a more correct impression of what it is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then listen better. Even here in Europe there's people spewing this crap.
At the moment, here in the Netherlands there's a huge discussion going on on Dutch TV between a broadcasting organization (EO, Evangelical Broadcasting org, lit.) and 'the rest'
Though a lot of the people even working for said EO are quite intelligent and don't spew crap at all, quite a few (chaired by their former director) are even MORE insane than the US creationists like Kent Hovind and the people from Answers in Genesis
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Having said that, the EO is a broadcasting corporation many people actively laugh at in The Netherlands. 44% of our population is a registered atheist and I can't remember the last time anyone dragged god into political discourse on particular topics. Granted, the largest political party is the Christian Democrats' party, but at the end of the day I would say that the people who claim Evolution doesn't exist are either too old for their own good or a part of a small, small minority.
THe ugly truth is, though
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:5, Informative)
That might be because the USA is one of the largest Protestant-majority countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_by_country). Catholics (and most of the groups which split from them prior to the Protestant Reformation) aren't fundamentalists. i.e. they don't take the Bible literally, seeing Genesis as symbolic rather than historical. This enables them to reconcile evolution (and other scientific principles) with their faith.
This also demonstrates that it is possible to be both religious and scientific.
DISCLAIMER: IAAC (I am a Catholic).
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:4, Insightful)
That might be because the USA is one of the largest Protestant-majority countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_by_country). Catholics (and most of the groups which split from them prior to the Protestant Reformation) aren't fundamentalists. i.e. they don't take the Bible literally, seeing Genesis as symbolic rather than historical. This enables them to reconcile evolution (and other scientific principles) with their faith. This also demonstrates that it is possible to be both religious and scientific.
In reality, that is a rather new development for the Catholic faith, who spent centuries killing anyone they could who spouted heresy related to non-strict interpretations of the Bible, or who attempted to print their own versions. If anything, they simply had the experience of more centuries of having science prove them wrong, and decided to get ahead of the curve.
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:5, Informative)
Allow me to acquaint you with Pete Stark (D-CA-13). He's been openly out as an atheist since January 2007. In addition to Stark, there are ten other current members of Congress who decline to list their religion, opening the possibility that some of them are, at least, closet atheists/agnostics.
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want a place that's less gay-friendly and less atheist-friendly, that's the day you'll become an IRANIAN, you idiot, not Canadian.
Why the hell would Canada want you?? Why the hell do you think it would be a better place for you than America?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gays queer the place up and atheists are bitter angry people.
More irony, you sound bitter and angry, already.
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:4, Informative)
is not true. Nowhere in the oath of office is any god mentioned. Nearly all presidents have added a "so help me god" to the end of the oath, but it is not in the Constitution. Most presidents have sworn the oath on a Bible, but not all. Franklin Pierce, in addition to not using a Bible, didn't swear the oath, either -- he affirmed it. If you are suggesting that the president "has" to swear to god at the inauguration in the same way that he "has" to be religious to be elected, then I am with you, but your phrasing indicates that the swearing to god is more prescribed than that.
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:4, Insightful)
As an American I have never heard anyone in the US call themselves a "a Darwinist" so I don't see what your point proves.
As for the wipe public references to deities into oblivion, why bother? I think it would be better if the world at large stopped trying to feel better about themselves because they are "right". Forcing science on someone for no reason isn't any better than forcing religion on someone imo.
If you want to believe in creationism, go crazy. I don't care. You are free to have that opinion. If you want to accept evolution, likewise, have a field day. I, again, don't care about your personal thoughts. It has no impact on me and you are free to disagree with my own.
What does impact me is the annoying ongoing battle, with minimal relevance to society as a whole, is this idea that 'everyone must think what I think'. It is stupid, let it go. I mean if people are breaking the law with violence or forcing ideas on someone then sure, go after them for that. Otherwise? Let people think what they want on issues of religion vs science. Fighting that battle is just an exhaustive waste for no fathomable reason that has yet to ever achieve any measurable goal. Trying to do so again for the 100,000,000th time is unlikely to change that outcome.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's bollocks because if it wasn't an "ism" Creationists would still find something official sounding.
Looking at Scientology, it's a play on Science and the various "ology" fields out there- phsycology, sociology etc. when the reality is it has nothing to do with either. Should we all stop calling Science Science because it's giving Scientology an air of being an authentic set of ideas?
These movements play on this for a reason and a sudden change of wording isn't going to vanish their ability to come up wit
Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism
No one talks about "Darwinism" except the creationists. The reasons he gives are exactly the reasons they invented the term - it's far easier to discredit a dead guy from 100 years ago than it is a scientific concept.
By making it seem like the work of one man with millions of blind followers it appears more fallible.
Their tactics are pretty ironic really.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The issue is that this ignorant view may be perpetuated in America. I have never heard anyone in Europe utter such crap.
You've obviously never lived in Europe.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Swiss_drag_knuckles_accepting_evolution.html?siteSect=201&sid=7141596&cKey=1160562740000&ty=st [swissinfo.ch]
Ignorance is not solely an American problem; it's simply our prevalence on the world stage that leads you to believe that. Living in Europe for the last 3 years, I've found it's not particularly different here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The evidence for Homeopathy and Vaccine caused Autism are not any better than the "evidence" for ID put forward by the nutjobs here in the US. There is a whole soap opera going on right now concerning the Science blog "Bad Science" by Brian G
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let us pray that Obama can wipe public references to deities into oblivion.
There isn't a chance in hell your prayers will be answered because a) there is no god b) Barak Obama isn't him either, and c) Obama panders to the religious nonsense more than most presidents we have had with the possible exception of George W, but Obama has only been in 3 weeks. Give him time and he will beat Bush.
Re:That is, as the Brits say, bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond that: no science can't disprove the existence of god. But science also can't disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns and no one seem to go into a tiffy when some one says those don't exist. For almost everything else the burden is on the person saying something exists.
Bull. Did Newton have to die for Einstein? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of pandering to the ill-educated buffoons who want to drag civilisation kicking and screaming back into the dark ages.
Darwin wasn't utterly and completely right first time out of the bag. So what?
His discoveries have been validated, refined, added-to, improved in ways he could never have predicted.
Again, so what?
Darwin laid the bedrock, the foundation, upon which stands much of modern science, let alone biology.
And until you can give me a reason why we should metaphorically bury the giants upon who's shoulders we collectively stand, I will resist this utterly foolish idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the reason, quite rightly, is this: "We don't call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism." The theory of biological evolution has changed since Darwin introduced it.
To continue to label modern evolutionary theory as 'Darwinism' walks into a creationist trap to paint evolution as some sort of
Re:Bull. Did Newton have to die for Einstein? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism.
And we don't call evolution "Darwinism". It seems only the creationists do that, and they are deliberately obfuscating matters anyway.
However we DO call Newtonian Dynamics by its name, and rightly so. "Darwinian evolution" also has it's place, even if it has been supplanted in our understanding.
What I object to is changing the terminology to suit the prejudices of ignorant people, when they will neither appreciate the gesture nor cease their complaints.
If we were to start modifying any language, (which we shouldn't) a better place to start would be the word "theory" which seems to come under perpetual attack by virtue of the fact that its scientific meaning differs from its everyday meaning. Yet another distinction creationists are all too willing to overlook and exploit for their benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, to pretend that scientists refer to evolutionary theory as "Darwinism" is walking into the creationist trap, since (in my experience, at least) only creationists refer to it that way. Scientists refer to evolution as, well, evolution.
Re:Bull. Did Newton have to die for Einstein? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd suggest that by using the term "Darwinism" they are exactly the people you are pandering to.
By using the term "Darwinism" you link the scientific idea to its originator. We do this for many other phenomena that require words for description. We say "Mendelian" genetics/inheritance, "Newtonian" mechanics, "Darwinian" evolution, "Cartesian" space. The presence of an "ism" at the end is little more than a verbal twist. If you look up "Darwinism" in the dictionary, it mentions "theory". A theory, like a hypothesis, is a conceptual framework to test systematically by experiment. One such experiment might be to C14 date a fossil. This type of experimentation is not applicable to creationism, so creationism is not a science. It is religion.
To be perfectly symmetrical with "creationism", we would have to say "evolutionism", which connotes a system of belief. To actually acknowledge creationism as an opposing "theory" is pandering. Even worse than acknowledging creationism through argumentation is modifying our perfectly good vocabulary for describing scientific theories.
Last time I checked (Score:3, Insightful)
Newtonian physics/mechanics is in common usage and although there's no 'Einstienian", there is the term 'relativistic' applied to the branch of physics he's most famous for
What ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people who go on and on ad nauseum about "Darwinism", as if it were the be-all and end-all of Evolutionary Theory, are the Creationists.
The reason no-one talks about "Newtonism" or "Eisteinism" is because neither of those things threaten the basis behind the belief systems of a significant chunk of the planet (and therefore the power weilded by the people behind them). Why waste time attacking something you couldn't care less about ?
Re:What ? (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS! A hundred time THIS!
And let me add that in my experience, 99% of all people who calls the scientific theory of evolution for "Darwinism" is from the US, just like a large majority of the hardline creationists...
The rest of the western world seems happy enought to accept that the theory of evolution fits the known facts and is a valid scientific theory, just as they accept that religion - while nice - has naught to do in science class.
Blame the US education system I guess...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As I said in another post elsewhere it's irrelevant anyway. If we didn't have Darwinism we'd get creationists calling it something like "Creation Theory" to give it an air of undeserved authenticity.
They'll always find something to twist to suit their goals.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely.
Another reason creationists refer to Darwinism is that it sets them up for an Ad Hominum attack.
Darwin was a slightly flawed individual, living as he was in a time when social values were "Victorian". He would naturally had a view of the world that was somewhat tainted by a patriarchal society that was imperial, sexist and racist. And creationists are often found to be using this as evidence against his theories.
As well as this, the writing of his time, even scientific writing, was colourful an
do scientists actually call it Darwinism? (Score:5, Insightful)
I could be hanging out with the wrong scientists, but I rarely hear anyone describe what they work on as "Darwinism". There are "evolutionary biologists", who research evolution, not Darwinism. The well-accepted name for the process is evolution, and as far as I can tell nobody calls the idea Darwinism, though Darwin is widely credited as having had an important early role in its development.
We do actually speak of Newtonian mechanics, for what it's worth. Probably more than anyone in science actually speaks of Darwinian evolution. So we've sort of already done what this guy is asking for, it seems?
Re:do scientists actually call it Darwinism? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've only ever heard evolution described as evolution. The only people I've heard talking about 'Darwinism' are:
-Scientists talking about the historical theory
-Creationists
-The occasional truly ignorant journalist.
I beg your pardon? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, from TFA:
"Using phrases like "Darwinian selection" or "Darwinian evolution" implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective. For instance, "Newtonian physics" distinguishes the mechanical physics Newton explored from subatomic quantum physics. So "Darwinian evolution" raises a question: What's the other evolution?
Into the breach: intelligent design."
Of course. This is just as it should be. Intelligent design is a powerful source of evolution. Or how does the writer think Airbuses emerged from the Wright brothers' prototype? The passage I just quoted implies that there is no legitimate evolution that is not Darwinian. This is plain silly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure we're talking about biology here, not aeronautical engineering.
What it implies is that there isn't a distinct alternative to "Darwinian evolution". Evolution as it's understood today is an improvement on Evolution as posited by Darwin rather than a distinct theory (as in the Newtonian/Quantum example).
Re:I beg your pardon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Good call.
To have evolution you need to have phenotypic variation in a population, variation in fitness for different phenotypes, and some degree of heritability for different phenotypes. Aeronautical engineering has two of these things, but does not reproduce, therefore it is not evolution.
However, there is an "alternative" to natural selection [defined as animals get better adapted to their environment across generations].
This alternative is artificial selection, or selective breeding. Rather than letting nature pick the best phenotypes to reproduce, we select characteristics that we like (they may not have a high fitness in the wild) and breed them. That's still considered evolution, just not Darwinian selection. It's about as close to ID as you're going to get until we can make designer bacteria.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Semantics (Score:5, Funny)
This is an issue of semantics, and of marketing strategy. A rose by any other name ... still evolved from its Rosoideae anscestors in the wild fields of Asia.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people who use "Darwinism" to mean "theory of evolution" are creationists.
Education must improve rather. (Score:3, Insightful)
That 'Darwinism' must die so people can understand evolution? That's just bollocks.
Education must simply improve, and ignorance should never be tolerated.
Changing the name of something to make it palpable (Score:5, Funny)
Doh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really sorry anyone is comparing any scientific idea to "Creationism" or the current flavor of the month "Intelligent Design" which from every angle I can see is neither. Evolution as a general study covers everything from punctuated equilibrium, to impact of ionizing radiation on nucleotides. There must be dozens, maybe hundreds of different disciplines, technologies, framed of reference, scientific venues, and interrelated studies. This would be like comparing a sequoia to a blade of astro-turf, and arguing they are equal because they are both green.
Creationism is a belief system in search of evidence to justify it's validity. This someone opening a box of puzzle pieces, cutting all the none conforming bits off the pieces, and forcing them into some semblance of a presupposed picture. In short this is a mental illness. It is someone who places more importance in the way they want things to be, than the way they in fact are. This is magical thinking. Most human beings develop beyond this level of function at about the age of 10. It is no more ludicrous than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
The nature of science is you have an idea. You test it against the world. If the data doesn't match the theory, the theory is wrong, and you need to rethink it. No handpicking data to match your theory. Scientist who do that are called frauds, and lose the respect and recognition of their peers almost instantly. This isn't to say that there isn't belief, politics, and hubris among scientists. It's hard to ignore human foibles, but at least one can account for them. Magical thinking doesn't even try. Those same foibles are point and purpose to magical thinking, and any truth that happens there is purely coincidental.
Re: (Score:3)
DNA (which wasn't known at the time that Darwin THEORIZED that something like it must exist) is a FACT.
Given DNA (and natural variation, which goes hand-in-hand with sexual reproduction and a number of other variety-producing mechanisms) you're going to have each generation being similar to, but slightly different from, the preceding one.
One might as well stop there and realize that the discovery of DNA equals the FACT of evolution, but for any creationist numskulls who can't take it the final step, let's n
Dumb idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Allow me just a few points. BTW I am an evolutionary biologist. Carl Safina, with all due respect, is not.
First, let's get one thing straight that the author of the article confuses. "Evolution" is the observation that all living things seem to be related, plus the observation of the change of the living world in time. This observations are older than Darwin. "Theory of evolution" is any theory that tries to explain this observation. "Neodarwinism" or "Synthetic Theory of Evolution" is one particular theory that involves the mechanism called "natural selection". Natural selection is a mechanism that can be observed. Darwin's greatness was in linking this mechanism to the rise and change in complexity of all living things, and in the ability to foresee the consequences that only recently started being fully understood.
1) "Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries"
First, nowadays formally we use the terms "neodarwinism" or "synthetic theory of evolution". "Darwinism" is most often used in certain popular (non-scientific) texts, and also by creationists.
2) "Using phrases like Darwinian selection or Darwinian evolution implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective."
Well, of course, as any of my students would immediately ask "what about lamarckian evolution?" (an alternative explanation for the process of evolution, largely rejected or falsified by observations)
3) "And isms (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science."
Yeah, right, like electromagnetism, empiricism or autism.
4) "What Darwin had to say about evolution basically begins and ends right there."
If this only was so simple. Darwin, as I mentioned before, not only proposed natural selection as an important mechanism of evolution, but also was able to point out the consequences, ranging from kin selection to the role of sexual reproduction.
5) Do you really believe that creationists would less fiercely attack a "synthetic theory of evolution"? The problem is much, much deeper than just an association or a given name.
Cheers,
j.
Thomas Kuhn would sigh in relief (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of the classic vulgar misreading of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which this and that scientific principle is "just a theory" ("So why can't I call creationism _my_ theory?"), this is what he was writing about -- periodically changing the paradigm of thought to one that melds better with the sum of current observations. In short, a good idea that is more about the culture of science surrounding evolution.
It's Evolution, Baby! (Score:3, Interesting)
However at least the Catholic church isn't dismissing the idea's, which is a long way from the outright attacks made by more fundamentalist churches. The thing about this debate is that while fundamental theist's attack science and the theory of evolution using doubt, no counter-argument is made that has any impact on the faith of proponents of Intelligent Design.
Science and Religion are different bodies of knowledge, but not mutually exclusive because both use reason as a tool for different goals. There are scientific people who are religious and religious people who are scientific. Making a science based argument about the ignorance of Intelligent Design to someone who has a predominately religious background make both sides dig their heals in. That's why this debate has become so polarised.
I've found that having an understanding of the doctrine that supports scientific investigation and framing that discussion so that it attacks the underpinnings of Intelligent Design an important tool. Building and demonstrating an understanding of the theocratic aspects of this debate is an important tool to disarming the proponents of Intelligent Design and helping them understand why science is important to their faith.
A scientific argument explaining the shortcomings of Intelligent Design to a religious person really just reveals their ignorance of science and, as such, they feel ignorant of science but it's not important to them.
A theocratic argument explaining the shortcomings of Intelligent Design to a religious person reveals the shortcomings of Intelligent Design when compared to the discoveries made by a study of Evolution.
When confronted with one of these discussions I point out that Intelligent Design limits how far humanity explores nature, or in theocratic terms "the works of God". I go on to point out that there is nothing in the Theory of evolution that attacks Christian beliefs but, in fact, uses science as a tool to uncover the amazing wonder of how nature works, or in theocratic terms "the glory of God".
It's at this point that proponents of Intelligent Design start to join the dots for themselves. The insecurity they feel about Darwin's idea's attacking their belief system give way to the possibility that Intelligent Design could actually be a form of blasphemy, something that is important to a religious person.
I think it's important to frame the debate this way because the Intelligent Design position cleverly deceives religious people into accepting ignorance over education and promotes the notion that science aims to dispel religion. Science and Religion have to co-exist in society if we are to dispel ignorance and fundamentalism.
Re:It's Evolution, Baby! (Score:4, Insightful)
Science and Religion are different bodies of knowledge, but not mutually exclusive
That's a politically correct lie used to avoid alienating religious folk (maybe even to avoid the cognitive dissonance of alientating yourself if you're a religious pseudo-scientist!).
The fact is that science and religion really are, in at least one very core area, mutually exclusive.
If something happens then it's either happening according to the laws of nature or it's not (maybe it's happening due to the intervention of god, or the flying spaghetti monster). It can't be both. Given that scientists believe that the laws of nature (as revealed by the scientific method) govern EVERYTHING that happens (with major reason - there's never, by definition, been any exception to any scientifically accepted theory), it means that science is incompatible with any notion of god other than a totally impotent one that can have no influence on your life, or anything else.
So, science may be compatible with going to church, living the ten commandments, or whatever else you like to do, but it's not compatible with belief in a god that has any power in any domain covered by a scientific theory.
Re:He didn't propose a "theory" in the strict sens (Score:5, Insightful)
Darwin didn't have a true theory because the idea he had had no predictive power and little explanatory power, therefore was inherently untestable and not able to be used to answer questions. He wasn't aware of DNA, genes or chromosomes.
Arguably his hypotheseses were quite testable - just not by the science and technology of the time.
Also, not understanding the underlying mechanics of a system does not automatically invalidate a theory explaining them. Exhibit A: Gravity.
Actually, strictly speaking it wasn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it _still_ isn't testable, since it has idiocies like "sexual selection" tacked on to it as a catch-all for everything it couldn't actually explain. (Why did the peacock evolve such a big and handicapping tail? Hur-hur-hur, to impress women, Beavis.)
The problem is that no matter how you slice it, it proposes that an organism can also evolve towards _less_ fit, i.e., that sometimes natural selection works against the logical direction or in some random direction. You can't falsify something with su
Re:Actually, strictly speaking it wasn't (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to agree with you. Whatever else is scientific about the theory of evolution, in the matters you discussed, it is not. I have made the same criticism myself, though obviously not in the academy.
I don't think you responsed to the mainstream explanation for peacock's tails though (taken from the Wikipedia "Handicap principle" article): The large tail is a signaling mechanism. It says, "look, I can survive ... even with this big tail dragging me down". Thus, what the peacock loses in agility, it gains in being able to send accurate fitness signals and thus weed out those with less robust survival mechanism.
This explanation has been applied to human contexts, like bungie jumping, dangerous jobs, and the "Ghetto caddy": basically, despite their danger, they give the appearance of being able to survive against overwhelming odds, which serves as a fitness signal, and thus women would be evolved to be attracted to it. Supposedly, this is also why holding your hands up in front of you (ready to defend) makes women uneasy.
But where I basically agree with you is that, in proposing such an explanation, you destroy the explanatory power of evolution. The handicap principle allows you to "explain" literally any feature: either it helps the organism survive, or it helps the organism signal how it can survive even when burdened. This permits anything, so it explains nothing.
Re:Maybe I didn't explain it well enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, that makes more sense then. However, I'm not sure that the standard view of sexual selection is that the feathers are a disadvantage that just happen to impress females. As you said, if the tail was a disadvantage that would seem absurd.
What do you think is wrong with the more likely scenario that the tail is neutral to survival, while at the same time being preferred by females thus giving the male a reproductive advantage. I don't know what the peafowl's habitat is like, but the somewhat awkward creature could thrive due to a lack of natural predators. After all, the tail doesn't prevent the bird from flying, and flying is always a strong defense. The females preference could also have a logical basis since individuals that are healthy and well-fed would be better able to produce an extravagant tail.
It's also possible that the tail could have multiple purposes. It could have one of the survival advantages as you outlined so well above as well as the reproductive advantage from sexual selection. There's no reason it has to be only one or the other, is there?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm _not_ against darwinism or natural selection. I'm just against the "sexual selection" cludge. That's all. Remove that kludge, and I'm perfectly content with Darwinism.
It's not a "kludge". Some traits will, almost certainly, propagate solely due to them making the organism more attractive to a mate. Indeed, given that successful reproduction is the ultimate expression of "fitness", one would assume that traits existing solely for 'sexual selection' would be quite common.
Re:He didn't propose a "theory" in the strict sens (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I sit here in a cafe (Score:5, Funny)
You sure live up to your name.
Re:I sit here in a cafe (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The problem with darwinism.... (Score:4, Informative)
Although admittedly, it may be a flaw that we can learn to live with, is that it fails to answer the following: what happened, exactly, that caused non-replicating molecules to become replicating, and equally importantly, what caused large collections of such molecules in a single thing to progress from having a non-living state to being a living organism?
I find it somewhat ironic that we appear to understand and know more about the origins of the universe than we do about the existence of life on this planet.
The evidence for the origin of life on earth, whatever it may be, is a lot more fragile than the evidence for the origin of the universe. A couple billion years of geology and life destroyed most of the evidence. Some of it's still there, but the vast majority of it is gone forever.
I'd like to stress, though, that evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life. The first life could have formed from chemicals in the early earth's oceans, been created by the Designer, left here by aliens, or drifted in on a comet. Doesn't matter. Evolution can't happen until life can replicate itself. It would certainly be nice to know how life came about, but it's not relevant to evolution.