I found it a bit surprising that the RCC now accepts Darwinian evolution (with a few ...quirks), and has for a few years. The vatican astronomer (or former), George Coyne, I believe, has taken on creationists and the "intelligent Design" movement (I've read that the Pope ..may have given him early retirement for his comments). Alas we have too few Coynes, and far too many dogmatic creationists (most WASP-fundamentalist sorts--the Moses walked with pterodactyls gang).
the RCC never took a stance for or against darwin until JPII stated that he believes it is much more than a hypothesis ( i think he said this in order to cultivate some positive feeling amongst the godless world of modern science) he further stated that he saw it as one theory amongst many theories and he felt it should not be used as evidence against revelation in scripture...he did warn at a later date that some people then interpreted that to mean it could have the status of dogma (stephen Jay gould said as much) but he insisted that he never stated that he agreed with it to any degree other than to acknowledge it as a useful tool for scientific exploration
i've met george coyne he is a very intelligent bloke he is commited to making science amongst catholics an essential part of the FAITH AND REASON stance
what seems to be lacking in evolutionary theory are facts - in fact no one has ever observed it - yet it tends to take on the empirical quality of inarguable fact and scientists bandy it about like this is the way it happened
i for one am not sure i tend to think the natural world is far more complicated and subtle than the average darwinian is willing to admit
the biologists refuse any argument from philosophy that questions the theory at the level of actual fact
for instance the argument from irreducible complexity upon which the whole scheme seems to fall to pieces
danielou refers to all the major reductionist tendencies from freud to marx to darwin which presume to put forth coherent systems of thought and people lap it up like the newest irrefutable truth
a similar argument is made by mary midgely a great british thinker
Darwinism may be misused. Then so is religious dogma. The fossil record itself offers evidence of evolution, tho' jh. Horse fossils/skeletons for instance show..descent with modifications.
Ive read a bit about "the argument from irreducible complexity," or intelligent design as they say. Students should be exposed to it, but I don't think it should replace the normal biology-courses--it's more philosophical than strictly scientific. The somewhat obvious problem I have with Design arguments is that...any Creator of forests or humans or hummingbirds also designed...the black plague, insects, sharks, etc. Or is that...creators...It's quite a grand speculation. Darwin himself thought of Design a few times, IIRC--looking at a sheep's eye, wondering how it come about ex nihilo.
Freud was mostly in error. Marx on the other hand was a different thing...ideological and historical (ala his mentor Hegel), not really empirical science (tho naive marxists took it as such). I'm not a marxist but there are some...marxist insights that still should be considered,IMHE-- the absurdities of capitalism for one. Marx himself was not too fond of Darwinism used as an ideology.
the fossil record is miniscule when compared to the possible complexity of life forms it is a mere small piece of an immense puzzle we've yet to imagine we can know
people take solace in darwin but i maintain that his is an imagined model into which biological science has put just about everything - it is an epistemological scam - i don't care how well it works - the social experiments in eugenics and ethnic cleansing should be proof enough of that - but we rarely learn from history
e.o. wilson offers some hope but i think he's a bit deluded too - he thinks evolution is the essential myth epic of modern man and everyone should just hop on board - he makes the claim that evolution theory will outlast theology but religion will continue i guess with people like him being the high priests - he's obviously read very little by way of theology
i don't argue against the theory of evolution from a biblical standpoint i argue against it from a human empirical standpoint - it's never been proven - o yeah the evidence is there but it's never been observed it remains largely speculative even with the so called "evidence" and yet everyone talks about it like it's a fact -it's an epistemological problem above all
marx has some attraction i like the guy i think i would've liked him had i met him yet i have read that when it came to actually hearing the plight of workers he was a boor- he thought them stupid-he liked his ideas and thought he could upturn the system to something more fair something more universally just ---by contrast you might google catholic social teaching
i think there's something extremely incoherent about all of these thinkers
they never had to measure their thought against any other system but they became the flag and colors of social programming and to a large extent still are--- i for one i'm agin it all of it
With the greatest respect, I disagree with much of what you've written in this thread regarding evolution.
In the first case, no scientific theory can every be proven. That's not the way science works. Instead, scientists consider various hypotheses for explaining phenomenon, and they discard those that either yield consistently incorrect predictions along with those that fail to generate any predictions at all.
And there is considerable observational evidence for evolution. Darwin begins by considering pigeon breeding (!). The point to this is that life is much more plastic than we ordinarily assume. Pigeon breeders can and have, in a few generation, produced breeds that differ substantially from their stock. The same is so with respect to any domestic animal -- dogs, cattle, etc. These changes of form can be given an evolutionary interpretation: animals that have desireable characteristics (as determined by the breeder) pass those characteristics off to their descendants, where they become fixed. The point here is that the breeder, rather than raw nature, determines fitness, a point that evolution is neutral on. But even in nature, changes in environment have resulted in observable changes in morphology, the peppered moth being a celebrated example.
The great point to evolution is that it make biology comprehensible as a discipline. Without evolution, biology becomes a grab-bag of facts. Evolution is a concise and plausible hypothesis that adds structure to those facts, facilitating the formation of more specific hypotheses.
Indeed, I think in dismissing evolution, you wrong the Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel, whose deeply insightful and original work on the discrete character of inheritance was a hugely significant step that anticipated Darwin's work, but nevertheless provided a mathematical foundation for population genetics, and therefore for evolution (when properly understood as a statistical hypothesis). Mendel's work was beautifully confirmed by the discoveries of molecular biology (DNA, genes, alleles) in the later half of the 20th century.
My opinion here is that evolution is not a challenge to religion. Religion teaches us about God, the whys, and first causes. Evolution teaches us, in a much more limited sphere, something about the hows. Science can neither prove nor disprove religion, because religion isn't scientific. This isn't a knock against religion or science. They know different things, and in different ways.
Stu with the official University of Chicago reductionist view of evolution. Danielou was probably referring at least in part to the conservative economists' (ie, U. of Chi.) misapplication of evolution and social Darwinism. I favor the teaching of evolution (and oppose the WASP creationists--ie Kirby O and pals) yet...scientists (and all intelligent citizens) should be aware of how WASPs used Darwin to justify racism, elitism, and eugenics at times. TH Huxley himself was guilty of that, as was Theo. Roosevelt, and El Gordo Winnie Churchill, who often proclaimed his love for Darwinism--the early bio-textbooks often had a chapter on eugenics--with some noble whites, and vicious-looking africans, asians, etc. There are reasons to be concerned about the misuse of Darwin, genetics and evolution--(but the fundies go too far--ie. Evo. should be taught in public schools, not replaced by IDT)--as when western capitalists (ie Uni of Chi. economists) use Darwinism to justify the survival of the fittest, or exploitation of various types, libertarian econ, etc. SotF may sound trite but in ways...it still remains.
Kant did not exactly reject the argument from Design/"Teleos" (as he did other thomistic arguments for G*d) but..considered it merely analogical-- a suggestion of a possible Architect of nature (Deism?) not a judeo-christian G*d.
stu there are very few in the scientific field who would posit your theological bridge statements about theological compatibility with evolution..in fact the primary popular voices are downright inimical
most catholic thinkers had little problem adjusting to the fundamental ideas of evolution they could say...yes..perhaps this is the way god worked it out...well i'm stepping out of that compromise...i'm saying it's a poor excuse to find funding for biology majors they should read aristotle adn thomas and find something else to do we've done all that's necessary toomuch actually...stop the funding that's what i say
much of my frustration with the theory stems from my years of reading stephen gould i became convinced it's a haywire epistemological event at best
i like the fact that you use the word hypothesis for i can accept it as a working hypothesis but most people i talk to and one person i spoke to recently claimed it's an irrefutable fact and really quite emphatically excused me as stupid for not believing in it...i hold open the door of doubt..his disparaging remarks only prove to me the tenuousness of the theory i don't think he gets it
as for mutations the only ones we see in nature now are the results of chemical warfare against nature
i accept the "model" as a means of working out biological diversification but i take issue when the idea that a creature or a species morphs into something other than what it was "designed" to be monkeys to humans --fish to salamanders and gophers ---my take is that god made the things we see and they are what they are they don't morph at all they don't become different species ever unless perhaps humans enter in on the scene and force the issue like dogs...most all of what we know about apparent changes in a genetic pool come from the presumption that we know the system and can breed to our preference..like in racehorses...this i take as mockery of nature
cows left to themselves will reveal many shapes sizes and color coordinations but they remain and always will remain just cows the way they were created
i also take grave issue with the idea that we can take the evolutionary principles and employ them in remaking the world to our hearts content...too many biologists employed with such idiocy...after the revelations of eugenics experimentation there should have been a world wide shutdown on the whole scene
i say stop the tweeking and poking around in the invisible world
as for pigeons the most extensive evolutionary change in that family has to do with man sponsored extinction...i don't care what darwin saw he never saw mutations or speciation...nor has anyone else
it's a nice hyposthesis but it ain't a fact...and you watch any naturalist show on TV and lo and friggin behold they say o this species adapted like they saw it happen and these geological factors brought this about and the things adapted and yadda yadda yadda well maybe...it's speculataion imagination and mythology...i think had we stopped with mendel we'd be a lot better off...i'm still convinced that scientists have stepped over a terrible line and we'll all end up paying for it...we have no business in the nucleus of a cell we should get out i don't accept any of it
i don't quite know that darwin set out to exclude the notions of truth and the desire for god but that is what happened...the biological effort is not headed toward truth if dawkins is to be accepted we're heading for another phase of applied nihilism
the evolutionists should read their thomas aquinas it's the only way i'll be comforted
i'm calling it epistemological warfare and i will be the warrior
in fact i'm set against the ID folks as well but i take them to be much more innocent...few naturalists admit it but if they did not see some sort of design in nature they wouldn't be bothering with their discipline
evolution is not happening creation is
i've decided now that even e o wilson is set against the pursuit of truth...people want to justify darwin i think he should be expelled from school...maybe the environmental people will save face...if they come around to recognizing the great stream of truth from aristotle down to garrigou-lagrange and yours truly untill then
the fight is on rocinante come forth i've adventures to attend dulcinea is pining in her tower and evil is everywhere
where's my helmet
i did not mean this blog to be anything more than an occasional quote with passing interest
but i do relish the fact that you stopped by stu you're always welcome
I don't care for Dawkins that much but would disagree with your point (which you've made several times--as do many believers) that just by supporting evolution--or even secular materialism--Dawkins is guilty, sinister, fallen. He's guilty when or if, like that corrupt fat Tory Winnie Churchill, he puts his Darwinian-materialist ideas into practice--as when WC had the British army gas kurds, arabs, etc who interfered with the founding of Israel. Same for neo- nazis, maoists or any extremists--they're not guilty for the ideology per se (tho' neo-nazis might be cause for concern)--only when the ideology's put into practice . --like OW Holmes who on a few occasions supported eugenics in practice (and had people arrested/ imprisoned). Same with like klansmen (the original tea party), or mormons: their ideology/beliefs may be alarming, but they're not guilty until they actually ...lynch somebody (as the LDS /danite did but got away with it for years). Actions--deeds-- speak louder than words. Sort of obvious but some theo-people forget it.
there are very few in the scientific field who would posit your theological bridge statements about theological compatibility with evolution..in fact the primary popular voices are downright inimical
I'm not sure I buy this. Sure, there are atheistic voices like Wilson, and ambiguous voices like Gould. But there are other voices in the debate.
Let's review the bidding, The Anglican Wilberforce decided that Darwin must be denounced, despite never formally rejecting belief. The RCC, perhaps chastened by the Galileo affair, stood aside. I'm not sure you have a dog in this fight.
It seems to me that what Darwin accomplished, for better and worse, was an explanation for the diversity of life that did not require invoking God. This certainly lead some people who were overly invested in the search for God in nature to despair, but in the end, I think that unless God choses to reveal himself to us, we can only find him in our hearts. Darwin simply taught us that projecting our hearts onto nature involves an unhelpful step.
i'm saying it's a poor excuse to find funding for biology majors they should read aristotle adn thomas and find something else to do we've done all that's necessary toomuch actually...stop the funding that's what i say
I'd argue against this. Not because I think Aristotle and Thomas to be unimportant, but because humans have a diversity of talents and interests. Not everyone is cut out to be a philosopher or theologian, and better folks study birds and butterflies than how to better justify murdering their neighbors. [This isn't an accusation against Aristotle and Thomas, but I think it is a fair representation of what would happen when studied by the unwilling.] I'd be willing to consider, though, the possibility that there isn't enough funding for folks to whom Aristotle and Thomas would speak, if only they had the time and resources to listen.
much of my frustration with the theory stems from my years of reading stephen gould i became convinced it's a haywire epistemological event at best
I like Gould -- I had the privilege to hear him live once. But he was an odd character both scientifically and religiously, and you have to account for this in reading. It is certainly a mistake to view him as either atheistic or agnostic. He was more of an unconvinced seeker. I heard him quote the Vulgate in Latin, after all -- not bad for a nominally secular Jew. I see him as someone with very well divided (for better and worse) scientific and religious personae, in whom the scientific side was very developed, but the religious side was literate but philosophically primative. Yet the religious side was always present. BTW, In an odd parallel to Gould's quoting of the Vulgate, I was absolutely floored to find out that Huxley coined the word agnostic from his knowledge of Acts 17:23 in the Greek. Forgive me for thinking that, if that's ignorance, we'd be better off with more of it.
i like the fact that you use the word hypothesis for i can accept it as a working hypothesis but most people i talk to and one person i spoke to recently claimed it's an irrefutable fact and really quite emphatically excused me as stupid for not believing in it.
You are well within your rights to refer to such people as being ascientific in their thinking.
i also take grave issue with the idea that we can take the evolutionary principles and employ them in remaking the world to our hearts content.
No argument there.
dulcinea is pining in her tower
I love it! I just saw Man of La Mancha for the first time at the theater last year :-). The friends that I went with thought it odd, I thought it beautiful.
but i do relish the fact that you stopped by stu you're always welcome
Thank you. BTW, doesn't this post (or at least the comment stream) represent a continuation of "A bewildering search" under a different name? :-)
"It seems to me that what Darwin accomplished, for better and worse, was an explanation for the diversity of life that did not require invoking God. This certainly lead some people who were overly invested in the search for God in nature to despair, but in the end, I think that unless God choses to reveal himself to us, we can only find him in our hearts. Darwin simply taught us that projecting our hearts onto nature involves an unhelpful step."
jeepers creepers stu i don't know how anyone can call that an accomplishment to my mind is is the deliberate fostering of ignorance and a failure to suspend ones judgement about the forces of nature in an attitude of awe i don't think darwin had much awe going for him
perhaps one of the most interesting rediscoveries in the past 150 years of applied theology is the recognition that god is to be understood as at least partially revealing himself in the mirale and wonder of the natural world
this is the fundamental idea in the aristotelian/thomistic regard for natural phenomena and the vast variety of species that for all of these things there is the potential of perfection all things grow to a natural perfection
survival is a given not some essential agency of diversification or preference in the natural world
there is no poetry in darwin or his followers
i suspected that gould at some level was amazed with pierre tielhard de chardin even while lambasting him as a fake (even after the guy was dead)on more than one occasion he commented to the effect that a church that would allow someone like this free reign in the world is rather suspect...then at the same time applauded the fact that the same church had the good sense to censure him which he himself would have done (his writings were published outside the whole church imprimatur system and restored to acceptablity after his death)
i was sort of wrapped up in gould's writing for quite a while i used to rush over to the library to read the next issue of natural history and always found his essays amusing and informative...but i began to lose interest when it came to the lauding of the darwinian scheme as dagma and the strict split with religion...for i am schooled in the belief that philosophy nad theology and thus all matters religious contain and include all that is happening in personal sultural and intellectual realms...there is no separation of reason and faith...and here is where he couldn't quite abide chardin he thought his work was less than scientific for including theology and scientific reflections often on the same page as in THE PHENOMENON OF MAN
i know that gould was a bit of a social activist so he had a very human and compassionate side and believed that justice was something worth standing up for and fighting for in this world and i agree with him on this stance...he also advocated for the use of marijuana which i found interesting...as a medicament
here's the rub where truth is concerned there can be no division and here is where most advocates of biological evolution fall short and infuriate me...that somehow they can stand without recourse to god and make and design principles based on research which effect everyone and appeal to only the most superficial sorts of morality claiming that to understand evolutio is to understand a whole new set of human ethics which stand apart from all that has gone before and all that stands now as the sustaining sanity in the world it's the arrogance of it all
i know in academe it's easier to accept the idiosyncracies and intellectual presumptions of colleagues...but i ain't there so i'm taking my shots at all of it i'm saying thems' fightin' words to all the scientific world i'm actually going so far as to discredit and repudiate anything that looks like selfrighteousness and i hold no regard whatsoever for accomplishment or awards or merit i'm playin hardball and i won't shy from fanning the batters i may even bean one or two
batter up
i'd rather this blog not attract comments i simply want to put interesting quotes out there i really don't want to talk about them
i guess i will
but most of my thought in the blog world is going to communita dies
i'm thinking of starting another blog called stolen poetry
jeepers creepers stu i don't know how anyone can call that an accomplishment
More economical theses, i.e., theses that can explain a given phenomenon based on a smaller set of hypotheses, are an accomplishment. They provide increased predictive power, and greater generality. They also focus attention on the hypotheses that are most likely to be predictively fruitful. This is, of course, a scientific rather than a religious figure of merit.
to my mind is is the deliberate fostering of ignorance and a failure to suspend ones judgement about the forces of nature in an attitude of awe i don't think darwin had much awe going for him
Then you've never read "The Voyage of the Beagle." You should, since it shows Darwin to be a very insightful and empathetic observer, not just life, but of geology, meterology, and his fellow man. He closes with a ringing condemnation of slavery that you'd wholely approve of. The scientific books, as is their wont, are written from a somewhat detached point of view. The auther isn't supposed to let themselves as a person intrude into the text. Travel narratives have different conventions.
there is no poetry in darwin or his followers
I disagree here. Darwin is poetry, albeit ultimately expressed in the language of genomics and statistics. Think about it... What are the ultimate characteristics of poetry? As English speakers, we often will focus on rhyme and rhythm, but these are not characteristics of Hebrew poetry, where repetition with variation is essential. So what are the universals? Economy, elegance, insight, beauty. Darwin's work has this.
i suspected that gould at some level was amazed with pierre tielhard de chardin even while lambasting him as a fake
This isn't quite right. Gould had a lot of respect for Tielhard, but he thought the evidence was good that Tielhard was behind the Piltdown fraud, and viewed it as a practical joke that got a bit out of hand, but which was ultimately debunked. A youthful indiscretion, not repeated, can be acknowledged without forming the basis of one's judgement.
i was sort of wrapped up in gould's writing for quite a while i used to rush over to the library to read the next issue of natural history and always found his essays amusing and informative...but i began to lose interest when it came to the lauding of the darwinian scheme as dagma and the strict split with religion
I think it's important to remember that you're not the person that Gould is arguing against -- it's the literalist Bible thumpers, of a type well known to all. Folks who are absolutely certain in their judgments, and in the King James Bible, as dictated by God, and taught in their churches. But where I tire of evolutionary writings of Gould's ilk is that they often come across as "just so" stories that can be bent to predict anything after the fact. And theories that can predict anything are useless. This isn't to say that evolution is useless, but it is a pernicious flaw of that particular genre of writing. Gould rose above it at times, especially in his essays about adaptive reuse, cf., "the Panda's Thumb." But only occasionally.
here's the rub where truth is concerned there can be no division and here is where most advocates of biological evolution fall short and infuriate me.
As someone who stands with a foot in both worlds, let me say amen, and again amen. But having said this, this is also what disturbs me most about the religious side too. If most scientists are atheistic or agnostic, It is because the churches told them that their truths weren't welcome there, and neither were they. It is human nature to meet rejection with rejection. Yet God is a God of truth, and I'm always focussed on finding truth. Some truths can be discovered through religion, whether by scriptural reading and contemplation, or by active ministry in fellowship with one's fellow man. Some truths can be discovered by careful observation, rigorous thinking, etc.
Remember, the biologists aren't trying to explain everything. The Darwinian argument isn't that God isn't necessary, full stop. It is that natural selection can impose a direction on underlying natural variation, and thereby shape and divide species. To put it somewhat more prosaically, we need God to be, but adding God to our explaination of arithmetic is not fruitful if the goal is to explain why 1+1=2. So it is with biology. But neither biology nor arithmetic are everything.
I affirm your notion that evolution (as a more abstract notion) has been carried into inappropriate realms (you note ethics, I agree).
i'd rather this blog not attract comments i simply want to put interesting quotes out there i really don't want to talk about them
I'll try to be circumspect. Maybe pithy comments are ok? The kind that give you a reason for a brief smile, but require no reply?
i'm thinking of starting another blog called stolen poetry
Kirby seems to have given up on poetry. It's too bad, he's increasingly meeting the classical definition of a fanatic: someone who won't change the subject, and won't change their mind :-(. Anyway, if you write it, I'll read it. Maybe you should insist that comments be given in poetry.
I took a start at the Thomist article, and will give it deeper read later.
As for intelligent design, it is nothing but creationism stripped of explicit reference to a particular diety. It claims it's science, but it's not; and it denies that it is religion, but it is. So it's doubly dishonest. From the point of view of someone who's seeking the truth, that's damning. I'd rather discuss matters with pure creationists, who may be mistaken (in my opinion, of course), but they enter the debate honestly, and respect the truth enough not to lie.
The creationists' use of IDT was misguided yet Dr. Behe's initial article on irreducible complexity was not merely biblethumping. Most people don't understand it (whether religious or not). Going from IC to...saying a judeo-christian ...G*d exists was a bit of a stretch--unwarranted. But Behe did correctly note that Darwinian theory was rather primitive and could not account for complex processes like blood clotting, eyesight, cilia mechanism, etc. There are limitations. Academic biologists opposed to Design claim that Dar.Evo./natural selection can account for those processes--so that's the battle. Now, I don't think IDT should replace ordinary biology in classrooms (as some of the zealous creationists do) but the Design issue's a bit more subtle than some secularists believe it to be--as is the teleological argument itself.
Behe did correctly note that Darwinian theory was rather primitive and could not account for complex processes like blood clotting, eyesight, cilia mechanism, etc.
Biologists have worked out the mechanism for the evolution of the eye, with postulated intermediate forms well documented in the fossil record. This was once a challenge to the theory of evolution, but it's a challenge that has been met. The fact that this gets raised over and over by the ID folks as something that evolution can't explain detracts from their credibility, not that they ever earned any.
At best, the argument that the ID folks make has the form that there are biological phenomenon for which no satisfactory evolutionary explanation has yet been offered. This much is true, but they're intentionally ignoring the gap between "hasn't yet" and "can't." As each "hasn't yet" becomes a "has," the vacuousness of their of argument is further revealed. Yet the incomprehensibly large variety of biological phenomenon provides for a very long retreat, as there's always something that hasn't been adequately studied to pick on, yet another "hasn't yet." But until they can pin down a particular phenomenon, and make it stand for a century or two, they have nothing.
BTW, arguing that there is a standard UC reductionist view of evolution is a stretch, and arguing that I somehow represent it is laughable. As for the UC economists, I have about as much time for them as they have for me, which is to say, very little. Yet another proof of how rejection meets rejection :-/.
I'm aware of the standard accounts of evolution. Let's put it this way--Behe uses examples of complex biochemical features (which Dar.Evo had not addressed), such as the cilium mechanism, and offers an inference of Intelligent Design, as opposed to the standard secular DarEvo inference of trad. evolution,natural selection, adaptation,etc.
That doesn't mean ... he's proven God exists. That was a faulty assumption of the fundies (and Behe might have clarified in greater detail). But he does show the limitations of DarEvo.
"""....What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly requires microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally we require a motor, or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, we require linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these parts are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore, we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex; an enormous monkey wrench thrown into its presumed gradual, Darwinian evolution."""
The IDT inference suggests something like Intelligence at work in the natural world--an advancement on the old Teleological argument (with a lot less muck than..Aristotle). If NASA detected a computer on a another planet--or even say..an abacus-- wouldn't we be warranted in saying an...intelligent being created it? IN a sense that's what Behe suggests--cilia-gear is too complex to have just..happened (and for that matter the language of DarEvo itself sounds like Design--species develop, progress adapt,etc). The critiques of Orr and others don't demolish the possibility of IDT,even if the official academic scientists don't care for the inference (yet they make inferences--that it is not Design, in effect) . . That said, I don't think IDT establishes that the Intelligence is...necessarily judeo-christian.
you, Stu may not represent social Darwinism or finance capitalism, but UC does--social Darwinism via like Ayn Rand (one of Greenspan's heroes).
And as you will note Behe's not just some biblethumper mumbling about Design--ie Michele Bachmann-- but has a rather sophisticated viewpoint,one informed by modern bio-chemistry. The protestant sorts of creationists misread him, IMHE.
Just to be clear, I was making no judgment regarding Behe, whose work I don't know (yet). I was only reflecting on the ID folks of my experience, who hack at the truth with arrogance, dishonestly, and incomprehension.
But the problem I see with an anonymous ID is that while it opens the door to ancient astronauts (shades of von Däniken and his ilk -- shiver), it doesn't get you over the hump of first causes. Ultimately, you either have to posit a steady state universe (it's turtles all the way down!) or the recursive search for creators terminates, leaving you with an intelligent designer who is not a life-form in the Universe, but instead is the author of life. This sounds like God to me, so it's creationism in the end, whatever it calls itself.
That said, I don't really care for theo-speak or the old arguments. AS some old Anglican said, "it is not meet to discuss the Deity," or something. Yet...if you do agree to some spiritual force or Primum Mobile that must interact with the world in some fashion--in ways the Watchmaker version of G*d is stranger than the ... organic Design-hypothesis sort. JHVH the invisible jus' pulls the strings? Odd. And much as I dislike ...skepticism--He would be one rather mad King, would he not? A Designer doesn't seem quite as ..malevolent as King JHVH.
OK, I've read as much of Behe as I can stomach. I'm not buying it.
Here's my objection. He takes a look at several systems (e.g. blood clotting), and notes that there's more complexity than meets the eye, in a cascade of chemical reactions all of which are essential to the system as it exists today. His attitude is that this is like finding an arch in nature -- the blocks have to be arranged just so, and all at once. Take away any one part, and whole thing falls down. True enough. Yet arches are found in nature.
The error here is in assuming that there is no room for parallel pathways as a kind of scaffolding, beginning with simpler systems, in which individual components are supplemented and ultimately replaced by better performing systems later. So the aggregate complexity of the system increases, and the evolutionary context changes. This is easily seen, e.g., in engineered systems, like the internal combustion engine.
If you looked at an internal combustion engine today, you'd see an amazingly complex system. Consider, for example, the ignition system, which relies on solid-state circuitry these days, with no hint of the mechano-electric distributors, rotors, and points that performed the same function on the cars of my youth. Behe would look at an automotive engine today, and argue that it's a product of intelligent design (point in his favor noted!), but via a fundamentally flawed argument: the irreducible complexity of the modern automotive ignition systems "proves" that engines require microprocessors! After all, if you take them out, today's engines won't run.
The error here is in assuming that there is no room for parallel pathways as a kind of scaffolding, beginning with simpler systems, in which individual components are supplemented and ultimately replaced by better performing systems later.
I don't think you quite understand Dr. Behe's IDT. He accepts most of Darwinism and the "old-world" (unlike most creationists)--ie, does not uphold the dogma of the Old Testament-- except he opposes Darwinism as it applies to the complex bio-chemical processes he discusses. My view in brief is that while it's not a necessarily true argument, it's highly likely--ie,the Design analogy is plausible, even probable. And yes, that might even imply intelligence from outer space or something of the sort. For that matter, what is ordinary Evolution?--adaptation, better performing systems, progress,etc. The normative language itself suggests something like Design, as opposed to ex nihilo, randomness, luck-of-the-draw evolution.
It shows you the sort of order in which you live, doesn’t it? I don’t feel that it’s a total waste of time. Curiosity obviously is a human attribute, and people often do spontaneously wonder, “Why is that frog green?” or something of that kind, and they find the answer and they think, “Ah, this is satisfying.” So it’s something about finding an order where you previously didn’t. This makes the world seem a little more akin to you, a little less alien, and if someone’s a dedicated scientist, I think he is pushing back the frontiers of our understanding in a useful sort of way. It’s not a matter of vast metaphysical truths, but there’s a continuity between science and the big questions about life. I mean, Copernicus – it’s quite interesting to think, “Is life different now that we know we’re not in the middle?” Well, yes it is, but of course that’s not just science, that’s also philosophy.
27 comments:
...such as, Paddy?
I found it a bit surprising that the RCC now accepts Darwinian evolution (with a few ...quirks), and has for a few years. The vatican astronomer (or former), George Coyne, I believe, has taken on creationists and the "intelligent Design" movement (I've read that the Pope ..may have given him early retirement for his comments). Alas we have too few Coynes, and far too many dogmatic creationists (most WASP-fundamentalist sorts--the Moses walked with pterodactyls gang).
But not sure that's what the quote referred to.
the RCC never took a stance for or against darwin until JPII stated that he believes it is much more than a hypothesis ( i think he said this in order to cultivate some positive feeling amongst the godless world of modern science) he further stated that he saw it as one theory amongst many theories and he felt it should not be used as evidence against revelation in scripture...he did warn at a later date that some people then interpreted that to mean it could have the status of dogma (stephen Jay gould said as much) but he insisted that he never stated that he agreed with it to any degree other than to acknowledge it as a useful tool for scientific exploration
i've met george coyne he is a very intelligent bloke he is commited to making science amongst catholics an essential part of the FAITH AND REASON stance
what seems to be lacking in evolutionary theory are facts - in fact no one has ever observed it - yet it tends to take on the empirical quality of inarguable fact and scientists bandy it about like this is the way it happened
i for one am not sure
i tend to think the natural world is far more complicated and subtle than the average darwinian is willing to admit
the biologists refuse any argument from philosophy that questions the theory at the level of actual fact
for instance the argument from
irreducible complexity
upon which the whole scheme seems to fall to pieces
danielou refers to all the major reductionist tendencies from freud to marx to darwin which presume to put forth coherent systems of thought and people lap it up like the newest irrefutable truth
a similar argument is made by mary midgely
a great british thinker
jh
grazi for commentary.
Darwinism may be misused.
Then so is religious dogma. The fossil record itself offers evidence of evolution, tho' jh. Horse fossils/skeletons for instance show..descent with modifications.
Ive read a bit about "the argument from irreducible complexity," or intelligent design as they say. Students should be exposed to it, but I don't think it should replace the normal biology-courses--it's more philosophical than strictly scientific. The somewhat obvious problem I have with Design arguments is that...any Creator of forests or humans or hummingbirds also designed...the black plague, insects, sharks, etc. Or is that...creators...It's quite a grand speculation. Darwin himself thought of Design a few times, IIRC--looking at a sheep's eye, wondering how it come about ex nihilo.
Freud was mostly in error. Marx on the other hand was a different thing...ideological and historical (ala his mentor Hegel), not really empirical science (tho naive marxists took it as such). I'm not a marxist but there are some...marxist insights that still should be considered,IMHE-- the absurdities of capitalism for one. Marx himself was not too fond of Darwinism used as an ideology.
the fossil record is miniscule when compared to the possible complexity of life forms it is a mere small piece of an immense puzzle we've yet to imagine we can know
people take solace in darwin
but i maintain that his is an imagined model into which biological science has put just about everything - it is an epistemological scam - i don't care how well it works - the social experiments in eugenics and ethnic cleansing should be proof enough of that - but we rarely learn from history
e.o. wilson offers some hope but i think he's a bit deluded too - he thinks evolution is the essential myth epic of modern man and everyone should just hop on board - he makes the claim that evolution theory will outlast theology but religion will continue i guess with people like him being the high priests - he's obviously read very little by way of theology
i don't argue against the theory of evolution from a biblical standpoint i argue against it from a human empirical standpoint - it's never been proven - o yeah the evidence is there but it's never been observed it remains largely speculative even with the so called "evidence"
and yet
everyone talks about it like it's a fact -it's an epistemological problem above all
marx has some attraction
i like the guy i think i would've liked him had i met him
yet
i have read that when it came to actually hearing the plight of workers he was a boor- he thought them stupid-he liked his ideas and thought he could upturn the system to something more fair something more universally just ---by contrast you might google catholic social teaching
i think there's something extremely incoherent about all of these thinkers
they never had to measure their thought against any other system
but they became the flag and colors of social programming and to a large extent still are--- i for one i'm agin it
all of it
it's all a scam
jh
jh,
With the greatest respect, I disagree with much of what you've written in this thread regarding evolution.
In the first case, no scientific theory can every be proven. That's not the way science works. Instead, scientists consider various hypotheses for explaining phenomenon, and they discard those that either yield consistently incorrect predictions along with those that fail to generate any predictions at all.
And there is considerable observational evidence for evolution. Darwin begins by considering pigeon breeding (!). The point to this is that life is much more plastic than we ordinarily assume. Pigeon breeders can and have, in a few generation, produced breeds that differ substantially from their stock. The same is so with respect to any domestic animal -- dogs, cattle, etc. These changes of form can be given an evolutionary interpretation: animals that have desireable characteristics (as determined by the breeder) pass those characteristics off to their descendants, where they become fixed. The point here is that the breeder, rather than raw nature, determines fitness, a point that evolution is neutral on. But even in nature, changes in environment have resulted in observable changes in morphology, the peppered moth being a celebrated example.
The great point to evolution is that it make biology comprehensible as a discipline. Without evolution, biology becomes a grab-bag of facts. Evolution is a concise and plausible hypothesis that adds structure to those facts, facilitating the formation of more specific hypotheses.
Indeed, I think in dismissing evolution, you wrong the Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel, whose deeply insightful and original work on the discrete character of inheritance was a hugely significant step that anticipated Darwin's work, but nevertheless provided a mathematical foundation for population genetics, and therefore for evolution (when properly understood as a statistical hypothesis). Mendel's work was beautifully confirmed by the discoveries of molecular biology (DNA, genes, alleles) in the later half of the 20th century.
My opinion here is that evolution is not a challenge to religion. Religion teaches us about God, the whys, and first causes. Evolution teaches us, in a much more limited sphere, something about the hows. Science can neither prove nor disprove religion, because religion isn't scientific. This isn't a knock against religion or science. They know different things, and in different ways.
Stu with the official University of Chicago reductionist view of evolution. Danielou was probably referring at least in part to the conservative economists' (ie, U. of Chi.) misapplication of evolution and social Darwinism. I favor the teaching of evolution (and oppose the WASP creationists--ie Kirby O and pals) yet...scientists (and all intelligent citizens) should be aware of how WASPs used Darwin to justify racism, elitism, and eugenics at times. TH Huxley himself was guilty of that, as was Theo. Roosevelt, and El Gordo Winnie Churchill, who often proclaimed his love for Darwinism--the early bio-textbooks often had a chapter on eugenics--with some noble whites, and vicious-looking africans, asians, etc. There are reasons to be concerned about the misuse of Darwin, genetics and evolution--(but the fundies go too far--ie. Evo. should be taught in public schools, not replaced by IDT)--as when western capitalists (ie Uni of Chi. economists) use Darwinism to justify the survival of the fittest, or exploitation of various types, libertarian econ, etc. SotF may sound trite but in ways...it still remains.
Kant did not exactly reject the argument from Design/"Teleos" (as he did other thomistic arguments for G*d) but..considered it merely analogical-- a suggestion of a possible Architect of nature (Deism?) not a judeo-christian G*d.
stu
there are very few in the scientific field who would posit your theological bridge statements about theological compatibility with evolution..in fact the primary popular voices are downright inimical
most catholic thinkers had little problem adjusting to the fundamental ideas of evolution they could say...yes..perhaps this is the way god worked it out...well i'm stepping out of that compromise...i'm saying it's a poor excuse to find funding for biology majors they should read aristotle adn thomas and find something else to do we've done all that's necessary toomuch actually...stop the funding that's what i say
much of my frustration with the theory stems from my years of reading stephen gould i became convinced it's a haywire epistemological event at best
i like the fact that you use the word hypothesis for i can accept it as a working hypothesis but most people i talk to and one person i spoke to recently claimed it's an irrefutable fact and really quite emphatically excused me as stupid for not believing in it...i hold open the door of doubt..his disparaging remarks only prove to me the tenuousness of the theory i don't think he gets it
as for mutations
the only ones we see in nature now are the results of chemical warfare against nature
i accept the "model" as a means of working out biological diversification but i take issue when the idea that a creature or a species morphs into something other than what it was "designed" to be monkeys to humans --fish to salamanders and gophers ---my take is that god made the things we see and they are what they are they don't morph at all they don't become different species ever unless perhaps humans enter in on the scene and force the issue like dogs...most all of what we know about apparent changes in a genetic pool come from the presumption that we know the system and can breed to our preference..like in racehorses...this i take as mockery of nature
cows left to themselves will reveal many shapes sizes and color coordinations but they remain and always will remain just cows the way they were created
i also take grave issue with the idea that we can take the evolutionary principles and employ them in remaking the world to our hearts content...too many biologists employed with such idiocy...after the revelations of eugenics experimentation there should have been a world wide shutdown on the whole scene
i say stop the tweeking and poking around in the invisible world
keep it simple keep it visible
as for pigeons the most extensive evolutionary change in that family has to do with man sponsored extinction...i don't care what darwin saw he never saw mutations or speciation...nor has anyone else
it's a nice hyposthesis but it ain't a fact...and you watch any naturalist show on TV and lo and friggin behold they say o this species adapted like they saw it happen and these geological factors brought this about and the things adapted and yadda yadda yadda well maybe...it's speculataion imagination and mythology...i think had we stopped with mendel we'd be a lot better off...i'm still convinced that scientists have stepped over a terrible line and we'll all end up paying for it...we have no business in the nucleus of a cell we should get out i don't accept any of it
i don't quite know that darwin set out to exclude the notions of truth and the desire for god but that is what happened...the biological effort is not headed toward truth if dawkins is to be accepted we're heading for another phase of applied nihilism
the evolutionists should read their thomas aquinas it's the only way i'll be comforted
i'm calling it epistemological warfare and i will be the warrior
in fact i'm set against the ID folks as well but i take them to be much more innocent...few naturalists admit it but if they did not see some sort of design in nature they wouldn't be bothering with their discipline
evolution is not happening
creation is
i've decided now that even e o wilson is set against the pursuit of truth...people want to justify darwin i think he should be expelled from school...maybe the environmental people will save face...if they come around to recognizing the great stream of truth from aristotle down to garrigou-lagrange and yours truly
untill then
the fight is on
rocinante come forth
i've adventures to attend
dulcinea is pining in her tower
and evil is everywhere
where's my helmet
i did not mean this blog to be anything more than an occasional quote with passing interest
but i do relish the fact that you stopped by stu
you're always welcome
jh
I don't care for Dawkins that much but would disagree with your point (which you've made several times--as do many believers) that just by supporting evolution--or even secular materialism--Dawkins is guilty, sinister, fallen. He's guilty when or if, like that corrupt fat Tory Winnie Churchill, he puts his Darwinian-materialist ideas into practice--as when WC had the British army gas kurds, arabs, etc who interfered with the founding of Israel. Same for neo- nazis, maoists or any extremists--they're not guilty for the ideology per se (tho' neo-nazis might be cause for concern)--only when the ideology's put into practice . --like OW Holmes who on a few occasions supported eugenics in practice (and had people arrested/ imprisoned). Same with like klansmen (the original tea party), or mormons: their ideology/beliefs may be alarming, but they're not guilty until they actually ...lynch somebody (as the LDS /danite did but got away with it for years). Actions--deeds-- speak louder than words. Sort of obvious but some theo-people forget it.
jh,
there are very few in the scientific field who would posit your theological bridge statements about theological compatibility with evolution..in fact the primary popular voices are downright inimical
I'm not sure I buy this. Sure, there are atheistic voices like Wilson, and ambiguous voices like Gould. But there are other voices in the debate.
Let's review the bidding, The Anglican Wilberforce decided that Darwin must be denounced, despite never formally rejecting belief. The RCC, perhaps chastened by the Galileo affair, stood aside. I'm not sure you have a dog in this fight.
It seems to me that what Darwin accomplished, for better and worse, was an explanation for the diversity of life that did not require invoking God. This certainly lead some people who were overly invested in the search for God in nature to despair, but in the end, I think that unless God choses to reveal himself to us, we can only find him in our hearts. Darwin simply taught us that projecting our hearts onto nature involves an unhelpful step.
i'm saying it's a poor excuse to find funding for biology majors they should read aristotle adn thomas and find something else to do we've done all that's necessary toomuch actually...stop the funding that's what i say
I'd argue against this. Not because I think Aristotle and Thomas to be unimportant, but because humans have a diversity of talents and interests. Not everyone is cut out to be a philosopher or theologian, and better folks study birds and butterflies than how to better justify murdering their neighbors. [This isn't an accusation against Aristotle and Thomas, but I think it is a fair representation of what would happen when studied by the unwilling.] I'd be willing to consider, though, the possibility that there isn't enough funding for folks to whom Aristotle and Thomas would speak, if only they had the time and resources to listen.
much of my frustration with the theory stems from my years of reading stephen gould i became convinced it's a haywire epistemological event at best
I like Gould -- I had the privilege to hear him live once. But he was an odd character both scientifically and religiously, and you have to account for this in reading. It is certainly a mistake to view him as either atheistic or agnostic. He was more of an unconvinced seeker. I heard him quote the Vulgate in Latin, after all -- not bad for a nominally secular Jew. I see him as someone with very well divided (for better and worse) scientific and religious personae, in whom the scientific side was very developed, but the religious side was literate but philosophically primative. Yet the religious side was always present. BTW, In an odd parallel to Gould's quoting of the Vulgate, I was absolutely floored to find out that Huxley coined the word agnostic from his knowledge of Acts 17:23 in the Greek. Forgive me for thinking that, if that's ignorance, we'd be better off with more of it.
i like the fact that you use the word hypothesis for i can accept it as a working hypothesis but most people i talk to and one person i spoke to recently claimed it's an irrefutable fact and really quite emphatically excused me as stupid for not believing in it.
You are well within your rights to refer to such people as being ascientific in their thinking.
i also take grave issue with the idea that we can take the evolutionary principles and employ them in remaking the world to our hearts content.
No argument there.
dulcinea is pining in her tower
I love it! I just saw Man of La Mancha for the first time at the theater last year :-). The friends that I went with thought it odd, I thought it beautiful.
but i do relish the fact that you stopped by stu
you're always welcome
Thank you. BTW, doesn't this post (or at least the comment stream) represent a continuation of "A bewildering search" under a different name? :-)
"It seems to me that what Darwin accomplished, for better and worse, was an explanation for the diversity of life that did not require invoking God. This certainly lead some people who were overly invested in the search for God in nature to despair, but in the end, I think that unless God choses to reveal himself to us, we can only find him in our hearts. Darwin simply taught us that projecting our hearts onto nature involves an unhelpful step."
jeepers creepers stu
i don't know how anyone can call that an accomplishment
to my mind is is the deliberate fostering of ignorance and a failure to suspend ones judgement about the forces of nature in an attitude of awe
i don't think darwin had much awe going for him
perhaps one of the most interesting rediscoveries in the past 150 years of applied theology is the recognition that god is to be understood as at least partially revealing himself in the mirale and wonder of the natural world
this is the fundamental idea
in the aristotelian/thomistic regard for natural phenomena and the vast variety of species
that for all of these things there is the potential of perfection all things grow to a natural perfection
survival is a given not some essential agency of diversification or preference in the natural world
there is no poetry in darwin or his followers
i suspected that gould at some level was amazed with pierre tielhard de chardin even while lambasting him as a fake (even after the guy was dead)on more than one occasion he commented to the effect that a church that would allow someone like this free reign in the world is rather suspect...then at the same time applauded the fact that the same church had the good sense to censure him which he himself would have done (his writings were published outside the whole church imprimatur system and restored to acceptablity after his death)
i was sort of wrapped up in gould's writing for quite a while
i used to rush over to the library to read the next issue of natural history and always found his essays amusing and informative...but i began to lose interest when it came to the lauding of the darwinian scheme as dagma and the strict split with religion...for i am schooled in the belief that philosophy nad theology and thus all matters religious contain and include all that is happening in personal sultural and intellectual realms...there is no separation of reason and faith...and here is where he couldn't quite abide chardin he thought his work was less than scientific for including theology and scientific reflections often on the same page
as in THE PHENOMENON OF MAN
i know that gould was a bit of a social activist so he had a very human and compassionate side and believed that justice was something worth standing up for and fighting for in this world and i agree with him on this stance...he also advocated for the use of marijuana which i found interesting...as a medicament
here's the rub
where truth is concerned there can be no division and here is where most advocates of biological evolution fall short and infuriate me...that somehow they can stand without recourse to god and make and design principles based on research which effect everyone and appeal to only the most superficial sorts of morality
claiming that to understand evolutio is to understand a whole new set of human ethics which stand apart from all that has gone before and all that stands now as the sustaining sanity in the world
it's the arrogance of it all
i know in academe it's easier to accept the idiosyncracies and intellectual presumptions of colleagues...but i ain't there so i'm taking my shots at all of it
i'm saying
thems' fightin' words to all the scientific world i'm actually going so far as to discredit and repudiate anything that looks like selfrighteousness and i hold no regard whatsoever for accomplishment or awards or merit
i'm playin hardball
and i won't shy from fanning the batters i may even bean one or two
batter up
i'd rather this blog not attract comments
i simply want to put interesting quotes out there
i really don't want to talk about them
i guess i will
but most of my thought in the blog world is going to communita dies
i'm thinking of starting another blog called stolen poetry
here's a little something i recently read
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/tkacz_aquinasvsid.html
in his creative mystery
jh
here
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/tkacz_aquinasvsid.html
jh,
jeepers creepers stu
i don't know how anyone can call that an accomplishment
More economical theses, i.e., theses that can explain a given phenomenon based on a smaller set of hypotheses, are an accomplishment. They provide increased predictive power, and greater generality. They also focus attention on the hypotheses that are most likely to be predictively fruitful. This is, of course, a scientific rather than a religious figure of merit.
to my mind is is the deliberate fostering of ignorance and a failure to suspend ones judgement about the forces of nature in an attitude of awe
i don't think darwin had much awe going for him
Then you've never read "The Voyage of the Beagle." You should, since it shows Darwin to be a very insightful and empathetic observer, not just life, but of geology, meterology, and his fellow man. He closes with a ringing condemnation of slavery that you'd wholely approve of. The scientific books, as is their wont, are written from a somewhat detached point of view. The auther isn't supposed to let themselves as a person intrude into the text. Travel narratives have different conventions.
there is no poetry in darwin or his followers
I disagree here. Darwin is poetry, albeit ultimately expressed in the language of genomics and statistics. Think about it... What are the ultimate characteristics of poetry? As English speakers, we often will focus on rhyme and rhythm, but these are not characteristics of Hebrew poetry, where repetition with variation is essential. So what are the universals? Economy, elegance, insight, beauty. Darwin's work has this.
i suspected that gould at some level was amazed with pierre tielhard de chardin even while lambasting him as a fake
This isn't quite right. Gould had a lot of respect for Tielhard, but he thought the evidence was good that Tielhard was behind the Piltdown fraud, and viewed it as a practical joke that got a bit out of hand, but which was ultimately debunked. A youthful indiscretion, not repeated, can be acknowledged without forming the basis of one's judgement.
i was sort of wrapped up in gould's writing for quite a while
i used to rush over to the library to read the next issue of natural history and always found his essays amusing and informative...but i began to lose interest when it came to the lauding of the darwinian scheme as dagma and the strict split with religion
I think it's important to remember that you're not the person that Gould is arguing against -- it's the literalist Bible thumpers, of a type well known to all. Folks who are absolutely certain in their judgments, and in the King James Bible, as dictated by God, and taught in their churches. But where I tire of evolutionary writings of Gould's ilk is that they often come across as "just so" stories that can be bent to predict anything after the fact. And theories that can predict anything are useless. This isn't to say that evolution is useless, but it is a pernicious flaw of that particular genre of writing. Gould rose above it at times, especially in his essays about adaptive reuse, cf., "the Panda's Thumb." But only occasionally.
jh,
here's the rub
where truth is concerned there can be no division and here is where most advocates of biological evolution fall short and infuriate me.
As someone who stands with a foot in both worlds, let me say amen, and again amen. But having said this, this is also what disturbs me most about the religious side too. If most scientists are atheistic or agnostic, It is because the churches told them that their truths weren't welcome there, and neither were they. It is human nature to meet rejection with rejection. Yet God is a God of truth, and I'm always focussed on finding truth. Some truths can be discovered through religion, whether by scriptural reading and contemplation, or by active ministry in fellowship with one's fellow man. Some truths can be discovered by careful observation, rigorous thinking, etc.
Remember, the biologists aren't trying to explain everything. The Darwinian argument isn't that God isn't necessary, full stop. It is that natural selection can impose a direction on underlying natural variation, and thereby shape and divide species. To put it somewhat more prosaically, we need God to be, but adding God to our explaination of arithmetic is not fruitful if the goal is to explain why 1+1=2. So it is with biology. But neither biology nor arithmetic are everything.
I affirm your notion that evolution (as a more abstract notion) has been carried into inappropriate realms (you note ethics, I agree).
i'd rather this blog not attract comments
i simply want to put interesting quotes out there
i really don't want to talk about them
I'll try to be circumspect. Maybe pithy comments are ok? The kind that give you a reason for a brief smile, but require no reply?
i'm thinking of starting another blog called stolen poetry
Kirby seems to have given up on poetry. It's too bad, he's increasingly meeting the classical definition of a fanatic: someone who won't change the subject, and won't change their mind :-(. Anyway, if you write it, I'll read it. Maybe you should insist that comments be given in poetry.
I took a start at the Thomist article, and will give it deeper read later.
As for intelligent design, it is nothing but creationism stripped of explicit reference to a particular diety. It claims it's science, but it's not; and it denies that it is religion, but it is. So it's doubly dishonest. From the point of view of someone who's seeking the truth, that's damning. I'd rather discuss matters with pure creationists, who may be mistaken (in my opinion, of course), but they enter the debate honestly, and respect the truth enough not to lie.
The creationists' use of IDT was misguided yet Dr. Behe's initial article on irreducible complexity was not merely biblethumping. Most people don't understand it (whether religious or not). Going from IC to...saying a judeo-christian ...G*d exists was a bit of a stretch--unwarranted. But Behe did correctly note that Darwinian theory was rather primitive and could not account for complex processes like blood clotting, eyesight, cilia mechanism, etc. There are limitations. Academic biologists opposed to Design claim that Dar.Evo./natural selection can account for those processes--so that's the battle. Now, I don't think IDT should replace ordinary biology in classrooms (as some of the zealous creationists do) but the Design issue's a bit more subtle than some secularists believe it to be--as is the teleological argument itself.
J,
Behe did correctly note that Darwinian theory was rather primitive and could not account for complex processes like blood clotting, eyesight, cilia mechanism, etc.
Biologists have worked out the mechanism for the evolution of the eye, with postulated intermediate forms well documented in the fossil record. This was once a challenge to the theory of evolution, but it's a challenge that has been met. The fact that this gets raised over and over by the ID folks as something that evolution can't explain detracts from their credibility, not that they ever earned any.
Wiki, as usual, is a starting place: Evolution of the eye.
At best, the argument that the ID folks make has the form that there are biological phenomenon for which no satisfactory evolutionary explanation has yet been offered. This much is true, but they're intentionally ignoring the gap between "hasn't yet" and "can't." As each "hasn't yet" becomes a "has," the vacuousness of their of argument is further revealed. Yet the incomprehensibly large variety of biological phenomenon provides for a very long retreat, as there's always something that hasn't been adequately studied to pick on, yet another "hasn't yet." But until they can pin down a particular phenomenon, and make it stand for a century or two, they have nothing.
BTW, arguing that there is a standard UC reductionist view of evolution is a stretch, and arguing that I somehow represent it is laughable. As for the UC economists, I have about as much time for them as they have for me, which is to say, very little. Yet another proof of how rejection meets rejection :-/.
I'm aware of the standard accounts of evolution. Let's put it this way--Behe uses examples of complex biochemical features (which Dar.Evo had not addressed), such as the cilium mechanism, and offers an inference of Intelligent Design, as opposed to the standard secular DarEvo inference of trad. evolution,natural selection, adaptation,etc.
That doesn't mean ... he's proven God exists. That was a faulty assumption of the fundies (and Behe might have clarified in greater detail). But he does show the limitations of DarEvo.
"""....What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly requires microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally we require a motor, or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, we require linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these parts are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore, we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex; an enormous monkey wrench thrown into its presumed gradual, Darwinian evolution."""
Behe
The IDT inference suggests something like Intelligence at work in the natural world--an advancement on the old Teleological argument (with a lot less muck than..Aristotle). If NASA detected a computer on a another planet--or even say..an abacus-- wouldn't we be warranted in saying an...intelligent being created it? IN a sense that's what Behe suggests--cilia-gear is too complex to have just..happened (and for that matter the language of DarEvo itself sounds like Design--species develop, progress adapt,etc). The critiques of Orr and others don't demolish the possibility of IDT,even if the official academic scientists don't care for the inference (yet they make inferences--that it is not Design, in effect) . . That said, I don't think IDT establishes that the Intelligence is...necessarily judeo-christian.
Ooops!
you, Stu may not represent social Darwinism or finance capitalism, but UC does--social Darwinism via like Ayn Rand (one of Greenspan's heroes).
And as you will note Behe's not just some biblethumper mumbling about Design--ie Michele Bachmann-- but has a rather sophisticated viewpoint,one informed by modern bio-chemistry. The protestant sorts of creationists misread him, IMHE.
J,
Just to be clear, I was making no judgment regarding Behe, whose work I don't know (yet). I was only reflecting on the ID folks of my experience, who hack at the truth with arrogance, dishonestly, and incomprehension.
But the problem I see with an anonymous ID is that while it opens the door to ancient astronauts (shades of von Däniken and his ilk -- shiver), it doesn't get you over the hump of first causes. Ultimately, you either have to posit a steady state universe (it's turtles all the way down!) or the recursive search for creators terminates, leaving you with an intelligent designer who is not a life-form in the Universe, but instead is the author of life. This sounds like God to me, so it's creationism in the end, whatever it calls itself.
Well, read some of Behe's writing.
That said, I don't really care for theo-speak or the old arguments. AS some old Anglican said, "it is not meet to discuss the Deity," or something. Yet...if you do agree to some spiritual force or Primum Mobile that must interact with the world in some fashion--in ways the Watchmaker version of G*d is stranger than the ... organic Design-hypothesis sort. JHVH the invisible jus' pulls the strings? Odd. And much as I dislike ...skepticism--He would be one rather mad King, would he not? A Designer doesn't seem quite as ..malevolent as King JHVH.
J,
OK, I've read as much of Behe as I can stomach. I'm not buying it.
Here's my objection. He takes a look at several systems (e.g. blood clotting), and notes that there's more complexity than meets the eye, in a cascade of chemical reactions all of which are essential to the system as it exists today. His attitude is that this is like finding an arch in nature -- the blocks have to be arranged just so, and all at once. Take away any one part, and whole thing falls down. True enough. Yet arches are found in nature.
The error here is in assuming that there is no room for parallel pathways as a kind of scaffolding, beginning with simpler systems, in which individual components are supplemented and ultimately replaced by better performing systems later. So the aggregate complexity of the system increases, and the evolutionary context changes. This is easily seen, e.g., in engineered systems, like the internal combustion engine.
If you looked at an internal combustion engine today, you'd see an amazingly complex system. Consider, for example, the ignition system, which relies on solid-state circuitry these days, with no hint of the mechano-electric distributors, rotors, and points that performed the same function on the cars of my youth. Behe would look at an automotive engine today, and argue that it's a product of intelligent design (point in his favor noted!), but via a fundamentally flawed argument: the irreducible complexity of the modern automotive ignition systems "proves" that engines require microprocessors! After all, if you take them out, today's engines won't run.
The error here is in assuming that there is no room for parallel pathways as a kind of scaffolding, beginning with simpler systems, in which individual components are supplemented and ultimately replaced by better performing systems later.
I don't think you quite understand Dr. Behe's IDT. He accepts most of Darwinism and the "old-world" (unlike most creationists)--ie, does not uphold the dogma of the Old Testament-- except he opposes Darwinism as it applies to the complex bio-chemical processes he discusses. My view in brief is that while it's not a necessarily true argument, it's highly likely--ie,the Design analogy is plausible, even probable. And yes, that might even imply intelligence from outer space or something of the sort. For that matter, what is ordinary Evolution?--adaptation, better performing systems, progress,etc. The normative language itself suggests something like Design, as opposed to ex nihilo, randomness, luck-of-the-draw evolution.
It shows you the sort of order in which you live, doesn’t it? I don’t feel that it’s a total waste of time. Curiosity obviously is a human attribute, and people often do spontaneously wonder, “Why is that frog green?” or something of that kind, and they find the answer and they think, “Ah, this is satisfying.” So it’s something about finding an order where you previously didn’t. This makes the world seem a little more akin to you, a little less alien, and if someone’s a dedicated scientist, I think he is pushing back the frontiers of our understanding in a useful sort of way. It’s not a matter of vast metaphysical truths, but there’s a continuity between science and the big questions about life. I mean, Copernicus – it’s quite interesting to think, “Is life different now that we know we’re not in the middle?” Well, yes it is, but of course that’s not just science, that’s also philosophy.
mary midgely
Post a Comment