Thursday, March 18, 2010

The Scandal of the Evolutionary Mind

I once had a discussion with an evolutionist who, not surprisingly, claimed that evolution is fact. “Have you ever seen a sea lion try to move across a beach?” It is obviously not a good design, he argued, and so must have evolved. The sea lion’s “design is not intelligent, but rather is a product of evolution,” he concluded, for “design would attempt to produce something that works well, if it is intelligent design, and this does not work well and so is not intelligent design.”

This evolutionist also made a series of erroneous claims about the evidence for evolution. He began with the remarkable statement that “DNA sequences provide an absolute and irrefutable record” that evolution is a fact. “Virtually every single gene sequence we examine,” he explained, “can be seen to be represented in closely related species and in more distantly related species with increasing numbers of nucleotide changes as we look at more distant species.”

It was, he triumphantly concluded, “absolute proof, in hard copy, reiterated in every single gene of every single organism.” It sounded good but it was wrong. The real data, in the real world, simply do not fit the evolutionary pattern as evolutionists envision.

He also claimed that every piece of evidence in biology supports the conclusion that evolution is a fact. But how could this be? I responded that there are many evidences that do not support this conclusion, such as (i) nonhomologous development pathways, (ii) the abrupt appearance of fossil species in the geological strata and (iii) the complexity and circularity of cellular protein synthesis.

To this he responded that these three examples “are not facts.” But these are facts—well known facts. It would be non scientific to say that the abrupt appearance of fossil species, nonhomologous development processes and the complexity and circularity of cellular protein synthesis are not facts. Protein synthesis in the cell is “circular” because it requires pre existing proteins. A leading undergraduate textbook calls the process “inexplicably complex.”

His claim that my examples are not facts, coupled with his insistence that evolution is a fact, raised questions about how he was arriving at his conclusions. How could an evolutionist possibly state that such well known and well documented biological phenomena are not to be considered as facts?

We can argue about what these observations portend. We can debate how well they do, or do not, comport with evolutionary theory. But not facts?

Was this some anonymous internet rant? Was I wasting my time with an ignorant and dogmatic lurker who had nothing to offer but silly and fallacious canards? Hardly. This was a life science professor at a university who was chair of the Biology department. Yes, chair of the Biology department. And his arguments were, unfortunately, typical. I have seen them, or arguments like them, over and over.

This extreme level of anti intellectualism is the scandal of the evolutionary mind. It is always the first shock to those who allow themselves to question the paradigm and venture into the debate with skepticism. Evolutionists are full of bluster, but their position is astonishingly dull.

28 comments:

  1. One can only conclude that science is a farce, the scientific method is a myth and peer review is a joke. As a species, we humans are pathetic when it comes to honesty and diligence. Come to think of it, peer review exists precisely because we have a problem with truth. The problem is that, once a lie gets a foothold in the system, peer review guarantees that it will stay there for as long as possible. Only a Kuhnian revolution can dislodge it. Evolution will come down and when it does, it will come down hard. Very hard.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Limits imposed to every species is what implies design: Number and location of eyes, legs, fingers, teeth, locomotion speed, life span,...,etc. These limits guarantee life of all the species, including us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's examine your facts;

    i). nonhomologous development pathways - a fact , yes, but not a problem for evolution.
    http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/anatomical-homology
    http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2152

    (ii) the abrupt appearance of fossil species in the geological strata - not a fact, the fossil record shows undeniable progression from simple to complex over the last 3.8 billion years, precisely as evolution predicts. Only people who haven't actually ever looked at the fossil record for themselves would say it is a 'problem' for evolution. Paleontologists, Christians included, who actually study the data know that the Cambrian slow fuse for example is no problem for evolution. No matter how much you try to misrepresent it.

    iii). the complexity and circularity of cellular protein synthesis - this is probably a fact but is easily explained by natural mechanisms. Evolution as a process can in theory build "complexity" ad infinitum.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/25/0908264106.abstract

    Well that was easy. Next?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, and by the way, if you have looked at the genomics data and don't think it supports common descent there are only two options;

    i). you haven't understood it

    ii). you are in denial and religion is driving your science

    ReplyDelete
  5. ...a fact , yes, but not a problem for evolution.

    Evolutionary memes seem to evolve too fast for anything to be a problem for them, leaving the question what would be a problem for evolution (Whatever it is.). Apparently evidence which falsifies the notion of a tree of life is no problem for it. Sudden emergence and stasis in the fossil record that Gould has called the primary signal of the fossil record is also no problem for it. Similar characters and complex adaptations spread across species... well, never mind, it seems that the only question that remains is how is evolution specified and what would it not be an explanation for.

    Evolution as a process can in theory build "complexity" ad infinitum.

    Only if one allows for imaginary evidence, for example:

    Although the bacterial proteins function in simple assemblies, relatively little [imaginary] mutation would be required to convert them to function as a protein transport machine. This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general.

    The problem with imaginary evidence is that whenever anyone tries to criticize it they quickly get stuck in the hypothetical goo typical to evolution. In this case to try to argue that "relatively little" is not relatively little would be like sticking your hand a mud puddle as the imaginary evidence would simply flow around it. Although they allude to a specification or "blue print" as if they have an actual theory they do not, they are merely observing similarities and imagining things about the past. This way of thinking, common to Darwinians, leads to mental illusions that are not amenable to empirical evidence.

    Some critics get caught in hypothetical goo of this sort but I don't agree that imagining things about the past actually means anything. If it is science, it is a low form of it that's one step from pseudo-science.

    Ironically the very fact that it is often difficult to even imagine that Darwinism is true leads some to cite their own imaginations as the equivalent of empirical evidence. Apparently a rational view of the evidence is so apparent that when they can merely merely imagine something against it, their own imagination begins to seem like something to them when in fact it is nothing. This can be seen in how Darwinists have treated Behe's arguments about "irreducible complexity." They actually seem to believe that because they can imagine a mouse trap coming about gradually that they have refuted what can actually be observed. Ironically they go further and argue that something we already know to be designed based on sentience and knowledge with a purpose in mind can be explained away by evolution. Ironically this only proves that Darwinian "theory" can be used to explain away things that actually are designed based on foresight, intelligence and knowledge. (If imagining things about the past can be said to be a scientific "explanation," as instead it seems to be a work of art similar to other creation myths.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well that was easy. Next?

    Of course, everything is because nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution and so on and so forth. But what wouldn't make sense and what wouldn't be easy?

    ReplyDelete
  7. What do all these facts of evolution tell us about the mechanism of evolution?

    William Dembski, in the forward to Reclaiming Science from Darwinism, says "[T]here is no rational connection between the mountains of evidence cited by Darwinists and the grand claim they make that all organisms are descended from a universal common ancestor via a purposeless material process (which they understand as the interplay of natural selection and random variation)."

    If Dembski is wrong, how does one rationally conclude from the facts of evolution that random processes and natural selection were responsible?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. harpy666:
    It's hard to resist your brand of arrogance especially when coupled with your brand of stupidity.

    ... By I will

    ReplyDelete
  10. “Have you ever seen a sea lion try to move across a beach?” It is obviously not a good design, he argued, and so must have evolved. The sea lion’s “design is not intelligent, but rather is a product of evolution,” he concluded, for “design would attempt to produce something that works well, if it is intelligent design, and this does not work well and so is not intelligent design.”

    It is a bit like comparing a Humvee crossing 3 feet of water and claiming it is not designed because it is slower. ID doesn't claim that Sea lions are designed because they do great in water. They actually do quite well on the beach compared to say, how human beings do in water by comparison.

    As William Lane Craig puts it: "Designs exhibit different levels of optimality. There is no reason to infer an intelligent designer only for maximally optimal designs. If a biological system meets William Dembski's criteria for being designed, that design inference is not nullified by the possibility of structures that could have been better designed."

    There is also an element of creativity that we all know exists in intelligent agents by self-introspection and we have no problem seeing how a designer may create something optimally for a certain environment and not another.

    I mean we don't look at nuclear submarines out of water and think for a minute that they're not designed.

    It's a bit pathetic that the chair of a Biology department is completely incapable of reasoning and scary and sad at the same time that young adults are being indoctrinated with similar logic skills.

    More on argument by Craig.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Doublee,

    You wrote...
    "What do all these facts of evolution tell us about the mechanism of evolution?
    ...
    If Dembski is wrong, how does one rationally conclude from the facts of evolution that random processes and natural selection were responsible?"


    To start with, we could investigate the source of the alleged "random processes" and see if it is truly random. If it isn't, then things become a semantics game where "random mutations" just means mutations with little observed correlation to fitness in short-term observations.

    Would you agree it is rational to suggest antibacterial resistance appears to be the result of mutating bacteria that is selected by a process of elimination?

    I offer natural selection is no more mysterious than the elimination process of March Madness basketball. The resulting winning team will be above average.

    Even Behe suggests the problem isn't natural selection but is the presumption surrounding Random Mutations which he targets as defining the "Edge of Evolution".

    Are mutations truly random, or is God behind them, or is it something else like interconnected quantum effects?

    I find a lot of the supporters of mainstream evolution theory aren't overly worried about whether or not mutations are truly random. For example, Theistic Evolutionists like Ken Miller all but concede God is likely involved.

    Let's play a modified version of Yahtzee...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahtzee

    We roll five dice and reroll the lowest one of the five each round. Eventually, we will have five 6's.

    Now, one can argue an intelligent designer setup the rules with a specific goal in mind, but there isn't a question as to how the "mechanism" of randomizing and selection caused a Yahtzee of 6's.

    Likewise, Theistic Evolutionists can "rationally conclude from the facts of evolution that random processes and natural selection were responsible" as long as they hold a loose definition of the term "random" which includes theistic influences.

    Ken Miller has postulated that it would be quite easy for God to use quantum effects as his mechanism for controlling desired outcomes.

    Is he a rational evolutionist?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thought Provoker:

    I wish we were engaged in conversation because I would have stopped you after your first sentence:

    To start with, we could investigate the source of the alleged "random processes" and see if it is truly random.

    That we could investigate the source of the random processes to see if they are truly random is the first step in developing an alternate hypothesis.

    I am not interested in an alternate hypothesis; I am interested in the existing hypothesis, because scientists claim evolution is a fact.

    What I am looking for is the exposition of their reasoning. In other words, because of this fact(or this set of facts) we can conclude that this is the mechanism that explains these facts.

    Using the evidence that scientists typically cite for their hypothesis, they have come to the conclusion that random processes acted on by natural selecion is the mechanism.

    I look at the same evidence and I don't see that the evidence they cite entails the conclusion that they reach. I am asking that someone connect the dots.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Doublee,

    A hope you read the rest of my comment.

    You asked for a generic explanation, I gave it an honest attempt.

    Did you understand the mechanism for getting all sixes on five dice by randomization and selection?

    If you want to talk specifics, you can't put up a generic strawman as a stereotypical evolutionist and put words in its mouth.

    I asked you if you felt Ken Miller was a rational evolutionist. Do you?

    We can certainly talk about his views of evolution, he literally wrote the textbook on it for a lot of students.

    He thinks God is behind it.

    While quite a bit more complicated, the "random" mutation and natural selection mechanism is pretty similar to the mechanism behind playing Yahtzee.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thought Provoker:

    Did you understand the mechanism for getting all sixes on five dice by randomization and selection?

    Yes I did. The problem is the selection was not natural; the selector was an intelligent agent. And I am suspicious that there is no analogy that can demonstrate that random processes can generate specific results.

    Thought Provoker:

    If you want to talk specifics, you can't put up a generic strawman as a stereotypical evolutionist and put words in [his or her] mouth.

    If you thought I was asking for specifics, then you misunderstood what I was asking for.

    I was asking for the outline of the argument that gets us from the observations in nature to the conclusion that random processes and natural selection was the mechanism.

    Thought Provoker:

    I asked you if you felt Ken Miller was a rational evolutionist. Do you?

    I can only respond with a general comment. I have not read any of his books; and it's been quite awhile since I read either aritcles by him or about him.

    I have always considered "theistic evolution" to be an oxymoron. God cannot guide an unguided process. If Miller thinks God is behind evolution, then I would not consider that rational. If God is behind evolution, then we are talking about a form of intelligent design, and not the theory of evolution.

    Thought Provoker:

    From your previous post

    Ken Miller has postulated that it would be quite easy for God to use quantum effects as his mechanism for controlling desired outcomes.

    That is interesting. William Dembski postulated the same thing. So is Miller an ID advocate or an evolutionist? I recall that Michael Behe "accused" Miller of being an ID advocate. It appears that Miller wants to have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Doublee,

    While your response was not unexpected it was informative. Apparently, you are not interested in exploring various hypotheses or even details of the science involved yet you are looking to try to discuss a particular hypothesis you think is not rational.

    It sounds like you just want things to make sense to you.

    An analogy other people have used to explain the situation in a general form is the science of boiling water. Scientists can go into great detail about the heat transference from the burner to the pan to water molecules’ excitation states are raised and so forth. What scientists don’t tell you the reason why the water is boiling is because grandma wanted a cup of tea.

    In my Yahtzee example, a similar mechanism could result in all ones instead of sixes. So, why sixes and not ones? Scientists study the mechanisms and leave the “why” questions to the philosophers (or at least should indicate when they are speaking as scientists as opposed to philosophers).

    My shorthand statement is “Science is about the search for knowledge; philosophy/religion is about the search for truth.”

    This is the point behind Gould’s Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria


    Some people reject this. P.Z. Myers does. So do most Young-earth creationists.

    Ken Miller embraces it.

    If the term “Intelligent Design” is purely a philosophical argument, then Ken Miller could be considered a proponent.

    If the term “Intelligent Design” is purely a scientific argument, then Ken Miller would be considered a critic.

    If embracing Intelligent Design means the rejection of Gould’s NOMA concept, then Ken Miller does not embrace Intelligent Design.

    If you wish to argue Gould’s NOMA is not rational, you would not be the first (e.g. P.Z.Myers).

    ReplyDelete
  16. “Science is about the search for knowledge; philosophy/religion is about the search for truth.”

    knowledge is different of true? Religion is our relationship with God. Philosophy search to answer why, and science search to answer how the two last looks for knowledge and true with differents methods and finality.
    The problem start when you mixup the three.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thought Provoker:

    If there is one theme to the posts I have made on various blogs over the past many months, that theme can be summarized in one word and it is this: epistomology.

    I want to know how scientists know that the putative mechanism of the theory of evolution can accomplish what is claimed for it.

    In the 8 or 9 exchanges (I have lost count) I have had regarding my quest, no one has ever directly answered my question. You are no exception, so you need not feel alone.

    It is true that for the most part I do not know the level of expertise of the people who respond to my questions, but I can infer from the context of their responses that they know at least something about the theory of evolution, and most likely they know more than I do.

    What am I to make of this lack of responses? Are my questions not clear? In many cases, such as my exchanges with you, I have rephrased the questions and tried to explain in different words what I am after. I have even pointed out those analyses that are lacking from a rigorous exposition of the theory of evolution. (And these are not just my personal opinions.) All to no avail. None of my specific points have been rebutted; answers to questions I did not ask are provided instead.

    Again, what I am to conclude from my experience?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Doublee asks:

    I want to know how scientists know that the putative mechanism of the theory of evolution can accomplish what is claimed for it.

    If you really want to know more about evolutionary theory, you might address your questions directly to evolutionary biologists. On the several occasions that I have emailed working scientists with queries they have been unfailingly helpful and generous with time and suggested reading. I doubt many working biologists frequent this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Doublee,

    You asked...
    What am I to make of this lack of responses?

    You will undoubtedly make what you want to make of it.

    Doublee:Are my questions not clear?

    Have you stopped beating your wife?

    Why did God make me in a way that I don’t believe he exists?

    Are these questions clear?

    Doublee:"None of my specific points have been rebutted;"

    If you are not making an argument, there is nothing to rebut. Ignorance isn’t an argument. Are you making an argument or are you just asking questions?

    Making an argument usually involves proposing a hypothesis. Something like "Intelligent Design is the best explanation for the appearance of life on Earth".


    Are you proposing that hypothesis?


    Are you prepared to explain your definitions and reasoning in support of this hypothesis?



    Doublee:"...answers to questions I did not ask are provided instead."

    You asked for a generalized explanation, I gave you a generalized answer.

    Doublee:"Again, what I am to conclude from my experience?"

    Again, you will undoubtedly conclude what you want to conclude.

    I’m not an Evolutionary Biologist. I am just an engineer who likes to tinker. In this case, I am tinkering with ideas. I also enjoy arguing because it motivates me to learn new things.
    Alan Fox has a point. If I were an Evolutionary Biologist, I wouldn’t be wasting my time here. Just like I don’t waste my time on computer blogs arguing about whether MACs or PCs are better.

    In the ID/Evolution debate ignorance isn’t just used as an excuse, it is often used as an argument. If one can't overcome a critic's incredulity and lack of understanding, then it is argued evolution must not be valid.

    A quick search of Google Scholar using the words “Evolution Evidence” provides lots of freely available science papers. For example….

    Relatedness Among Contractile and Membrane Proteins: Evidence for Evolution from Common Ancestral Genes
    http://www.pnas.org/content/70/11/3230.full.pdf

    Organization of a type I keratin gene. Evidence for evolution of intermediate filaments from a common ancestral gene.
    http://www.jbc.org/content/260/10/5867.full.pdf+html

    DNA sequence of baboon highly repeated DNA: evidence for evolution by nonrandom unequal crossovers
    http://www.pnas.org/content/77/4/2129.full.pdf+html


    Molecular cloning of human gastrin cDNA: evidence for evolution of gastrin by gene duplication
    http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2866.full.pdf+html


    Structure, Organization, and Sequence of Alpha Satellite DNA from Human Chromosome 17: Evidence for Evolution by Unequal Crossing-Over and an Ancestral Pentamer Repeat Shared with the Human X Chromosome
    http://mcb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/6/9/3156


    Let me guess, you don’t want to get into the details. You want a generalized answer to your questions (either that or you just want to claim your questions can’t be answered).


    If you really want to discuss things, here is a Wikipedia summary…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

    We could go through it point by point if you like.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
    We could go through it point by point if you like."

    I wonder why in "Example of migration and isolation" they do not talk about the common origin of southamerican and african monkeys. I smell Haeckels again.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Blas,

    It certainly looks like you are going to believe what you want to believe, no matter what.

    Have you figured out where Possums came from yet?

    Or are you part of the crowd who maintains "we don't need no stinking hypothesis" and simply throws stones at something they don't like?


    (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Personals atacks are the only way darwinist can hide the fact they are only presenting the evidence fits they theory and hiding the facts not supporting it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Blas,

    Ahh, come on. That was a great movie line.

    "Well, it worked in Blazing Saddles!"
    (another great movie line from Robin Hood, Men in Tights)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lj056ao6GE

    Meanwhile, are you going to provide your explanation (i.e. hypothesis) for the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Evidence that darwinist are not doing science? The link of wiki you posted is full of them. Darwinist discard any data that do not fit with any foundation.
    The planets fits a geocentric orbita 90% of the time, are the unusual data that lead to the heliocentric theory.
    If science start to look at the unusual data for evolution will bring up a better theory.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Blas,

    You wrote...
    "Evidence that darwinist are not doing science? The link of wiki you posted is full of them. Darwinist discard any data that do not fit with any foundation."

    I was going to just skip over this, but I thought it better to try and help you. You see, I'm not interested in trying to convince you to agree with me. I will be quite satisfied just to provoke a little independent thinking.

    The title of the OP's actual book (instead of the photo-shopped image) is...

    The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind
    http://www.amazon.com/Scandal-Evangelical-Mind-Mark-Noll/dp/0802841805 [bold mine]

    It was written by Mark Noll who Time named one of the 25 most influencial evangelicals in 2005.

    The point of Noll's book was to encourage evengelicals to get actively involved in intellectual arguments.

    Ignorance isn't an argument.

    Where do you think the data for your ocean-going Monkeys came from?

    It probably came from an intellectual "Darwinist". The same kind of "Darwinist" you say is not doing science and is discarding data.

    Do you really think it is interesting to scientists to do detailed experiments and studies that just confirm what they already know?

    Or is it more likely scientists are trying to expand their knowledge by looking into hard problems?

    Explaining the existence of Possums is easy. Explaining the existence of New World Monkeys is hard. The scientists didn't try to hide or "discard" the data. Quite the opposite, they highlighted it as an interesting challenge.

    They are looking at unusual data in order to come up with a better theory.

    That is why you know about it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Explaining the existence of Possums is easy. Explaining the existence of New World Monkeys is hard. The scientists didn't try to hide or "discard" the data. Quite the opposite, they highlighted it as an interesting challenge."

    Why "my" ocean-going monkeys are not mentioned in the link you posted?
    May be because if you have well explained the oppsoum and hard to explain the monkeys the evidence is not evidence anymore?

    Which is your counterhipotesis for this lack of explanation in the link?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think it's important to remember that like any search for knowledge, truth or answers. The process we follow now has led us to stages of understanding that 200 years ago would have been considered magical or divine power and yet here we sit today with that power in the palm of our hands hungry for more. Is evolution a fact, probably. Can it be absolutely proven without controversy at this stage, probably not. The real fact is that the answers are out there and i have no doubt in my mind that everything can be explained scientifically and that god simply does not exist. Learning to live with that fact can possibly be one of the hardest things to do because it forces the mind to accept the purposeless construct within which we exist.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Imaguy:

    "Can it be absolutely proven without controversy at this stage, probably not."

    The only reason this is so, according to evolutionists, is that skeptics are biased. The evidence, evolutionists say, leaves no doubt that evolution is a fact for all to see. Those who disagree must have ulterior motives.

    ReplyDelete