Charles Darwin spent many years working on his ideas about evolution before publishing them in 1859. Darwin continued with revisions for another 17 years, finally stopping with his final edition, six years before he died. In his heartfelt introduction to his tome Darwin provided the reader with a context. Many readers would not make it through the lengthy work, but they would read the Introduction. So not surprisingly Darwin finished his introduction with his take-home message. If you go no further, this is what you needed to know. Here is how Darwin finished that first chapter:No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he make due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of the many beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history. Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification.
That final paragraph to his Introduction is, in many ways, an excellent summary of evolutionary thought. Darwin here explains that there is much that we do not understand about the origin of species, but what is plainly obvious is that the species were not independently created and immutable.
Darwin lays before the reader the contrast that has been running through this genre of thought for centuries. There is much we cannot explain, but this we know. We may not know how it happened, but we know how it didn't happen.
It could have been written 150 years earlier by Leibniz who couldn't explain the solar system design very well, but he knew how it wasn't designed. And it could have been written today by an evolutionist such as Francis Collins who, like Darwin, cannot explain how biology's marvels arose, but he knows how they didn't arise.
The uncertainty that science leaves us with is, by now, not too surprising. Yes we make great progress. But for every answer there seem to be two new questions. It is hardly a revelation that science has not yet revealed all.
What is more of a revelation is the certainty part of the equation. Yes there is much we don't understand, and we have all heard that before. But listen to the evolutionist's pronouncement of certainty in the face of such unknowns. This is astonishing.
How is it that they, with no more scientific knowledge than the rest of us, can suddenly find such truth?
The answer, of course, is that to evolutionists the world does not look designed. God would never have created this mess, so therefore it must have evolved, somehow. The paragraph, as with the book (and legacy) that follow, reveals ignorance followed by metaphysical certainty. We don't know how evolution occurred, but we know this world was not designed so evolution must have occurred.
Such metaphysical certainty trumps all manner of scientific problems. What we do understand from science does not bode well for evolution and common descent, but so what? Such ideas face tremendous scientific barriers, but they are puny compared to the overwhelming certainty that they are true. This much we know.
What I want to know is why. Why is there such absolute certainty in the midst of such profound ignorance? What is the motivation? Is it just a hatred of religion? Is it an instinctive rebellion against authority? Or is it because of the innate human desire to belong in a group?
ReplyDeleteSurely it could not be because of a love of science since there is no real science in it. Can someone explain it to me in simple terms? Inquiring minds and all that.
Cornlius Hunter: Many readers would not make it through the lengthy work, but they would read the Introduction.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, many readers, especially scientists, did read the entire work. More importantly, generations of scientists have set about verifying and extending Darwin's theory.
Darwin only considered it a long abstract. To quote from the Introduction, and then to act as if Darwin didn't provide the outlines of a testable scientific theory is providing a very incomplete picture.
Cornelius Hunter: Darwin here explains that there is much that we do not understand about the origin of species, but what is plainly obvious is that the species were not independently created and immutable.
Yes, falsifying one of the prevailing views of the day is an important step in his argument. But as the Introduction makes clear, the book provides support for his theory that "species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species," and that "Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification."
He was correct that species are not immutable. Perhaps that was his greatest accomplishment.
ReplyDeleteIt is strange that any person would attempt to look at the amazing complexity of the world, which is clearly beyond human understanding, and make a supremely confident conclusion that God did not do it. Obviously, creating a universe is way beyond human capabilites. To judge this act based mostly on ignorance seems to be foolhardy for anyone, and doubly so for someone knowledgable in the intricacies of science. Such hubrous is unreasonable to be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLouis Savain: Why is there such absolute certainty in the midst of such profound ignorance?
ReplyDeleteScience never gives absolute certainty, but can provide a high-level of confidence. Restating your question,
Why is there such a high-level of confidence in the midst of such profound ignorance?
That's the amazing thing about the scientific method. Humans are forever doomed to be ignorant of most everything, but through the process of hypothesis testing, objective and independent verification, and through investigation with different methodologies, people can learn some things about the world around them.
So while Copernicus never knew how the Sun made its fire, he still proposed a Heliocentric Theory. Newton never knew about curves in space, but advanced the science of Mechanics immeasurably. Boyle could only imagine the interior of the atom, but he still devised a corpuscular theory of chemistry. And while Mendel knew nothing about molecules like DNA, he still proposed a valid theory of genetics.
Cornelius Hunter: The answer, of course, is that to evolutionists the world does not look designed. God would never have created this mess, so therefore it must have evolved, somehow.
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
Since you evidently believe that God did create this mess, how do you account for the messiness?
No points for invoking the Fall, unless you can explain how the Fall accounts for oddities like the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, which is 19 feet longer than necessary.
Keith:
ReplyDelete"No points for invoking the Fall, unless you can explain how the Fall accounts for oddities like the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, which is 19 feet longer than necessary."
Necessary for what? Mere survival? That's not all that a teleological perspective would posit. A teleological perspective allows for multiple design objectives for a given designoid that may require trade-offs to get the best mix ("best" being determined by the sentience of the designer). On top of that, you would need to show 2 things to argue that a design inference for a giraffe is inconceivable in terms of a Fall or such:
1) that there is a genoptype that would produce a giraffe with a laryngeal nerve 19 feet shorter that would not involve fitness costs that rendered the giraffe less fit than the giraffe with the longer laryngeal nerve,
and
2) that if such a genotype indicated in 1) existed, it couldn't have been modified independently of the original designer until it produced the longer, unnecessary nerve.
If either of these is false, you have not falsified a "Fall" type approach to the teleological explanation of a giraffe and its long neck. You're assuming what it is you need to prove.
Keiths,
ReplyDeleteCornelius is not a theologian so his opinion on this matter may not be as researched as his insightful biology posts. I'll take a stab at an answer if you don't mind. I answer this question with two points:
1) you can not love a robot. Is that obvious? It seems so to me from personal experience. There is no machine with which anyone can have a relationship like we do with each other. So what does this mean? It means that God created us with free will to love him and each other. Regardless of how messy the world is, it is still more valuable to God to have creatures like Himself then uncaring robots.
2) God is like a gardiner. A gardiner plants a crop every year and marvels at the beuaty of the flowers, and other plants, which are His creaton. However, having one crop that never changes would be mega boring and less fruitful than a garden that produces a new crop every season. So God created a world which can produce over 5 billion souls to go to heaven every generations - that is quite a remarble achievement don't u think? However, there is a downside - every generation dies. That is the nature of the design, to have multiple generations one generation needs to be replaced with the next. Therefore death and pain is an intrinsic part of the design. However, it makes more sense to have many bountiful harvests then just one. On the plus side it is only our material bodies that die, our immortal souls live forever. So that's all there is to it. Not very complicated is it. What do you think?
.
.
Is it possible that the laryngial nerve is a vestig of fetal development, not evolution?
ReplyDeleteKieth:
ReplyDelete"Since you evidently believe that God did create this mess, how do you account for the messiness?"
----
What messiness are you referring to?
Is this merely another example of asking for an explanation of the problem of the existence of evil?
I'm afraid so. And if it is then you are barking up the wrong tree, for that is not something science can ever answer. That is an existential question and based on metaphysics and a priori assumptions.
If nature is all there is then there is nothing wrong with anything at all.
Darwinists and atheists are always confusing these things of course so no surprise here.
The real question is why do you think this is a mess in the first place?
See? You've already stepped into dangerous territory by giving away the underlying fact that you think something is wrong with the world.
Based on what principle? Moral or scientific?
And even in that answer you will necessarily reveal that you do indeed believe in a real Right and a real Wrong and a real Order - which w/o a divine supreme entity cannot even be.
Louis:
ReplyDelete"Is it just a hatred of religion?"
Not at all. The hatred of religion is not much of a factor here. Evolution is motivated by religious beliefs. Indeed, a sizeable fraction of evolutiondom today is made up of theists. And while evolution has fueled atheism, even those atheists are parasitic on the evolution's religious beliefs. Evolution is religious, not anti religious.
Always be suspicious of any scientist who claims that any given attribute of any given creature is not what it should be or need be. Like Keith's giraffe ex..
ReplyDeleteThey don't know what they're talking about 99 times in 100.
Remember the formerly long list of human "vestigial organs"? Was once around 110 items long and is now at zero.
Only Darwinists think stupid things like that and its always a vain attempt to demonstrate some assumed evolutionary fault, left over, etc. in an even more vain attempt to prove "God would not have done it that way" therefore evolution is true.
Nonsense is what it historically and always turns out to be.
This is in fact an excellent example, Keith, of what Dr. Hunter is saying throughout this blog!
So I suppose we really ought to thank you for providing such a livid example!
Cornelius:
ReplyDelete"Evolution is motivated by religious beliefs. Indeed, a sizeable fraction of evolutiondom today is made up of theists."
Exactly. A lot of macroevolutionists get confused about what it means to say God could have created any way He wanted. If one posits a powerful enough God, it is true that God can move things around any way He wants. But that means God is doing all the causal work in the first place--that there is no natural causality involved in the motion of particles.
But if God acted teleologically via natural means to bring about ends, it is not knowable whether God could have produced the desired ends "any old way." To know that, we would have to know all of His ends and demonstrate the possibility of their attainment via several diverse sets of laws by modeling. And of course we can't do that. We can't even model our own cosmic history via any conceivable set of natural laws.
So their constant refrain that God could have obtained His ends teleologically in a myriad of ways is just non-sense. No one can demonstrate that. And it is not self-evident.
keiths:
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, I take issue with the notion that "God created this mess". First of all, if it is a mess (and I disagree), it is a truly marvelous one, worthy of all sorts of praise. When was the last time you designed and created an amoeba or a bacterium?
Second, the scriptures never said that "God" created life on earth. Genesis unambiguously pointed to many beings (the Elohim) as the designers and creators. And they were not all-knowing and omnipotent as evolutionists insist that they were. I really detest this lame strawman. You people should stop using it because it makes you look stupid.
The Elohim apparently experimented for eons before they could take a step back and say to themselves "This is very good". 'Very good' is not synonymous with 'perfect', as far as I know. Nowhere did Genesis imply that the Elohim were perfect.
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteLouis:
"Is it just a hatred of religion?"
Not at all. The hatred of religion is not much of a factor here. Evolution is motivated by religious beliefs. Indeed, a sizeable fraction of evolutiondom today is made up of theists. And while evolution has fueled atheism, even those atheists are parasitic on the evolution's religious beliefs. Evolution is religious, not anti religious.
Are you saying that evolution is a religious doctrine that is fighting against all the other religious doctrines for supremacy in the minds of human beings? If so, I agree. I tend to think of all of science in a similar way, though.
keiths:
ReplyDelete===
Since you evidently believe that God did create this mess, how do you account for the messiness?
===
Evolutionists have strong religious opinions and concerns about this, but I'm not such a religious person.
Louis:
ReplyDelete===
Are you saying that evolution is a religious doctrine that is fighting against all the other religious doctrines for supremacy in the minds of human beings?
===
I'm not sure I would put it in those terms. I think from Burnet to Darwin to Coyne, etc, evolutionists are quite genuine in their arguments and concerns. And they are completely convinced of evolution. It is just very obvious to them that evolution, one way or another, is true. And typical of rationalists, their not particularly conscious of their own metaphysics. They're just "doing science."
Cornelius: And typical of rationalists, their not particularly conscious of their own metaphysics. They're just "doing science."
ReplyDeleteJeff: Right. Because when your epistemology effectually rules out teleology for biological origins (as is the case for atheists and Miller-ite theodicists), there's no analogical inference less strained than the macroevolutionary one. Thus, it wins by default, as speculative as it is.
"Always be suspicious of any scientist who claims that any given attribute of any given creature is not what it should be or need be. Like Keith's giraffe ex..
ReplyDeleteThey don't know what they're talking about 99 times in 100. "
And always be suspicious of people who invent statistics to sound authoritative.
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I would put it in those terms. I think from Burnet to Darwin to Coyne, etc, evolutionists are quite genuine in their arguments and concerns. And they are completely convinced of evolution. It is just very obvious to them that evolution, one way or another, is true. And typical of rationalists, their not particularly conscious of their own metaphysics. They're just "doing science."
They are completely convinced while at the same time claiming (falsely, in my opinion) that science is not about certainty but probabilities. It's strange.
Apparently many evolutionists see it as their mission in life to combat other religions, especially Christianity. Richard Dawkins, for example, is one of the most dedicated anti-Christianity crusader around. I just read a news item today that he wants to have the Pope arrested during his next visit to England. This is all apparently due to his negative experiences with the Catholic Church while growing up. For a supposedly scientific field, its leaders have an inordinate obsession with religion. As they say, opposites are of the same nature. I wonder if eastern evolutionists have the same hatred of Buddhism.
Louis:
ReplyDelete"Apparently many evolutionists see it as their mission in life to combat other religions, especially Christianity. Richard Dawkins, for example, is one of the most dedicated anti-Christianity crusader around."
But he and the other outspoken atheists are not typical of evolutionists. Their personal battles against certain religions, while they promote their own religion, goes beyond evolution.
There is a wide spectrum of views amongst evolutionists, but they come together on the religious and philosophical premises that mandate evolution to be true. So within evolution you have otherwise disparate thinkers, such as Dawkins and Ken Miller, agreeing on the core metaphysics, and resulting truth status of evolution.
"Such metaphysical uncertainty trumps all manner of scientific problems." Did you mean to say certainty?
ReplyDelete"how the Fall accounts for oddities like the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, which is 19 feet longer than necessary." I heard an apologetics teacher (Charlie Campbell) say that apparent contradictions and errors in the Bible result not from "too much information", but from too little information. I think the same might apply to design criticisms.
ReplyDeleteE.g., claiming junk DNA disproves design is not a result of too much information, (i.e., the information that points to junk DNA), but too little information, (i.e., it's not really junk!).
Wasn't the appendix viewed as a useless vestigial organ just a few years ago -- turned out that wasn't too much information, it was too little information.
RkBall:
ReplyDelete"Did you mean to say certainty?"
Ah, yes, thank you. My mistake. I should have said:
"Such metaphysical certainty trumps all manner of scientific problems."