What the play did get right is that the Monkey Trial was actually a referendum on the creationism and the Bible. Technically John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution, but all of that was merely logistical. The reason why the Monkey Trial is important to evolution, and the enduring message from Dayton, was that the Bible and its creationism were found to be passe. In the minds of evolutionists this was established in the showdown at Dayton when the two famous lawyers squared off. Clarence Darrow called William Jennings Bryan to the stand as a Bible expert and grilled him on its foolishness.
The exchange was entirely religious. Can we really believe the story of Jonah? Surely god would never do such a thing. And doesn’t the Bible state that the Sun goes around the Earth and that the world is only a few thousand years old? What about the Flood and did Bryan really believe the story of the temptation of Eve by the serpent?
Darrow’s sophism was right out of evolutionary thought and Bryan would have none of it. He handled Darrow with ease but more importantly, Bryan understood the bigger picture. Bryan was a great man and he could see through the evolutionary shenanigans. Evolution was not about science, it was all about religion as Bryan reveals in this telling exchange:
Mr. Stewart again objected to the examination of Mr. Bryan. MR. DARROW--He is a hostile witness.
JUDGE RAULSTON--I am going to let Mr. Bryan control.
MR. BRYAN--I want him to have all the latitude that he wants, for I am going to have some latitude when he gets through.
MR. DARROW--You can have latitude and longitude. [Laughter]
JUDGE
RAULSTON--Order....
MR. BRYAN--These gentlemen have not had much chance. They did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it, and they can ask me any questions they please.
JUDGE RAULSTON--All right. [ Applause ]
MR. DARROW--Great applause from the bleachers!
MR. BRYAN--From those whom you call "yokels."
MR. DARROW--I have never called them yokels.
MR. BRYAN--That is, the ignorance of Tennessee, the bigotry.
MR. DARROW--You mean who are applauding?
MR. BRYAN--Those are the people whom you insult.
MR. DARROW--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion.
Yes Lawrence and Lee altered this famous debate. As we saw the script would have the student believe Darrow destroyed Bryan and left him a pathetic figure, babbling incoherently to himself. And of course they omitted Bryan’s cogent observations, such as the one above.
But what Lawrence and Lee did accurately capture is the power behind evolution. As Bryan understood, it is a religious inquisition. Darrow’s cross examination was thoroughly drenched in Enlightenment theology. As Lutherans and Anglicans had been arguing for centuries, God would not use miracles. As with today’s atheists, Darrow’s attack was based on metaphysics which atheism cannot support.
And so we are left with the tremendous irony of Inherit the Wind. The script is for the most part a whitewashed version of history except for where it counts. The whitewashing falsely sanitizes evolution, but the real problem with evolution—that it is a religious theory—comes through loud and clear. Why? Because evolutionists are drunk with their religion. The religion is baked in and evolutionists are oblivious to it. They think their premises are obvious and unquestionable.
As Alfred North Whitehead once observed, we often take our most crucial assumptions to be obvious and in no need of justification. These underlying assumptions are unspoken and undefended because, as Whitehead put it, “Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them.”
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Cornelius Hunter
ReplyDeleteWhat the play did get right is that the Monkey Trial was actually a referendum on the creationism and the Bible. Technically John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution, but all of that was merely logistical. The reason why the Monkey Trial is important to evolution, and the enduring message from Dayton, was that the Bible and its creationism were found to be passe.
What a ludicrous claim. The Scopes trial was not any sort of referendum on the non-creation majority of the Bible or its message of love your fellow man. The Scopes trial was only a referendum on not using the Bible as a science textbook. Something that most intelligent, educated Christians have known for centuries.
It's only the small ignorant minority who insist on a literal Biblical creation. Sadly, that minority has a lot of money to spend trying to push their anti-science crap into public schools.
Science isn't against the Bible. It's against a particularly ignorant interpretation of one small section the Bible. HUGE difference.
What a ludicrous claim. The Scopes trial was not any sort of referendum on the non-creation majority of the Bible or its message of love your fellow man. The Scopes trial was only a referendum on not using the Bible as a science textbook. Something that most intelligent, educated Christians have known for centuries.
DeleteIt's only the small ignorant minority who insist on a literal Biblical creation. Sadly, that minority has a lot of money to spend trying to push their anti-science crap into public schools.
But here in the real world, as opposed to the movie set world of evolutionists, they weren't using the Bible as a science textbook. The cross examination was irrelevant to the trial. I know, you understand the general theme because you "saw the movie."
In the last few days blogspot SW is back to randomly deleting posts again. Anyone else have it happen to them?
ReplyDeleteI've had a couple disappear.
DeleteEvolution is not a religious theory.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean it may not be based on assumptions that could legitimately be questioned. All science is provisional, and sometimes the bedrock of our assumptions is shattered.
But it's precisely because science is predicated on the principle that all conclusions are provisional that it is not religious.
And in the case of evolution, it's not even antithetical to religion. There is absolutely no reason to assume that just because we have persuasive ideas as to how the universe and life might have been created that there was no who.
Elizabeth:
DeleteEvolution is not a religious theory.
The argument that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" is a non scientific statement. It is equivalent to an "IF AND ONLY IF" statement which is not available to science. Not surprisingly, that phrase was the title of a paper that contains typical religious claims that evolutionists make.
Do you understand that this phrase is not scientific? If not I can elaborate.
Yes, it's a non-scientific statement.
DeleteThat doesn't make evolutionary theory non-scientific, nor does it make it religious.
It does, however, have enormous explanatory power, hence Dobzhansky's phrase.
Yes, it's a non-scientific statement. That doesn't make evolutionary theory non-scientific, nor does it make it religious.
DeleteYes, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" is a non scientific claim. It is an example of the many types of metaphysical claims that evolutionary theory is based on. These theological and philosophical claims motivate and justify evolution. They run all through the evolution apologetics literature. Imagine if ID made equivalent non scientific claims. Evolutionists would label it as religious. And so it is, evolution is a religious theory. To say otherwise is to misrepresent evolution.
It does, however, have enormous explanatory power, hence Dobzhansky's phrase.
No, evolution's predictions are routinely falsified. "Lineage-specific biology" is one of many examples of how evolution does not have much explanatory power. Rather, evidence is explained *in terms of* evolution. That's different.
Ah, I missed your final paragraph.
DeleteYou wrote:
"No, evolution's predictions are routinely falsified. "Lineage-specific biology" is one of many examples of how evolution does not have much explanatory power. Rather, evidence is explained *in terms of* evolution. That's different."
I sam not sure what you are getting at here. What do you mean by "lineage-specific biology"?
Evolutionary theory is an explanation for the observed distribution of biological features both in extant organisms and in the fossil record, which form a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is not, in itself, evidence for evolutionary theory, but it is evidence for common descent.
What evolutionary theory accounts for is adaptive change down the lineages implied by the observed nested hierarchies.
Cornelius, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Yes, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" is a non scientific claim. It is an example of the many types of metaphysical claims that evolutionary theory is based on."
Evolutionary theory is not "based on" that claim, nor on any "metaphysical claim" (not that Dobzhansky's claim is metaphysical - it's just a comment reflecting his view, which I share, that evolutionary theory has extraordinary explanatory power).
It is based on a simple piece of logic, namely, that if a population of self-replicators replicates with heritable variance in the probability of reproductive success in the current environment, over time, the more successful variants will tend to dominate the population. We know this is true (as well as being a piece of sound logic) because we've observed it in the lab, field and in computer simulations.
It isn't "metaphysical" - it's just a very shrewd insight that has been extroordinary fruitful in explaining observed phenomena.
"These theological and philosophical claims motivate and justify evolution. They run all through the evolution apologetics literature."
There may or may not be an "evolution apologetics literature" but if there is, it's irrelevant to the literature that matters which is the empirical scientific literature. I've seen bad arguments for evolutionary theory, and I've seen erroneous, or misleading (not necessarily, or even probably) simplifications of evolutionary theory. But what matters is its predictive power in empirical studies.
"Imagine if ID made equivalent non scientific claims. Evolutionists would label it as religious."
Yes, and they do. But to escape the charge, ID has to make good theoretical arguments and present good empirical confirmation of those arguments. This is what is lacking. Dembski's mathematical arguments have been systematically dismantled, not because of any claim they make to be "religious", but because they are flawed mathematically and logically. And what empirical evidence has been advanced in favour of ID has similarly been dismantled on scientific grounds.
"And so it is, evolution is a religious theory. To say otherwise is to misrepresent evolution."
Not at all. What "motivates" evolutionary theory is its continued explanatory power. Nothing else. It poses no threat to the concept of a creator God. It does of course pose a threat to specific concepts of God (for example, not a single religous creation myth is supported by science as literal history), but is completely compatible in principle with the notion of divine origins, and, for that matter, with divine interference in the world. It just doesn't require it.
That's why it isn't religious. It is independent of a divine postulate.
"Yes, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" is a non scientific claim. It is an example of the many types of metaphysical claims that evolutionary theory is based on."
DeleteEvolutionary theory is not "based on" that claim, nor on any "metaphysical claim" (not that Dobzhansky's claim is metaphysical - it's just a comment reflecting his view, which I share, that evolutionary theory has extraordinary explanatory power).
It is based on a simple piece of logic, namely, that if a population of self-replicators replicates with heritable variance in the probability of reproductive success in the current environment, over time, the more successful variants will tend to dominate the population. We know this is true (as well as being a piece of sound logic) because we've observed it in the lab, field and in computer simulations.
Lizzie you have a very important logical mistake here that needs to cleared up. The phrase "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" does not follow from your argument. Can you see why, or should I elaborate?
Cornelius, the "it" of my second paragraph refers to "evolutionary theory", not to Dobzhansky's comment.
DeleteYes, I do understand that.
DeleteLizzie:
DeleteYour argument is this:
It is based on a simple piece of logic, namely, that if a population of self-replicators replicates with heritable variance in the probability of reproductive success in the current environment, over time, the more successful variants will tend to dominate the population. We know this is true (as well as being a piece of sound logic) because we've observed it in the lab, field and in computer simulations.
The claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" does not follow from your argument. That would be equivalent to affirming the consequent, if that helps. There are other ways to explain it as well.
Cornelius, I am not saying that the claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" follows from my argument!
DeleteI'm saying evolutionary theory is not based on any such claim, but on a simple piece of logic, which I gave.
The conclusion from that piece of logic is, as I said, that "the more successful variants will tend to dominate the population".
I assume you agree, because most IDists do agree that this occurs in what they call "microevolution".
So what is wrong with the logic?
Lizzie:
ReplyDeleteCornelius, I am not saying that the claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" follows from my argument!
Oh, OK good. Sorry about that misread. So you had agreed that this claim is non scientific. So next question: do you understand how evolutionists arrive at this claim?
I understand why Dobzhansky made the comment. It's not one I'd make myself, but I do agree that evolution makes a great deal of sense of biology.
ReplyDeleteI understand you wouldn't make that claim. But let's take ourselves out of the equation. You may well not agree that evolution is a metaphysical research program as Kuhn put it, or a religious theory, but I hope that at least you can understand that viewpoint. Having done that, you then will be in a better position to critique it.
DeleteWell, I understand a little better, Cornelius, having read a section of your book on "Theological naturalism" and another blog piece by you on the subject.
DeleteYou seem to think that whether explicitly theistic or not, science is predicated on the notion that the universe unfolds according to discoverable laws, and that this is a kind of religion.
Well, it is certainly what "drives science" but in what possible sense is such an assumption "religious"?
It certainly can be - both Teilhard and Dobzhansky appear to find it (as I did myself for half a century) a most satisfying theological position, in that it neatly solves "the problem of evil" while remaining compatible with the concept of an ultimately benevolent creator.
But evolutionary theory is certainly not predicated on that theological view; like all science it is simply predicated on the methodological working assumption that explanatory models can be found and tested.
You don't need to build a theology out of that, and it works whether you have a theology of some sort or not. It even works, to some extent, if you have a completely incompatible theology, like YEC, because you can always plead Omphalos.
In other words, all that "drives" science is its working assumption, not a "worldview".
That working assumption is compatible with a vast number of worldviews, from that of the catholic priest Teilhard, to that of Richard Dawkins, passing a number of YECs on the way.
I think you are tilting at windmills :)
OK, I just re-read Dobzhansky's essay, which I hadn't read for years. Your quotation of course is its title.
ReplyDeleteWhat I had forgotten is that the title refers to a more extensive passage, not by Dobzhansky but by Teilhard de Chardin:
"One of the great thinkers of our age, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, wrote the following: "Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is."
And Dobzhansky goes on:
"Of course, some scientists, as well as some philosophers and theologians, disagree with some parts of Teilhard’s teachings; the acceptance of his worldview falls short of universal. But there is no doubt at all that Teilhard was a truly and deeply religious man and that Christianity was the cornerstone of his worldview. Moreover, in his worldview science and faith were not segregated in watertight compartments, as they are with so many people. They were harmoniously fitting parts of his worldview. Teilhard was a creationists [sic], but one who understood that the Creation is realized in this world by means of evolution."
http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm
Goodness me, Cornelius! I just googled your name and Dobzhansky and found myself in a googlebooks page of your book "Science's Blind Spot" where you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Dobzhansky’s paper was a tirade against divine creation and is now a classic example of theological naturalism in action."
Did you read the same paper as I did?
Here is another quote from it:
"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."
How on earth can you interpret that as "a tirade against Divine creation"?
Or by "theological naturalism" do you mean that of scientists who, like Dobzhansky and Teihard, actually do subscribe to the notion of a divine creator?
Lizzie:
DeleteOr by "theological naturalism" do you mean that of scientists who, like Dobzhansky and Teihard, actually do subscribe to the notion of a divine creator?
Let's focus on what people are saying, not their beliefs, perceived or otherwise. Evolutionary arguments are quite consistent. This isn't about Chardin or other fringe thinkers.
Unfortunately I have to leave the discussion for awhile now. But will pick it up later. The question is, how can evolutionists claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution"? How do they know that? Let me give something Darwin said as another claim to consider. It it just another way of saying much the same thing, so will give you another angle on it. Here it is:
"We cannot believe, that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance."
What is the unspoken, implicit, assumption at work here? How can Darwin conclude for "inheritance"?
"They" don't "claim" it, Cornelius. Sure they quote Dobzhansky, but it is not a shibboleth for admission to the Evolutionists Club.
DeleteThere are a number of things that don't make a great deal of sense in the light of current evolutionary theory, which, like all theories, is a work-in-progress. Drift, for example was not part of Darwin's original theory, and we have only scratched the surface of variance-generation. Darwin had no good theories about that, knew nothing of genetics, and favoured Lamarck's ideas at one point.
Now Lamarck has had something of a rehabilitation, with the discovery of epigenetic effects, and the idea that all variance is incremental is challenged by ideas like Margulis's theory of symbiosis. Evolutionary processes themselves are likely to prove "evolvable" and already are far from the kind of "random" shuffling some people envisage. Non-disastrous mutations are more probable than disastrous ones in most lineages, for instance, and populations with epigenetic "blurring" of the selection signal may prove, over many populations, to be the ones that are most adaptable.
So no, not everything makes sense in the light of our old evolutionary theories, and so they are subject to constant revision. However, what still makes huge sense is the model of common descent, of adaptation by heritable variance in the probability of reproductive success in the current environment allowing populations to exploit some extraordinarily specialist-demanding niches, and the idea that genetic variation leads to phenotypic variability.
And there is no "unspoken, implicit, assumption in that quotation by Darwin". What he is saying, in somewhat rhetorical language - is that the extraordinarily consistent pattern of nested hierarchies noted by Linnaeus is well-fitted by the model of common descent.
It's not an assumption, and it's not implicit. It's an explicit conclusion.
And the model of common descent, with incremental variation over time filtered by natural selection remains, as Dobzhansky and Teilhard imply, a model of extraordinary explanatory power.
It leaves far more unexplained than perhaps either realised, but that does not mean it is wrong.
Lizzie:
Delete"They" don't "claim" it, Cornelius. Sure they quote Dobzhansky, but it is not a shibboleth for admission to the Evolutionists Club.
We’re not going to be able to have a meaningful discussion if the basics of language are up for grabs. When someone says "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" that is a claim. So yes, they do claim it. If you can’t agree on that then we’re not going to have a meaningful discussion.
So no, not everything makes sense in the light of our old evolutionary theories, and so they are subject to constant revision. However …
Again, let’s focus on what evolutionists say. This is not about your opinions right now.
And there is no "unspoken, implicit, assumption in that quotation by Darwin". What he is saying, in somewhat rhetorical language - is that the extraordinarily consistent pattern of nested hierarchies noted by Linnaeus is well-fitted by the model of common descent.
No, that is not what he is saying. If that were the case, he couldn’t make the conclusion he does. Read it again. You need to read it objectively.
It's not an assumption, and it's not implicit. It's an explicit conclusion.
How does he reach that conclusion? So far you have not explained either the Dobzhansky or the Darwin claim.
It leaves far more unexplained than perhaps either realised, but that does not mean it is wrong.
Arg, this isn’t about wrong or right. You need to focus on the question. Otherwise this is going to be a very tedious discussion.
Cornelius, I meant there is no monolithic "they". And that essay title of Dobzhansky's isn't, as we both agree, a scientific claim.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm not going to defend it as such, nor attack it as such. It's an essay title, based on a quotation from a Christian priest.
And nor am I going to defend a conclusion made by Darwin well over a century ago.
Science isn't about textual analysis of comments by scientists, it's about fitting models to data.
Darwin proposed two hypotheses to explain our observations. One was common descent as an explanation for the observed distribution of morphological characteristics of living organisms as a nested hierarchies. The second was heritable variance in the probability of reproductive success as an explanation as to why, over time, from simple beginning, those nested hierarchies might have diversified into well-adapted populations.
Those two models are well supported by a great deal of evidence that has appeared since Darwin's day, both palaeontological and genetic.
However he didn't even have a hypothesis about heritability let alone a hypothesis about phenotypic variance generation. Genetics largely explained heritability, as well as a great deal of phenotypic variance generation, but also raised some doubts about the simple common descent picture. It turns out that heritability isn't entirely vertical, and that not all inheritance is genetic.
In other words, my point remains: science is not "driven by religion" or indeed by anti-religion, whatever various evolutionists' rhetorical claims may be. It's about devising explanatory theories to account fo existing observations, and deriving hypotheses from those theories that make predictions that can be tested agains new data.
Cornelius, I meant there is no monolithic "they".
DeleteWell you said: “ ‘They’ don't ‘claim’ it, …
And that essay title of Dobzhansky's isn't, as we both agree, a scientific claim. So I'm not going to defend it as such, nor attack it as such. It's an essay title, based on a quotation from a Christian priest. And nor am I going to defend a conclusion made by Darwin well over a century ago.
Again, I’m not asking you to defend (or attack) any claim right now. Discourse with evolutionists are often difficult because they are so committed to evolution that objective evaluation becomes impossible.
Science isn't about textual analysis of comments by scientists, it's about fitting models to data.
We’re talking about evolution here. Darwin and the evolutionists did their fitting and made their conclusions. So now we’re talking about their conclusions.
Darwin proposed two hypotheses to explain our observations. One was common descent as an explanation for the observed distribution of morphological characteristics of living organisms as a nested hierarchies. The second was heritable variance in the probability of reproductive success as an explanation as to why, over time, from simple beginning, those nested hierarchies might have diversified into well-adapted populations.
Those two models are well supported by a great deal of evidence that has appeared since Darwin's day, both palaeontological and genetic.
However he didn't even have a hypothesis about heritability let alone a hypothesis about phenotypic variance generation. Genetics largely explained heritability, as well as a great deal of phenotypic variance generation, but also raised some doubts about the simple common descent picture. It turns out that heritability isn't entirely vertical, and that not all inheritance is genetic.
This is off track. Remember, you asked why evolution is religious. It’s going to be a long time getting there if we’re always going back to heritability and well-adapted populations. So let’s start again. How do evolutionists arrive at the claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution"?
No, it is not "off track", Cornelius, unless your assertion that "evolution is religious" only refers to certain claims about evolution that we both agree are not scientific claims.
DeleteIf you mean more than this - that religion drives the scientific study of evolution, as your phrase "religion drives science, and it matters" implies, then let's talk about what drives science, not what drove certain specific rhetorical phrases.
And of course we are going to be "always going back to heritability and well-adapted populations". That's exactly what the scientific theory of evolution is about. Scientists do not "arrive at the claim that 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". That was simply the title of a lay essay by one man, quoting largely from Teilhard who was not in fact a great scientist, but was, interestingly, a catholic priest.
The central claim that scientists arrived at - and like all scientific claims is a provisional albeit in this case extremely well-supported conclusion - is that living things are descended from ancestral population of much simpler living things, and the huge diversity they show reflects the operation of the mechanism identified by Darwin and summarised by me above.
Modern evolutionary theory goes much further than this, moreoever, and has identified not only the main vector of heritability (DNA) but also many of the mechanisms that drive variance generation, which include, but are not limited to, infidelities in the copying of DNA from parent to offspring. Other mechanisms include recombination, and horizontal mechanisms of DNA exchange.
Moreover, we now know that drift plays a large part i.e. variability in allele frequencies that are not systematically biased by reproductive advantage; of the importance of regulatory sequences in development in multicellular organisms in determining phenotypic features; and of non-genetic heritability factors such as epigenesis, and indeed, culture.
We know about gene-gene interactions, and gene-environment interactions, and of the fact that the evolving population is itself part of the environment that biases the sequence sampling in each generation.
These are scientific claims by evolutionists, and they are not driven by "religion" but the usual processes of science, namely the fitting of models to data, and the testing of those models against new data.
So when you say:
"We’re talking about evolution here. Darwin and the evolutionists did their fitting and made their conclusions. So now we’re talking about their conclusions."
My response is: if that is what you are talking about when you say that "religion drives science", then please make that clear. It may well have been true of Darwin (though I'd dispute it), who wrote in an era when scientific writing was very different to what it is now. Evolutionary science is what Darwin concluded in the century before the last, nor about what Dobzhansky titled a lay essay in t1973.
It's the entire body of empirical evolutionary investigation to date, and it is not driven by "religion", nor by "anti-religion". It is simply driven by the scientific method of deriving testable hypotheses from explanatory theories, and testing them against new data.
If you disagree, then you need to demonstrate that those scientific claims are "driven by religion" and not by data.
Dobzhansky's essay title is not a scientific claim.
A sentence accidentally got deleted. The above should read:
DeleteMy response is: if that is what you are talking about when you say that "religion drives science", then please make that clear. It may well have been true of Darwin (though I'd dispute it), who wrote in an era when scientific writing was very different to what it is now. Evolutionary science is what Darwin concluded in the century before the last, nor about what Dobzhansky titled a lay essay in 1973.
Evolutionary science is not simply the conclusions made by Darwin.
It's the entire body of empirical evolutionary investigation to date, and it is not driven by "religion", nor by "anti-religion". It is simply driven by the scientific method of deriving testable hypotheses from explanatory theories, and testing them against new data.
Argh...
Delete"Evolutionary science is not what Darwin concluded in the century before the last, nor about what Dobzhansky titled a lay essay in 1973."
Need coffee...
CH: How do evolutionists arrive at the claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution"?
DeleteLizzie: And of course we are going to be "always going back to heritability and well-adapted populations". That's exactly what the scientific theory of evolution is about. Scientists do not "arrive at the claim that 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". That was simply the title of a lay essay by one man, quoting largely from Teilhard who was not in fact a great scientist, but was, interestingly, a catholic priest.
Well you’re continuing to avoid the question. So again, the question is: How do evolutionists arrive at the claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution"?
So far the discussion has stalled on the first question. So at this point, let me help answer the question. The claim "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" is equivalent to “Everything in biology makes sense only in light of evolution,” which is equivalent to “Only evolution can explain everything in biology.” Finally, in the form of scientific testing, this is equivalent to: “Evolution and only evolution predicts everything in biology.”
So now that I’ve helped you with the first step, how about you finish it off? The question now is: How do evolutionists arrive at the claim that "Evolution and only evolution predicts everything in biology"?
"Well you’re continuing to avoid the question. So again, the question is: How do evolutionists arrive at the claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution"?"
DeleteHow can I do other than avoid the question when it assumes a premise I dispute? I do not accept that "evolutionists arrive at the claim that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'"
I would agree that the vast majority of evolutionists consider that the theory of evolution makes a huge amount of sense of biology, but there are obviously vast numbers of things in biology that are still not well-understood.
And in any case, we have both agreed it is not a scientific claim. So why keep treating it as though evolutionists consider that it is a key conclusion?
"So far the discussion has stalled on the first question."
It's stalled because you seem unable to get beyond the point that, oddly, we actually agree on, that it is not a scientific claim. It was the title of an essay by Dobzhansky in the seventies, in which he did not even make the claim, but quoted a similar claim made by a Jesuit priest, Teilhard.
"So at this point, let me help answer the question. The claim "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" is equivalent to “Everything in biology makes sense only in light of evolution,”
Which is why it is not a scientific claim. Clearly, not everything in biology makes sense at all, yet.
"which is equivalent to “Only evolution can explain everything in biology.” Finally, in the form of scientific testing, this is equivalent to: “Evolution and only evolution predicts everything in biology.”"
Which is why it is not a scientific claim. It is not a scientific conclusion. It is an untrue statement.
A sensible formulation would be: evolutionary theory forms a powerfully explanatory theory within which to understand biology.
And the reason evolutionists consider that to be the case is because it continues generate successful hypotheses.
That is the only answer I can give to your question, and only if I reinterpret it as:
"How do evolutionists arrive at the position in which they find an evolutionary framework is to be the most productive framework within which to conduct biological research?"
The question you actually ask is of the form "have you stopped beating your wife?"
Actually Cornelius, your logic is wrong.
Delete"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" translates into:
"Anything in biology that makes sense only does so in the light of evolution".
With which I would agree.
But the meaning of the original is ambiguous enough that I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. And it's probably translated from the French by a Russian anyway.
Lizzie:
DeleteHow can I do other than avoid the question when it assumes a premise I dispute? I do not accept that "evolutionists arrive at the claim that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'"
I would agree that the vast majority of evolutionists consider that the theory of evolution makes a huge amount of sense of biology, but there are obviously vast numbers of things in biology that are still not well-understood.
Regardless of the problems, evolutionists nonetheless do make this claim, even in peer-reviewed journal papers. So I’m unclear what it is about the premise that you dispute.
And in any case, we have both agreed it is not a scientific claim. So why keep treating it as though evolutionists consider that it is a key conclusion?
Evolutionists make the claim and it is important to understand how they arrive at the claim.
It's stalled because you seem unable to get beyond the point that, oddly, we actually agree on, that it is not a scientific claim. It was the title of an essay by Dobzhansky in the seventies, in which he did not even make the claim, but quoted a similar claim made by a Jesuit priest, Teilhard.
No, actually, I am going beyond that point. It seems that you are the one who is unable to get beyond that point, as you continue to bring it up.
Actually Cornelius, your logic is wrong.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" translates into:
"Anything in biology that makes sense only does so in the light of evolution".
With which I would agree.
OK, I have no problem with that interpretation. There still remains the question of how evolutionists arrive at that phrase.
I should say, though, Cornelius, that I appreciate the discussion, even though we may remain at odds :)
Thank you and likewise.
"Regardless of the problems, evolutionists nonetheless do make this claim, even in peer-reviewed journal papers. So I’m unclear what it is about the premise that you dispute."
DeleteWell, I'd want to see the precise context for such claims before I accepted your generalisation.
We agree that it is not a scientific claim, so if it is presented as the conclusion of an empirical test of a hypothesis, I'd certainly want to see how that conclusion was arrived at!
"Evolutionists make the claim and it is important to understand how they arrive at the claim."
It would only be important if it was being treated as a scientific claim that has been rigorously "arrived at".
It isn't, IMO. Evolutionary theory is the framework within which much biological investigation takes place because it has proved, over and over again, to be a framework that delivers successful hypotheses.
Therefore, it is reasonable for scientists to echo Dobzhansky's view. But that still doesn't make it a scientific conclusion, merely an observation that the evolutionary framework continues to deliver.
"No, actually, I am going beyond that point. It seems that you are the one who is unable to get beyond that point, as you continue to bring it up. "
I'm unclear why you keep insisting that evolutionists explain how they arrive at a claim which is not a scientific claim actually made!
I have explained why they tend to share Dobzhansky's view (I share it myself) but a view is all it is, not a scientific claim.
"OK, I have no problem with that interpretation. There still remains the question of how evolutionists arrive at that phrase."
Well, it turns out that Dobzhansky first used it in an earlier essay, from 1964, which I have now read.
http://people.ibest.uidaho.edu/~bree/courses/1_Dobzhansky_1964.pdf
It's an interesting essay, and Dobzhansky was a good writer, and people who use it are quoting Dobzhansky (I've never seen an example where he wasn't credited with it, although plagiarism is always possible, if regrettable).
So the answer to your question probably lies in Dobzhansky's earlier essay, which is apparently the text of after-dinner address given to a scientific association of which he was president (not sure which).
It is, in other words, a rhetorical claim. His actual words are are: "I venture another, and perhaps equally reckless, generalization - nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution, sub specie evolutionis".
Now, that is clearly - and self-confessedly - hyperbolic. It is perfectly possible to make sense of, for example, the Krebs cycle without appealing to evolutionary theory. But if we then ask: how did the Krebs cycle come about? then evolutionary theory is the theory (Dobzhansky would claim) that makes sense of it.
Pt II
DeleteAgain, you might disagree. But Dobzhansky, and most biologal scientists, would take the view that if we want to understand why things work the way they work, as opposed to simply how they work, then evolutionary theory is the most productive framework in which to work.
And the reason they think so (and I think so too, as a scientist in a biological field) is experience - the answer to questions of the form "why should this system be the one we observe rather than that system?" turns out usually most effectively answered within an evolutionary framework. Questions like "why are our limgs controlled by the ipsilateral cerebellum but the contralateral cerebrum" for instance.
There may not be a good evolutionary explanation, but my sense is that I'm more likely to find one within an evolutionary framework than in any other currently available framework.
And the fact that we can devise a possible evolutionary explanation is not in itself evidence in favour of evolution. That would be circular (although the cumulative success of evolutionary explanations is cumulative evidence that an evolutionary framework is the right kind of framework).
I think it's important to realise that the vast majority of biological scientists aren't trying to demonstrate that evolution is true. They are trying to understand biology, and evolutionary theory is enormously helpful in that task.
I should say, though, Cornelius, that I appreciate the discussion, even though we may remain at odds :)
ReplyDeleteCheers
Lizzie