I posted this link as a note in another discussion. "End of Darwinism", by Phillip Gold (Washington Times, courtesy ARN.org) Don't underestimate that paragraph. Otherwise the whole article seems even stranger than it is. Aside from that, have fun.
First problem is, biological evolutionary theory still offers the most plausible explanation for life on Earth, despite Gold's and ARN's "best" efforts. Next problem is the conspicuous absence of any alleged intelligent designer. Regards, mrmufin
He sounds desperate. Fortunately real science doesn't and can't care. It feels like he is standing at the station wondering why no one else is waiting for the train and not realizing it left long ago. Evolution is out there, it can’t be taken back. And trying to establish ID as science seems as futile as trying to find the grave of Sherlock Holmes.
Various comments Various stuff I agree, but this equals what? The most plausible suggested explanation? Sure, I think we can all agree on that. Like I said, don't underestimate that one paragraph. That was the whole point of that paragraph. Desperate toward what end? About what, specifically as pertains to this topic? And you, sir, appear to be standing at the station, scratching your head and wondering what it is you don't get. Remember that yesterday's fantasies are today's scientific accomplishments. The point isn't that Intelligent Design is necessarily right, but that it has within it perspectives of value that can be developed eventually in a scientific setting. And what's wrong with recognizing "Darwinism" as what it is? It's doctrinal; the word refers to a right answer that's not known, and is expected to bear the weight of its value being fully known. Let's take a look at that paragraph I think people are underestimating: - At the moment, Intelligent Design's in a deconstructionist mode. Yes? No? Anyone here disagree? - Destroying Darwinism does not automatically validate Genesis or any particular alternative. I can't disagree with this sentence. - Will Intelligent Design ever achieve full paradigm status? I'm sure you and I would likely offer a hearty and simultaneous "No". And that's fair. But .... - Perhaps the day an article appears in some prestigious, peer-review journal, beginning: "We have discovered the identity and intent of the Intelligent Designer." How many times have I advised Creationists around here that if they want Intelligent Design taken seriously as a science, they need to cough up evidence of the Designer? How is it any less legitimate an argumentative point because Phillip Gold includes it here? And how often have I written that "evolution" as a science is an ever-transforming process, an unfinished process? With each passing chapter, Darwinian evolution looks less like science and more like myth . . . or, more aptly, a paradigm in serious need of shifting. So now there is a tabled assertion that the holes in the record which open "Darwinism" to criticism have become tenuous. Einstein's work can be, and is being modified by empirical research, writes Gold. Evolution is not. Is there not a dimension of this issue that strikes you as at least possible? Take for comparison cosmology and other astronomical issues: how often do we revise the age of the Universe? This is not problematic to those who accept the value of the scientific method. But I confess that whatever the all-encompassing idea of "evolution" equals in written words, I do not hear of the same brand of flexibility, perhaps because the evolutionists themselves are less sure of the entirety of the hypothesis. But that's why I like the hair-splitting aspect of the article. Remember that since "the other side" of the evolution debate, the Intelligent Design crowd, are generally so crocked, it's tough to think seriously about the idea. Reading along as Gold fails to excoriate the Intelligent Designers for being the dumbassed Bible-thumpers we expect them to be, I admit it's tough to not feel a measure of disgust toward someone who sympathizes with one's chosen enemy. The only thing that changes in response to an affirmative opinion of this article is that one is looking around a little more. Oh, heaven help the poor bastard that opens his eyes in the daylight .... Seriously. The only reason I put this article up in the first place is because I expected people to take it wrongly.
Re: Various comments While he has several valid points, here he is absolutely incorrect. Evolutionary theory has undergone constant hypothesis, testing, and modification since Darwin. Many aspects are still largely undecided, in constant debate, and the search for more evidence continues daily. The fact of biological evolution as "changes in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to another" (wikipedia.org) is quite simply an observed fact. Speciation has also been observed in organisms with rapid breeding cycles. Exactly how the process of "natural selection" works and the history of the evolution of organisms (components of the broad term "Evolutionary Theory") are not exact and are constantly being changed. The proposed alternative (ID) is quite simply not coherent enough to form a valid scientific hypothesis. It is a conclusion without content. If the ID'ers want to be taken seriously by science they need to develop a testable hypothesis. To date, their argument consists of, "If we cannot explain it, it must be ID." Quite simply this is not science. ~Raithere
Hmm .... I'm not sure "evolution" itself is the stake. Rather, its role and the idea of "Darwinism" (per Wikipedia). What Gold is reacting against is a tendency among evolutionists to rely on the idea of Darwinism without understanding fully its implications. That evolution is an observable fact bears little if any effect on the issues raised by Intelligent Deisgn as an idea in and of itself. Genesis creationism? You bet there's a large effect. The idea of Intelligent Design includes certain implications of design. If a fundamental formula or code were discovered underlying all of creation which indicated clear purpose, the "authority" (Unmoved Mover, &c) which is responsible for the limitations of the code or formula would constitute the designer. That ID is not a science is so apparent even to Gold that it seems he's too subtle about it. I'm happy to draw off points from his argument for overestimation. Darwinism doesn't speak much toward human paradox, or, as Robin Williams has it, "Gee, maybe Darwin was wrong." Darwinism may be more symptomatic of the Universe than anything else. In the end, we must pay attention to Intelligent Design because it's a sort of fantasy that runs much akin to science fiction. If nobody else here is inspired by subjective things such as music, dance, painting, poetry, or otherwise, then I'll happily withdraw the whole thing and wonder when being human became so inconvenient as to bring evolution from spite. But this is not a soulless group, so I feel secure in saying that people do in fact draw inspiration from things which are not quantifiable by the scientific method. And so it will be with this. You don't have to believe it. You don't have to appreciate the people involved with the idea. But they will occasionally produce an idea worth growing, and blindly waving the weedwhacker isn't always best for the garden.
Re: Hmm .... I'd oppose any stance robin williams has purely out of spite but this stance of his I find particularly objectionable. So dear rob, no you hairy talentless freak, perhaps he wasn't wrong, unless he indicated that you were funny at one stage in your career, in which case he got it totally wrong and should be shot in the head. Anyway, tiassa, please tell me this isn't coming down to the "humans are too badass for evolution" argument. I really hate that argument. Its tends to be peddled by people who are only familiar with human accomplishment and nothing else. We do seem miraculous and magical if we are the only thing we are aware of. But we make a whole lot of sense when you look at the big picture and every brush stroke on that picture. If this was a "the earth and universe are too badass for mindless evolution" argument then i might be a little more interested. I see indications for this myself, evolution seems to me like it does have goals and that there is more to it than simply being an accidental freak occurence. This is not in harmony with darwin's theory, but IMO has more indications in its favour than the alternative. I'd go into that but... you know, I'm kinda sick of changing people's subjects.
Re: Hmm .... In which case I find the argument even less convincing. Is he addressing the current state of evolutionary science or simply the principles of Darwinism? They are not at all the same thing although his article deliberately attempts to make them out to be. It amounts to a straw-man argument. The perception of order does not constitute proof of design or intent. Evolution as an observable fact demonstrates how apparent order (or 'design') may occur through natural processes. ID is then forced to distinguish and prove Intelligent Design from natural 'design'. I wonder how such a code would be identified (there are certain inherent problems in decoding without a specified key) but this could indeed be a beginning of a testable hypothesis. He does not seem to be addressing ID metaphorically; is that what you are suggesting? Certainly. My opinion is that they should go for it. Prove the hypothesis if they can, it would be an incredible discovery. But to lament that ID, which doesn't even amount to a scientific hypothesis, does not receive serious consideration from the scientific community is like complaining that a writer who has never actually completed a novel has not received any favorable reviews. One must first submit an acceptable work. ~Raithere
Good thread tiassa and good replies thus far from everybody. Maybe I can break that tradition Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! From Gold's article: Isn't that the truth? What would the great internet past time of thumping thumpers be without Darwinism? Aye.....who is to judge? Does anyone still look up to the night sky and ponder why? I think the fact that we contemplate what "might" be beyond the universe and what "is" within ourselves is evidence enough that we were not a product of pure cosmic coincidence. Consciousness. Awareness of self. The ability to think and create. Of course, this is just one man's thinking and you're welcome to disagree with it. ~Mark Michael Lewis
Tiassa, I don’t believe or see a genuine attempt to use science. I see the agenda as fundamentally religious and where the claim to science is being used politically because that can give religion credibility. That faith is finally being discarded as the standard for religious knowledge is a sign of desperation to make religion appear valid no matter what it takes. Yet it is feigned and dishonest, faith that a deity exists still underlies the entire agenda. ID and evolution are mutually exclusive so the demonization of evolution will always be a dominant approach in any ID argument, and we see it here again. That evolutionary theories are still work in progress is again being attacked as a mistaken sign that evolution is invalid. Real science doesn’t have an agenda. That Darwinism is being seen as a political tool and that all scientists working in the field have such agendas fails to recognize that the vast majority of scientists are genuinely looking for truth and knowledge – i.e. the real objective of science. LOL. That I may sometimes miss the point with my simple mindedness would not surprise me. But in this case I don’t think so. I prefer to conclude that I can see through the political and not so subtle crap and see the real agenda. But that gives a false impression that all fantasies can come true. The reality is that only a tiny fraction of them result in anything of substance. But until they have substance, if ever, they still remain fantasies. The scientific method is not difficult to understand or follow. All that the article is trying to do is make it appear that the method is flawed because it doesn’t suit his religious agenda. To emphasize Raithere’s comments - The difference between science and religion is that science starts with problems and looks for solutions, whereas religion starts with a solution (God), and seeks to fit that solution to every aspect of the unknown. The article is religious in every aspect; it has nothing to do with science. He states that some of the past ‘great’ theories are failing or have failed, but that is the very nature and power of science, that it adapts and evolves and is indifferent to politics. It is that ruthless property that immediately discards an idea once proved false that is its fundamental strength and allows us to move forward. The man seems to not even understand these basics. Fine, just let’s not confuse it with science. His agenda is entirely religious.
Re: Various comments They tried that. They called it Creation "science" it was a big flop, we all had a good laugh at it, and now it's still out there, but it stays huddled in a dark corner sort of hugging itself and trying to convince itself that it's valid.
Various stuff Raithere For the issues of that article, the question is best left to the author of the book being reviewed. I tend to think Gold at least is addressing the pseudo-religious reliance on "Darwinism". Evolution is a vastly important area of science that, because of its political entanglements--not the fault of science at all--people tend to regard in as two-dimensional and fixed. Cris noted that science doesn't care. I agree. That's why I put a fish "and chips" symbol on the back of my car instead of a Darwin-fish eating the Christian fish. I'll take your word for it. Yes .... So mote it be. Agreed. Stop letting the religious folks set the limits of your vision. We both agree that religious vision is for the most part myopic and narrow as well, do we not? Why let them set the limits of your regard for the issues at hand? Yes, you seem to agree with Mr. Gold on that point, as well as my own litany of posts in defense of evolution. And that's all there really is to it. Certes, it's a monumental task, but if people religiously spurn the ID movement and its produce, you'll never know if they manage to build a workable hypothesis. I mean, my big problem with Creationism is that the current excuses for hypotheses are simply not testable. And if I'm busy thumping the thumpers and focusing on my distaste for their ilk, I might actually miss it the day someone from ID throws a testable hypothesis at me. I find it slightly disturbing that more important than the human-level connection of searching for answers and happiness, the atheist faithful and the Darwinian faithful continue to let some of the most undereducated people in the first world--e.g. Genesis creationists--set the tone according to superficial differences. I'm suggesting the idea that for every X number of ideas you find wrong about ID, you might find even one idea worth growing on. If you discount the idea on the merit of the thinker being part of ID, you are not judging the idea on its own merit. I don't see that lament specifically. Especially in light of the paragraph I emphasized in the topic post. Are that paragraph and its implications just too difficult for the ID-haters to cope with? (A) This is covered in the article. (B) I would not expect the Darwinian crowd to notice the day they do develop a working and testable hypothesis about anything. The article reflects point A. The response to this topic reflects point B. Dr. Lou You don't even know the joke associated with that moment, do you? But it has certain implications for how we view Darwinism. If we choose to apply natural selection at a purely individual level, then yes, Darwin was wrong. Humans, that certain self-awareness we have that isn't evident elsewhere in nature, screws up the formula a little. We can choose irrationally, and if this makes our species unfit, so it shall go. But demonstrably, in human life, the strong do not always succeed, do not always survive; we have protection nets in some places for the weak, and if a California surfer with bleach-blond hair and bloodshot eyes standing in the Sistine Chapel, looking upward, saying, "Wow. Oh, wow, dude. Wow," is the pinnacle of evolution, then yes, Mr. Williams' joke has no merit whatsoever. Geez, Lou, I don't see that anywhere in here. Maybe it's somewhere in the book being reviewed, but where, aside from your own perception according to your individual priorities, does that idea enter into it? So why raise it as an issue here? It treads close, so your inclusion of it here doesn't puzzle me as much. But no, this article doesn't seem to fit into any of the common boxes preferred by most refuters of Intelligent Design. That's why I posted it in the first place. And if from that idea someone discovers that "objective anchor" for human conduct, morality, or existence, so be it. Then we get to examine the nature of the authority which by its nature requires those limitations. See, you do get it. Don't sell yourself so short. Actually, I don't think you'd be changing the subject that much at all. Bridge Such an idea becomes problematic merely because of its dimensions. From anarchy to tyranny is demonstrable in history, Jack Kevorkian is debatable according to whether or not there is an objective morality, and Britney Spears I think serves the case well. People tend to resort to a hollow argument of hedonism in response to a suggested lack of moral authority in the Universe. But what is difficult to quantify, and will only be quantified in any reasonable regard long after it ceases to matter is a perceived progressive "decline" in "civilization". Dr. Jeffrey Burton Russell, in his examinations of the Devil, noted a certain bit about progress in relation to the ideas of "good" and "evil". Progress, you say? Progress toward what? For certainly the progress most people seek have nothing to do with the species (see note on Robin Williams above for a suggested dimension) and everything to do with the self and kin. But how can anyone claim progress if nobody knows where we're going? Let's move off the sphere for a moment to illustrate. We can calculate the position and orbit of Mars relative to Earth for just about any day in existence. Fair enough. So we can look at the launch and path options for sending a rocket to Mars. If we do not use one of the options which shows us reaching Mars, and instead launch the rocket in another direction entirely, sending it off into the Universe, can we say it's making progress as it sails farther and farther away from Mars? This is essentially what people seek: some sense of validation that their progress is actually progress. Nobody knows what we're progressing toward. Individual goals, perhaps. Kin-related goals, perhaps. But these are narrow and myopic and lack any sense of objectivity. So what "progress" are we making as human beings? We elect poor politicians to lead us, we set priorities according to individual and often-irrational needs. We are aware of evolution, but we fear its implications. Take a look at societies. When I was young, people feared that Communism would come along and erase individuality. World destruction, while not celebrated as a great option, was viewed as being better than Communism. A transformation occurred in the American conscience during the 1990s when Clinton went after cigarettes: "Smokers cost everybody else money," they said. "It's wrong to take from everyone else like that." Well, guess what? The same logic applies to Hummers, unhealthy food, consumption of intoxicants, excessive wealth, and even excessive individuality, as people must waste energy accommodating one another. Suddenly it was the "free society" that wanted to homogenize. The lack of individuality which people feared became a paradoxical advertising platform. Over the last few years, since death tolls don't work, it has become more and more common to picture heart disease and diet, for instance, in terms of the financial cost. In fact, it would seem that before we can call anything progressive, we must as a society agree on what the goal is, so that we might know what that progress regards. As with the rocket going the wrong way to Mars, progress is not measured by how far you are from your starting point, but rather how much nearer you come to your goal. And that's where the breakdown in moral authority comes into play. People are not, lacking God as the moral authority, generally going to rip the world apart. But history does show, as the religious morality echoes more and more hollowly, a coincidental (?!) decline in the scope of human ambition. And while I disagree with most, if not all religious presumptions of moral authority, I do find it ironic that an ideology focusing critically on those occasions when the religious moral paradigm tends away from "progress" should rely on conditions which do not acknowledge any consistent goal toward which we might progress. Quite obviously, a number of our Sciforums neighbors do not. After all, it is an inefficient waste of time that doesn't lead to any scientifically-observable results. And as this debate shows, if it ain't quantifiable scientifically, it ain't real, at least for some people. And part of that is their own lack of vision, so there's not much anyone can do for them unless they choose to grow.
Tiassa In which case I take issue with his specificity. If he would like to say that most people have an extremely limited understanding of evolution and that their trust and simplified understanding amounts to Darwinist dogma, I'd agree. To accuse evolutionary scientists of having the same fault... please. I don't. I attempt, in as far as possible, to remove anything that limits my understanding. I'm always looking for another way. Unfortunately this lies mostly in the hands of the ID movement as they keep running around screaming that the sky is falling. Indeed, there is such a danger. Then again, you might spend years studying deeply every newly-worded, same-old argument only to discover that it never improves. To me the best course lies somewhere in-between. I'm willing to scan through a proposed discovery but if it's quickly identifiable I'm going to chuck it in the trash bin where it belongs. I agree. But uneducated or not they are quite crafty. They take advantage of the scientific openness towards discussion by beleaguering their opponents with misleading statements. The response necessary to provide a full correction requires vastly more time at which point the Creationist simply poses another statement. This tends to keep the opponent off balance and in a defensive posture and makes it appear as if the Creationist has the stronger position. The best way to handle Creationists is to go on the offensive and insist that they support their 'theory' with something besides the OT. It's not the idea but the conclusion that I object to or rather, the assertion that they've even reached a conclusion. I find the idea itself quite fascinating. So did Sagan, if you've ever read Contact (they left what was for me the most striking part of the book out of the movie). The whole thing is a lament about ID not getting taken seriously. Let's take a look: No. ID, having nothing of substance to offer at the moment relies upon questioning the validity of evolution in order to lend credibility towards its unsupported position. It is not in the process, as is being asserted, of tearing down before it can rebuild. Such is not necessary, Newton did not have to 'deconstruct' Copernicus, and Einstein did not have to 'deconstruct' Newton. This statement is nothing but mere apologetics. Agreed, so why waste time on something that does nothing to support your hypothesis? If the straw-man of "Evolutionary materialism" is so obviously "virtually stagnant" "by modern scientific standards" why does he waste his time beating it? Why not spend some time attempting to prove ID or Creationism? Only if warranted. Thus far, it's not. And if it never even gets to the point of becoming a testable hypothesis, it never will. It wouldn't even have to be that Earth shattering. It could be, "We've developed a method for discerning natural order from intelligent order, it always works in discerning human made from natural. Thus far, I don't see anything to deal with. ~Raithere
Re: Various stuff Bridge: "Does anyone still look up to the night sky and ponder why?" Tiassa: "Quite obviously, a number of our Sciforums neighbors do not. After all, it is an inefficient waste of time that doesn't lead to any scientifically-observable results. And as this debate shows, if it ain't quantifiable scientifically, it ain't real, at least for some people." There is a difference between gazing at the night sky and finding a hero of old writ in the stars, wondering if perhaps there is a creature on a planet out there looking back at Sol at this very moment, or just pondering the immensity and beauty of the Universe and making an untestable and unprovable assertion and labeling as empirical truth. I don't need science to tell me those first three things, I see them myself. The last, however, does indeed fall within the realm of science where the test of the matter is put up or shut up. Most scientific revolutions have been led by passionate young men with strength of vision, the will to back it up, and the perseverance to prove their position. They not only gazed up and pondered why... they actually figured some of it out. I find more reason for wonder and awe in science than I ever saw in religion. ~Raithere
Fair 'nuff Look, I don't know why I'm even arguing the point at all. I should just point back to the topic post and simply leave it at, Have fun. Really, without sarcasm.
Re: Fair 'nuff I am. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'll put my take on it as simply as I can. I am quite willing, and science as a method must be willing, to examine any potentially useful paradigm. But while I can see certain metaphorical or symbolic uses for ID it simply fails to meet the scientific rigor to be taken seriously at this point as a useful scientific approach. ~Raithere
Re: Hmm .... Sorry tiassa, this is what made me think you were making the humans are too cool for the universe argument; I guess I just don't understand what you are saying there, wouldn't be a first. I always thought reading comprehension was one of my strong points before I came to this damn placePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now I really am about to stray off topic but hopefully I'll be able to get back. I saw a documentary about darwin's life on the weekend and it totally fascinated me, to be honest I knew pretty much nothing about him, his theory happens to be my favourite subject but I just never took the time to hear what he had to say about it. From this documentary I gathered that he and I are very similar people. We both started out as children(see? We're exactly the same) overly interested in the natural world and animals. We weren't great students but kicked ass at knowing about animals and animal behaviour. Then when we got a bit older, animals took the back seat to booze and chicks, but we got over that and quickly were drawn back to nature. Like darwin, the only thing that made me stop believing in god and the bible was my growing knowledge of animals and the natural world. The more I learned about animals the more faults I noticed in faith. This was not my intention nor darwins. All we wanted to do was learn about animals and we never imagined what the repurcussions of doing that would be. This documentary was riddled with examples of darwins personality and I find it uncanny how similar he was to me as a person, We share a multitude of similar quirks that aren't even related to being interested in nature(or maybe they are?) Anyway, with that being said, I don't draw the same conclusions from darwins findings that most do and maybe even he did. I don't think there will ever be an "end to darwinism", its too late for that, as far as I'm concerned evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, but I do predict an end to evolution being viewed as so grim and cold. All the things on this earth that unintentionally make a mockery of the bible, don't necessarrily put an end to their being meaning to the universe. In fact to me they point to this universe being much more, a more magnificent truth than the bible ever promised. Most seem to think "well the bibles wrong, that which proved it wrong was cold hard science, therefore, 2+2, the earth and the universe are cold hard science that just happened and thats the way it is" I don't go that far, or I did there for a while but started to see more in all of it. Wait, I didn't see more in all of it, I saw it for what it was, bah hard to explain, ok heres what I mean; eg; the sun, what is it? A ball of gas and fire blah blah yeah yeah and you're a mis-shaped ball of flesh and bone. The path of science doesn't seem to be aimed in a direction that will ever touch on what the sun actually is. He's a successful father. He's been jizzing all over this solar system and one in his harem happened to be in estrus. Hmm still hard to explain... I don't know, every aspect of everything subtely suggests the same thing, something that is impossible for me to explain, but its along the lines of "no thats not just the way it is" I don't think there is necessarilly an intelligent designer, as much as there are "intelligent" stars, planets, universes, etc etc. The real "gods" aren't hard to see, you don't have to "look in your heart" (whatever the hell that means anyway), you have to look at the physical universe, but at the same time you have to appreciate it for what its doing rather than what elements it is comprised of. Reality IS my religion. Cold hard science explains the mechanics and anatomy of my religion quite nicely, thank you, but thats not all there is to it by any stretch of the imagination. Most seem to think that is all there is to it but I don't know how they come to that conclusion, there is so much you need to ignore for that to make sense.
