My Science Question On Religion & Spirituality

[Theland]

It's all about this
http://www.talkorigins.org/
versus
this
http://www.trueorigin.org/

[Clanad]

Thank you for your understanding, Lazy Gun... let me just say that you've captured an important caveat in any discussion such as this. That being interpretation of each other's intended positions. I can only assure you cyberly (is that a word) that a review of the material has been accomplished and not just posted willy-nilly to fill space. You're certainly aware that we all tend to seek out those of like mind. This practice has the potential, then, of producing an in-bred point of view. I would hope that I've been able to read and understand (some at the lay level) the evolutionist "paradigm". I understand it's history, especially as espoused by Darwin and i also understand the underlying concepts. In fact dawkins has always done an excellent job of reiterating many of those concepts, especially focusing on common ancestry and natural selection.

But I also read of the difference of opinion pretty much across the board in the various specialties, with the biologists (as you indicate) being the most dogmatic (my view). This does not, as you've stated, invalidate, in and of itself, the theory of evolution. My goodness, to maintain that position would certainly apply to the differences seen among creationists.
But, just as a non-theist would leap at the chance to point out the differing positions of theists on any subject, it is fair game to state that there's wide divergence within the scientific community.

So, on this matter I think that the alternate positions of these qualified people must carry some weight, don't you think. Perhaps not to invalidate evolution in everyones view, but certainly in their's. That's the only point I'm trying to make in this context.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.
In the interest of brevity, here's but a few:
"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."
(Dr Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist)
"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted."
(Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
(Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist)
"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation."
(Niles Eldridge, PhD., palaeontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History).

I've Googled many of the references since these examples are gleaned from a staunchly theist (read Christian) site, located here: http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/SBS777/vital/evol utio.html
(To me at least, it's significant that this is a U.K. based site).
But the source of the material does not invalidate the apparent truth of the opinions expressed by what appear to be credentialed representatives of the various specialties.

I'll be only to happy to address the remaining sections of your post, but it may be a while. Again, thanks for your tone and efforts...

[Clanad]

A quick aside before I have to go... I was truly troubled as to why I would list your name incorrectly, here and on another thread. I knew the name Lazy Dog certainly rang a bell and on reviewing some work I did several years ago with the Northern Cheyenne (Tsi-Tsi-Tas) I remembered that whie trying to determine Northern Cheyenne participants in the Custer fight of 1876, a reccuring name was that of Dog which, alone, is unusual in Cheyenne naming for warriors. After research and interviews with tribal elders it was finally determined that his name was most likely, you guessed it, Lazy Dog. Here's the reference taken from my copy of a pamphlet Nothern Plains Indians at the Battle of the Little Big Horn:

Name: Dog Friend, a/k/a Dog, a/k/a Lazy Dog (2nd edition)
Tribe: Northern Cheyenne, warrior
Role During Battle: Unknown
1926, attended Battle 50 Year Anniversary
Death:
Unknown

[LazyGun]

Clanad, The quotations you gave, and indeed the source you derived them from (as you pointed out, a pro-creationist website),are interesting, since they are examples of what I was complaining about, namely quote mining, selective quotation and subtle misdirection.

Lets review the quotes you mention and their source in a little more detail, shall we?

1"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."
(Dr Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist)

Firstly, the credentials of the person quoted. Millikan was indeed a Nobel Prize winner... what he wasn't, however, was an eminent evolutionist... he was a physicist. Now, this does not of itself devalue any opinion he might have, but he becomes a much less authoratitive figure when speaking about evolution. So, the details provided by the website are slightly misleading... he was most certainly not an eminent evolutionist. Secondly, he made this quote back in 1925!! This was only around 50-60 years after Darwins original work, nor did he have the advantage the wealth of our modern day knowledge of the fossil record, molecular biology nor the sophisticated tools used in predictive cladism etc.Thirdly, he came from a strongly religious background, and spent a lot of time trying to reconcile his religious faith with science. How much relevance does a quote from a non biologist have, some 70 or so years on? None, in my view, nor of any modern researcher.
-ctd-

[LazyGun]

-ctd-
2."It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted."
(Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)

This was taken out of a book first published in 1944. Again, a long time before we had the benefits of DNA testing and advances in molecular biology, predictive cladism,a greater understanding and wider examples supporting the fossil record etc. He was himself a proponent of evolution, but argued against the gradual small change model in favour of a more dramatic mutational theory. So, what we have here is a quote taken out of context which sounds like it is arguing against evolution, when in fact it is a quote supporting a different mechanism of evolution... and again, it is more than a little dated.
-ctd-

[LazyGun]

-ctd-
3."No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
(Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist)
This guy wrote in the 1970s, again a little dated, but from a modern basis slightly more relevant.What we have here is an abbreviated, selective quotation. The paragraph from whence this quotation was lifted should read as follows;

"Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve. This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.88"

This could be read as a warning to researchers to be wary of making assumptions,particularly when it comes to mutation being the main mechanism of evolution. And indeed, mutation is not the only way the gene pool can change at species level to be selected for.Based upon other musings of his, it would seem that he was in favour of the theory of evolution, but was concerned that researchers were getting to fixated on a single mechanism. This is a significantly different message from the one presented from the creationist website by selective quotation!
He also wrote (in the same book) "Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world." Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.3
-ctd-

[LazyGun]

-ctd-
4."The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation."
(Niles Eldridge, PhD., palaeontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History). (Note incorrect spelling of the surname)

This at least is from a contemporaneous and eminently respected researcher in evolutionary biology. The quote was actually taken from a book," Time Frames: The Re-Thinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria 1985".

What are we to take as the meaning of this quote? Simply that Eldredge, a noted and passionate advocate of evolution is reasserting his belief in the underlying principle of evolution ( although he and SJ Gould were proponents of the punctuated equilibria mechanism of evolution). He most certainly is not advocating creationism!

This "argument from authority" is one often found on anti- evolution sites, and can be quite powerful, so it is particularly important to verify the source, context, credentials and time period before any credence is placed in the quotation itself.

[Clanad]

Well, after two attempts at constructing a reply and having had the site fail, I�ll try once again, Lazy Gun (extra careful this time). I appreciate your patience and hope we�ve not completely lost contact.
You�ve accomplished an excellent exposition of your position, especially as relates to the rebuttals of the quoted sources I had originally provided. Please understand that that site and the few examples were not from the list of 500 I had discussed previously.
Having said that, I concur that �data mining� to support ones position can and often is used by both sides of this (and other) debates. However, the ideas promulgated by those included on the presently discussed list do support, in my opinion, one of my main contentions. I�ve contended for some time that the diversity of opinion within the evolutionary circle penetrates much more deeply than simply a minor difference of opinion on mechanism�s. While you are certainly correct in stating that few of the selected scientists have renounced evolution, the arguments concerning, for example, gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium and the resulting sometimes vicious in-fighting punctuate (no pun intended) the most basic foundations of evolution. One has to look no further than the loss of status, if you will, of Stephen Jay Gould and N. Eldredge, especially, as I previously mentioned, following the death of Gould.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

Their article in Nature, has this quote ��Punctuated equilibrium is a theory that attributes this pattern of spurt and stasis neither 1. to imperfections of the fossil record in a truly gradualistic world, nor 2. to such theories of occasional anagenetic rapidity as Simpson's important hypothesis of quantum evolution, but to speciation as a process of branching, characteristically occurring at geologically instantaneous rates - with trends then explained not as anagenetic accumulation, but as differential success by species sorting." (Source:Drs. Gould and Eldredge). It�s safe to say, I think, they have been pilloried since then, as witness this from Stanford Presidential Lectures in the Humanities and Arts�� A third example of his (Gould�s) enthusiasm for verbal battle is his open opposition to the advocates of strict neo-Darwinian theorists and evolutionary psychology. The melee among these "evolutionary pugilists," as Martin Brookes has labeled them (Brookes, "May the Best Man Win," New Scientist, April 11, 1998: 51), typifies Gould's fervent opposition to what he terms the "strict" adaptationist model for the evolution of human cognitive capacity. The debate itself is about nothing less than the capabilities and limits of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm. Gould has stridently objected to its unbridled application as an overarching theory capable of completely explicating human nature or even leading to the denial and replacement of religion. His opponents on various fronts in this wide ranging debate include the linguist and evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker, the philosopher Daniel Dennett and the prominent English evolutionist Richard Dawkins��

Contd

[Clanad]

Contd.

Darwin and the �gradualists� (my coined term) cannot brook any eons long concepts of stasis as observed in the fossil record, nor can �punctuality� find residence in their position since their evidence can only support long periods of the gradual development and absolutely does not allow very abrupt appearance of fully formed creatures not previously seen.

As well, although you have done a thorough job of defining your position in defining species, you must know it is direct conflict with other�s equally well defined dogmas. Additionally, "We're trying to find what causes [speciation], and we're finding that geographic isolation by itself doesn't always provide the best answer. Something else is driving it--and we think that 'something else' is often the ecology." (Source Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. P��bo. 1997. Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans.)

This can be brushed aside as a simple disagreement about mechanisms again, but I see it as a major stumbling block in determining evolutionary progress, so to speak.
This goes to the heart of our discussion concerning Sankar Chatterjee�s Protoavis as a valid taxon, aspects of which I, too, am uncomfortable. But, here again, the underlying disagreement concerning this finding as well as the Chinese Confuciusornis examples are not whether they constitute transitional forms, but whether they prove the �party line� approved descent from coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which were not known from the early Triassic over against the disputed descent from the Maniraptora.

[Clanad]

Contd.

Look, it would take a small book to define my position, but the basis is the understanding that the Bible and Science are not, necessarily mutually exclusive. While one has only to do with the how (science), the other has to do with the why. But where the Bible does explain the how, it is scientifically correct. Examples provided at your request. Again, I appreciate your patience and ability to clearly define your position, which I respect�

[dawkins]

An explanation of Gould and Eldredge without dealing with contingency (to prevent confusing issues)

Clanad, if I may. Gould and Eldredge accept as fact descent by modification by the non-random process of natural selection. On this point (the mechanism for evolution) every evolutionist agrees. Their theory of punctuated equilibrium attempts to read the fossil record from the point of view that gaps in the fossil records are not symptomatic of an incomplete fossil record but are indicative of how geographic isolation causes speciation in relatively short time spans (GEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING). They argued that one would not find gradually changing forms in stratigraphical order because geographic isolation, by definition, would require one to examine separate geographic locations for evidence of speciation. So they are arguing that Allopatric speciation causes the "gaps" in the fossil record.

Try reading this paper which attempts to clear up the confusion about what Gould and Eldredge meant by PE:

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html

1/2

[dawkins]

You will be able to check the quotes against Darwin's original thoughts on evolution and how they tally with Goulds research.

Dawkins has come round to better appreciate Gould and Eldredge as he has digested their work (although he strongly disagrees with the importance they attach to it) and they remain highly respected within science circles. However, their work on the Cambrian Explosion has been weakened by subsequent research. And most evolutionists didn't find anything groundbreaking in their PE. Dawkins explains the difference between his own gene centred work and Gould and Eldredge's palaeontology as follows:

"The language of voltage fluctuations is not useful for discussing how a large computer program, such as MS Excel, works. No sensible person denies that computer programs, however complicated, are entirely executed by temporal and spatial patterns of changes between two voltages. But no sensible person attends to that fact while writing, debugging, or using a large computer program".

their views reflect their background Palaeontology or genetics. Eldredge and Dawkins have both stated, in less heated moments, that the overall picture requires an understanding of both. But at no point does anyone suggest a requirement of a mechanism other than natural selection.

thanks


2/2

[Clanad]

Welcome back, dawkins... I appreciate your didaction... needless to say, I find a different conclusion based on the reading of your link as well as other reference sources.
Firstly, I have come to believe that the original Darwinian proposals have been an orphan child in search of a permanent home. It's unusual, at least in my experience, to find a theory (scientific if you wish) proposed without any, or worse, faulty foundation and then followed by generations of researchers seeking to prove it's premises. This is at least, the appearance generated by Darwin.
Eldredge and Gould are only examples of justifying what they see to fit what they wish to believe. I think the divisions seen in the evolution based field(s) are deeper and more strident than perhaps you're willing to admit. This view found in New Politics, vol. 9, no. 4 (new series),whole no. 36, Winter 2004, seems to me to be supportive of that view. I dont think the publication is creationist by any stretch of the imagination. As an example:
Regarding "Sociobiology" (stay with me here)
"Sociobiology" as a discipline launched itself on the world with a book of that name by Harvard entomologist EO Wilson in 1975.3 Probably, had it not included a final chapter on human beings, Wilson's magnum opus would have been seen as a stuffy old text book. The theory built on work within evolutionary biology, and in particular what had come to be known as the "neo-Darwinian synthesis." The synthesis in question was between Darwin's theory of natural selection, and Mendelian genetics (which, odd as it seems today, were not immediately noticed to work well together). The basic underlying idea is best known to the general public by the name given to it (in a book published in 1976) by Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene.4


Contd

[Clanad]

Contd.

"...Put very simply, the theory was this: evolution occurs, fundamentally, at the genetic level -- it is the product of genetic mutations which have effects at the level of the "phenotype" (the external forms and behaviors of an organism), which either contribute to or inhibit the organism's survival -- or rather, if they contribute the organism will survive, and so this effect (trait, phenotype) will be passed down through generations, squeezing out members of the same species who lack it. Neo- Darwinism superseded, and sharply criticized, a version of evolutionary theory that saw it operate at the level of the species (or group).5"
"...Against such woolly notions, selfish-gene theory saw itself as hard science. The gene is primary. Genes have no purpose other than replication. What enables replication will serve the interests, so to speak, of the gene. Everything about a species, from its appearance to its habits, even apparent altruism, has to be understood in this framework..."
"...What Gould et al identified as dangerous in applying this approach to human society is obvious. It explained -- and implicitly therefore justified9 -- current social arrangements as the result of evolutionary pressures; so, for instance, women could be said to occupy particular social positions as a result of evolution, not contingent social and historical circumstances; the same could be true of black people, and so on. There was more to it, but this was the gist of the argument..."
Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

Darwin's co-thinker, Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently came up with the theory of natural selection, unlike Darwin baulked at applying it to the evolution of the human mind. The mind, he thought, was so extraordinarily complex that it had to be explained by something else; Wallace thought God. Gould agreed that there was much in the complex workings of the mind -- and by extension, human society in general -- which could not be explained by evolution in a one-plus-one sense.12 He had an answer to the general theoretical issue this implied, as we shall see; the point here is that some phenomena, like the mind, can develop their own momentum, so to speak...."
"Human sociobiology," in effect, mutated over the years into so-called "evolutionary psychology."13 Indeed, this school forms part of a larger trend, described by Gould and his broad cothinkers as "ultra- Darwinism," "Darwinian fundamentalism," and such like. Darwinism, indeed, has become a kind of meta-narrative deemed applicable to all manner of phenomena, in a period when meta-narratives have been rejected as unfashionable. The philosopher Daniel Dennett calls natural selection a "universal acid" that can eat through -- oddly, he means "explain" -- everything, a theory with unlimited explanatory power.14 Gould remained hostile to these generalized, and often ideological developments; he contributed to a volume of "arguments against evolutionary psychology" published in 2000 (his article being largely a refutation of a polemic against him by Dennett).15
The issues raided in this debate about human beings are echoes of underlying questions to do with evolutionary theory as a whole. It is in this sphere, as a scientist, that Gould made his most important contribution.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Nearly Complete

{Gould and Eldredge,} ...were aware of a huge problem for Darwinist theory, expressed in the fossil record. If natural selection operates in the gradual, bit-by-bit change/mutation/adaptation fashion implied by the theory, you would expect to find fossils expressing this gradual change over time. But, on the contrary, the fossil record revealed that species could remain almost completely constant and unchanging for millions of years, with no evidence of anything happening; and then -- suddenly by geological standards -- there would be rapid evolutionary change, new species come into being. Evolution was not a long, gradual shift across aeons: it was very, very long periods of "stasis" followed by rapid change: punctuated equilibria..."
Controversy still rages about this theoretical innovation, though its nature has shifted somewhat. Dennett, who devotes a considerable part of Darwin's Dangerous Idea to an attack on Gould, essentially claims that there is hardly anything of interest in the theory anyway, and it is only Gould's tendency to self-publicize which has ensured its notoriety.23 However, Eldredge seems fairly convinced they had something important to say, and the accusation seems less persuasive in his regard. "Gould and I were regularly derided and dismissed as neo-saltationists for many years . . . "
Dawkins devotes a chapter of The Blind Watchmaker to an attack on the Gould/Eldredge theory.27 He largely ignores the two central points of it -- the fact of stasis, and the need to explain speciation (the division of a lineage into distinct species: neo-Darwinism implicitly shows no interest in species, and describes a natural world in which there is a sort of continuum of small variations). Instead, he focuses on the "saltationist" side to the question, charging Gould with confusion on the matter..."

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

Underlying all these things, plainly, is a dissatisfaction with the explanatory power of neo-Darwinism alone. To Gould, it seemed that mainstream evolutionary theory presented a picture of the gradual accumulation of change that was contradicted by the evidence, and explained much less that it seemed -- or, perhaps, explained too much. For Gould, a very great deal of natural history was the result of pure chance, contingent circumstance. At heart, here, I think there is a concern to see evolution as history, rather than an abstract model -- to identify and explain the actual shape of evolutionary history; in large part that Gould's sphere, palaeontology, is a historical science, accounts for this. Gould was impatient with explanations that focused only on one area of causality, and appealed -- in the spirit of Darwin, he often said -- for "pluralism." (Some emphasis added and foot notes remain) Here's the web address if you wish to review the entire, lengthy article: http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue36/Bradley36. htm#r12
So... OK, you get the idea, I hope. Then, By the way, just when I think I've gotten my mind around the various quirks, permutations and 180 degree turns the evolution theory redux seems to take, another jumps in... This time it's phenotype plasticity... I'll let you do the research in the hope of some appearance of brevity on my part. But, it appears to me that it's a growing phenomena and goes to the heart of our previous discussion re; Peppered Moth... Always good to see you, dawkins...

[dawkins]

I would agree with much of that piece. I don't agree that Dennett or Dawkins are social Darwinists. I find it ironic that anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-homophobic Dawkins is accused of such things. However, even if we take a view that the bible is in inerrant word of god we still have to deal with these issues and add a bit of human sacrifice and offering one's daughters to strangers. Christians generally live quite liberally but that is not necessarily what the bible asks for. So, is it culture or religion which has progressed western democracies in terms of equal rights? I would argue that the fact that religious groups are distributed along cultural lines is testament that religious belief is an extension of culture. What religion one follows is almost always an accident of birth.

1/2

[dawkins]

I deliberately left contingency out of my reply (and said as much) because, as said before, it is difficult to argue multiple points in a short space (especially while at work:-)).
I have explained before, in-fact in my last post, that Gould and Eldredge consider natural selection to be the anti-chance mechanism for evolution and just about every scientist not involved in the intelligent design movement concur. Contingency is the extent to which the environment and, therefore, matters outside of the control of a population, provide a catalyst for allopatric speciation to occur by, for example, wiping out the dinosaurs; or the drifting of south america from africa due to plate tectonics; or even something like a frog hitching a ride on a broken branch to inhabit a new island. These events provide geographic isolation which enables natural selection to occur but contingency still needs a mechanism for change, the environment doesn't change the animal (or plant) from within. Darwin, Gould and Dawkin would all agree with that. We see evidence from things like Kangaroos living in Australia and not Texas and the radiation of apes (e.g. the physical barrier the congo presents to bonobos and chimps). The discovery of DNA has so far agreed with predictions from evolution about related species and of evolution from geographic isolation. If and when it doesn't someone will jump on it.


Finally, on evidence. Einstein (who, it could be said, was partly responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki) Fudged the cosmological constant to produce a static or steady state universe. We now think the universe is expanding at an excellerating rate from a birth event. General relativity produces a gravitational singularity at the birth of the universe which would not be allowed under quantum physics. Do we chuck out Einstein's contributions as irrelevant because they only deal with the very big? or, do we look to unify them with an approach applicable to the very