Darwinists, just divorce racism. Get back to me when you have filed, okay …

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 11, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Just up at an earlier post at Uncommon Descent (comments box):

“Since ID is not a religious program, but a scientific one, I fail to see why an ID proponent needs comment what a religious organization does or doesn’t do. Evolution is all about science (or so we’re told), as such its founder clearly held racists views drawn directly from the science. If you have a similar connection between racism and ID, we’re all ears.” – Donald McL

Thank you, Donald! that is precisely my point.

I certainly do not hold myself responsible for everything anyone has ever done in the name of religion, simply because I am a Catholic Christian.

I have also never held any individual Darwinist responsible for everything anyone has done in the name of Darwinism.

But I am – at best – surprised by the lack of interest of science societies in backing away from Darwin’s racism.

It would be EASY to do.

I do not want to quarrel uselessly about this. I am simply asking all members of societies that have made statements supporting Darwin vs. intelligent design to FOLLOW UP with a formal statement *divorcing* Darwin’s racism.

Just divorce Descent of Man now! Just DO it!

Don’t tell me that you individually disagree with it. That means nothing in the current climate.

Now, if the Darwinists do not do it, won’t we know something useful?

I think we will know something very useful indeed.

I will be VERY happy to publicise any upcoming divorces from The Descent of Man!

Darwinist, do you or don’t you divorce this book?

I hope and pray you do. Look, I have friends and in-laws from across the globe, from all races and nations under heaven.

I want to reach across the ideological divide and ask you to use the “year of Darwin” to finally divorce racism.

And if you don’t, we will know.

We will definitely all know whether you did or not.

And most of us will not listen to you in the slightest until you do.

Just do it, okay?

Comments

Arthur, you mean Darwin was a (The) Doctor?David Kellogg_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

One intelligently designed from a DeLorean? No, there weren’t DeLoreans in Darwin’s time. A locomotive, perhaps? Where’s Doc Brown whe you need him?
Sorry, David. Just my British sense of humour (sic)Arthur Smith_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Allen
“Why are the only species that have eyes are the ones that are conscious?”
Are flatworms conscious? How about scallops? Slugs? Spiders? Ants? And how would you go about showing that they were? Ask them? How do you even know that anyone else around you is conscious? Yes, you could ask them, but they might be programmed to give you a convincing answer.
Awareness is a property of consciousness. So, yes, spiders, worms, etc, have consciousness, i.e. they are conscious of their world to some degree. How do you think spiders build a web or trap flies or mate without being conscious? You call yourself a biologist? It's funny ow you equate developing wings and the ability to fly from a flightless species with what happens with gravity orother simple things. Is that the best you can do? How sad and pathetic that a prestigious university passes off such malarky as science.
mentok_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Arthur Smith [101],
What sort of time machine were you thinking of, David? Please answer carefully.
One intelligently designed from a DeLorean? No, there weren't DeLoreans in Darwin's time. A locomotive, perhaps? Where's Doc Brown whe you need him? The point, anyway: The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Almost all the genocide of the American Indian had already occurred by that point. Of course, there was still Wounded Knee, the last great massacre of the Indians, which took place just after Christmas in 1890. Can we blame Darwin for that? Please? What an obnoxious set of posts on this topic. They have yet to be reasonably defended, I suspect because reasonable defenses are unavailable.David Kellogg_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Allen Said: And so, let me ask the question again: how, precisely, does the fact that “fitness” is defined in terms of individual relative reproductive success in any way lead to the conclusion that certain “races” are “superior” to others? Please be as explicit as possible with your answer. I propose: It is true that Darwin’s views on racism have no bearing on the veracity of TTOE. On the other hand to many people, (me at least) it seems reasonable that if evolution is true then certain groups/individuals of living things are in competition with each other for the means of survival/reproduction. While it may not make sense to say they are more evolved, one might as easily say they are “better adapted” than others at reproducing and eliminating competition. It stands to reason that certain groups/individuals through RM and NS are “better adapted” to survive than other groups just as certain individuals are better adapted via RM and NS. (The engines of evolution) Further, if RM and NS produce aggressive behavior or thought systems which aids survival of individuals/group by producing domination and extinction of individuals/groups without the identical adaptation - then TTOE, as defined by the engines of RM and NS can be considered the cause of aggressive behavior and aggressive thought systems. Seems pretty clear to me… If a group of bees develops a “Killer” mentality they are better adapted and can take over the “regular” bees. (We of course actually see this happening in the Southern US.) The bottom line is with TTOE, Ken Miller aside, there seems to be no “ought” there is just “is.” Therefore which groups survive and which group go extinct is not a moral question at all but is instead one of survival. If a racist mentality helps a group exist/reproduce there is no moral constraint of "ought"...only "is". TTOE in the least then, to my way of thinking, makes no moral judgment on racism and partially enables it by suggesting that some groups will be “better adapted” at reproducing and eliminating competition than other groups. Some groups of living things will become extinct as conditions change. It also makes good sense that groups that are “better adapted” would not want to be bred with groups that are not as well adapted and would also keep the less well adapted groups/individuals from the finite resource pool.joshuabgood_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

jerry: And then there is the old adage about natural selection and that it is not random but sets a direction for evolution once the environment and the initial conditions are set. That is basic holy tenet of evolutionary biology. If there is no direction then natural selection is a random phenomena. So which is it?
Maybe reproductive success is what determine the 'direction'?Cabal_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Hi T, Yes, we are over 100 by just enough. Speaking of Allen MacNeill and fact/values, what does one versed in philosophy think of MacNeill's violation of his admonition as it occurs in the reverse? In a previous thread -where he advocated ESCR, claimed equivalence between ASC and embryos and asserted that most thoughtful people agreed with him that a fetus became and gained protection rights as a human being at viability (as per his #54 I don't know if this was just 'blatant propaganda' or his other option...) - Allen Mac Neill had the epiphany that our values actually determined the facts. He found out that a person was that which we valued, Ergo, a fetus (or ay entity, apparently) becomes a person when we develop an emotional attachment to it.Charlie_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

Since Allan MacNeill has decided to stop following this thread, he won’t reply to my rebuttal here. That’s nothing new, since he avoids replying to me anyway, but he can hardly expect us all to stop conversing just because he has left the room, and I want to express my objections to a couple of his posts above. Allan MacNeill wrote (#118): "Simply asserting that something can’t happen without providing evidence that it can’t happen isn’t an explanation for anything. And it certainly isn’t science." Very true, Allan. And the converse is also true: simply asserting that something can happen, without proposing any detailed, realistic mechanism which could make it happen, isn't an explanation for anything, and isn't science. Take neo-Darwinism, for example. Neo-Darwinism asserts that the mechanism which makes finch beaks a tad longer, or gives microbes antibiotic resistance, can account for the rise of radically new, highly-integrated body plans. It has not demonstrated this, and whenever it is asked to demonstrate this, it resorts to hypothetical and purely qualitative narratives which are almost by nature untestable. It is therefore not science. Allan MacNeill also decided to take a stroll out of his biology lab and make some pronouncements about philosophical matters (#104): “Ergo, discussions in which “Darwinism” is linked to morality are completely philosophically bankrupt, regardless of which side in the EB/ID debate makes them, and illustrates their complete misunderstanding of basic ethical theory.” Both the terminology Allan uses, and the philosophers he cites (Moore, the utilitarians, Rawls), reveal his presumption of the general validity of modern philosophical approaches to ethics, and his implicit rejection of pre-modern ontology. That is, his entire discussion only makes sense within a framework of doing philosophy which already presupposes the invalidity of Greek and Medieval philosophy. In light of this implicit rejection, it is not surprising that Allan upholds the fact/value distinction which is so typical of modern philosophy, but which is highly questionable once one adopts a pre-modern perspective. Of course, it is true that within the narrow conception of philosophy entertained in the modern era, one cannot derive “values” from “facts”, and it is also true, as Allan says, that modern “science” cannot yield “values”, i.e., cannot tell us what we ought to do. But the very bifurcation of reality into “facts” and “values”, and the very notion of “science” which Allan accepts, are consequences of the generally deformed apprehension of reality which characterizes most of modern philosophy, from the time of Bacon through to the present. From the perspective of ancient and medieval philosophy, fact and value are more closely connected, and the anti-teleological conclusions of Darwinism do have ethical implications. For example, if Darwinism is correct, then all “substances” (to use the Aristotelian language) are radically historical, and the whole idea that there is an “essence” or “nature” of any creature, including man, must almost certainly be rejected. With that rejection the traditional connection between ontology and ethics is lost. This could have ethical implications for the previously assumed differences between man and the “nearer” lower animals, e.g., apes, and it could have implications even for the small differences between human “races” (since on Darwinian assumptions “races” are essentially varieties, and hence potential new species). This is not the place to work out exactly how Darwinian assumptions would translate into the sphere of human morality and politics. Nor is it the place to carry on an argument about the relationship between ethics and ontology in modern versus pre-modern philosophy. The point is simply that the pronouncements which our biologist friend Allan is making (on the basis, apparently, of introductory ethics textbooks) cannot be taken seriously, in their unqualified form, by anyone who is well-versed in the history of philosophy. T.Timaeus_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

Clive
You’re missing something important when considering evolution–and that is the fact that it is directional by necessity
Any movement of any kind is directional by necessity. It is not, however, linear by necessity. If I were standing on a grid so that you could map my movements, and I rolled a die at each square to determine whether I would turn left (1-2), go straight (3-4), or turn right (5-6), it is absolutely true that I would be moving in a definite direction at each step. I enter the square, I roll the die, and I move on to the next square, so there is "a road and a direction." Imagine thousands of people doing exactly the same thing. Who would you say is further along? In what direction? Why that direction and not another? How do you define "further along"? These are questions of a global nature that are referring to a process that is local in nature. Any attempt to answer any of these questions requires a definition of things like "further along" which do not follow from the process, but are imposed from the outside. Now, obviously evolution is more complicated than simply throwing a die to determine which direction to move in, but the idea is essentially the same in that the motion of evolution is determined as a local process. Individual populations react only to the immediate pressures of their environment, and do not choose any direction over another for any reason except where it's necessary simply to survive. Questions such as "who is more evolved" or "which direction is evolution moving in" are global questions, and can only be answered by imposing arbitrary definitions which do not follow from the theory itself. For instance, if your "road and direction" were to be defined as the road from the first living creature to the latest living platypus, we would be considered far inferior because the platypus would be the standard by which we measure "most evolved". If it were measured to the latest living sea anemone, we would be considered far inferior for the same reason. The choice of human as the most evolved is every bit as arbitrary a choice as a platypus or a sea anemone. If you want to be more technical you could count the types of cells, or measure the body symmetry, or count the total population, or use any number of other criterion to measure how evolved something is, but each is an arbitrary choice for measurement. Because of this, any attempt to say that any creature (or race) is superior to another requires an arbitrary definition of superior which does not follow from the theory of evolution, but is imposed from outside of the theory. Having said that, I agree with Allen:
...having long passed the 100 comment mark, I have decided to stop following this thread.
KRiS_Censored_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden in #115:
"Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? And secondly, Darwin must not have been very fit himself by that measure."
My wife and I almost never go to see movies (and I never go by myself): we have four children (the youngest of whom is two), and we have a lot of work to do. We also never watch television, or even have one in the house; I haven't watched a broadcast television show in twenty years. Too much to do, and so little time to do it... And you are quite correct; from the standpoint of fitness theory, Darwin probably wasn't particularly "fit", especially by the standards of the 19th century. He and his wife, Emma, had ten children, but only three of them had children of their own (and three others – Annie, Mary, and Charles – died in childhood). However, to say this confidently, one would have to know the relative reproductive success of the other members of his population (i.e. other human males) at the time, so I honestly can't say for certain. He himself thought he was not very "fit" at all, and considered it very likely that his children were probably congenitally "unfit" due to his "inbreeding" with his first cousin (he and his wife shared the same grandparents: Josiah Wedgwood and his wife, Sarah). By the way, having long passed the 100 comment mark, I have decided to stop following this thread. I'm sure we will meet again...Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, Sometimes I think your only purpose here is to find fault with others and often in that quest you fail to think clearly. But you occasionally impart some useful information and one of them was the Vrba and Eldredge book on macro evolution which I have read a few chapters or articles. Your comments about direction are contradicted by you and others in evolutionary biology in this book and in other places. That evolution finds itself on many roads and when on these roads will head down the road further and further is a basic principle of evolutionary biology. Once a capability or road is opened up, for instance vision, time and competition will tend to increase the capability. Or is the predator and prey phenomenon not a part of evolutionary biology. This does not say that the road/capability is never ending or has a specific end point but it can be well traveled and many will not travel it as far as others. For example, you do believe that vision is better than a light sensitive spot? The model for the development of the eye is the gradual improvement over time of its ability to discern the outside environment visually. It was a section of one of Richard Dawkins' books and it is a repeated example elsewhere. It is the famous Nillson and Pelger calculation of how long it would take for an eye to develop. If that is not direction, then I do not know what is. You should read your Vrba and Eldredge book and see what they think is the origin of large scale organisms which I believe you repeated the other day. "These new cell types (and multicellular organisms) had to wait until the “snowball Earth” melted enough to allow sunlight to penetrate to sufficient depths in the epicontinental oceans to allow for macrophytic photosynthesis, which set the stage for macrophagy and the evolution of the metazoa." A lot of very technical words but it sounds like a direction to me, namely large multi-cellular organisms. And as these organisms grew they increased in complexity as my example of the cell types meant to show and which comes from James Valentine, that well known creationist. Then there is the Peterson et al article in the Vrba and Eldredge book and their quote on the same idea of the direction of multi-cellular organisms: "that was the ultimate cause of the Cambrian Explosion, as their spectacular radiation, and the radiations of their pray (and predators) were inevitable once these animals evolved pattern formation processes" The word "inevitable" seems like a road to me. As another example, take a look at Brosius' article which was the opening review for Vrba and Eldredge's book. If he does not talk direction, then please tell me what he means by his last paragraph. And by the way what does the comments about Simon Conway-Morris in Brosius's article say about the character of Brosius, Vrba and Eldredge who wrote and edited the article. All have to qualified as low lifes to let such an attack appear in a scholarly journal article. And then there is the old adage about natural selection and that it is not random but sets a direction for evolution once the environment and the initial conditions are set. That is basic holy tenet of evolutionary biology. If there is no direction then natural selection is a random phenomena. So which is it? By the way I never said how much of this I actually believe. All I was doing was reporting what evolutionary biologists believe and that ID is consistent with a lot of it. But your quickness to jump on me for the obvious says more about your attitude in commenting here than it does about the topic under consideration.jerry_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Simply asserting that something can't happen without providing evidence that it can't happen isn't an explanation for anything. And it certainly isn't science.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

A series of questions, followed by a series of answers, based on 150 years of research into evolutionary biology:
"Is natural selection goal oriented?"
Not as far as anyone has ever been able to tell, based on empirical investigations. Indeed, how would one design an empirical investigation to show that some process was goal oriented, unless they could investigate the entity(s) who were pursuing the goal?
"How can specified complex limbs develop over time, say, like a flightless species developing wings, unless the goal is flight?"
As the result of variety, heredity, fecundity, and unequal survival and reproduction. How can a rock fall to the ground without the goal of reaching the ground? How can hydrogen and oxygen atoms form amazingly complex structures without the goal of forming snowflakes? How can continuously exploding thermonuclear reactions balanced by the force of gravity form out of clouds of hydrogen and helium without the goal of forming stars? How can helium nuclei be fused together in the cores of red giant stars without the goal of forming carbon? How can carbon combine with hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen without the goal forming amino acids and nitrogenous bases? Through the action of natural laws working around us.
"Why are the only species that have eyes are the ones that are conscious?"
Are flatworms conscious? How about scallops? Slugs? Spiders? Ants? And how would you go about showing that they were? Ask them? How do you even know that anyone else around you is conscious? Yes, you could ask them, but they might be programmed to give you a convincing answer. Consciousness isn't an answer nor a solution to anything.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

Allen, You wrote:
I thought the whole disagreement between EB and ID was that evolutionary biologists fail to admit that evolution is “purposeful” and “guided” by an “intelligent designer”.
There are different views on this within the ID community, probably most people reject macroevolution (speciation) completely -- because we see no solidly credible speciation in the fossil record where we should see a series of transitional forms leading from one species into a new species -- everywhere -- and no similar findings about speciation in the living world. There are others though who believe in a guided evolutionary paradigm, they even may accept common descent, though not necessarily that it happened over a long period of time (due to the problem of the fossil record) but they still believe that unintelligent forces cannot be the cause for the incredible complexity and seeming design in nature(e.g. the brilliantly artistic color coordination and symmetry we in the natural world, like say this -- wow.jpg -- or this -- http://www.pbase.com/selvin/flowers_of_hawaii You also said:
It is clear that virtually none of the ID supporters commenting on this thread have the faintest idea of how evolutionary “fitness” is measured.
That is like a typical ad hominem arrogant obnoxious type of statement we see made at arrogant obnoxious blogs like PT and PhGuLA by people who know better. Anyone who has even done a minute amount of research into the ID community would know full well that our rejection of evolution isn't based upon our lack of understanding of what neo-darwinism espouses. That's an obnoxious pretense made in an attempt to misguide people into believing that "if those idiots only understood evolution then they wouldn't be reject it". It's dishonest, and ironic, seeing how you have carried on in this thread about Denise. You claim that neo-darwinian evolution isn't "goal oriented". Neo-darwinism postulates that the guiding mechanism of evolution is natural selection. When we claim that neo-darwinian evolution is blind and without intelligent purpose -- and therefore unfit to produce what we see, guys like Dawkins get all bent out of shape and insist that evolution is not blind or unintelligent because it is guided by natural selection. Is natural selection goal oriented? If evolution was solely based upon mutation then there would be no goal, but the whole point of keeping Darwin's natural selection as part of the synthesis theory was in order to give a causation to the development of helpful mutations leading to speciation. How can specified complex limbs develop over time, say, like a flightless species developing wings, unless the goal is flight? Wings and the bodies of species that can fly are specifically designed to fly. We study birds to help us understand how to fly better. How can birds or other flying species develop the necessary design without the goal of flight? From a flightless species into a flying species: what would be needed? Development of aerodynamic form, the changing of heavy bones into light flexible bones, the development of different internal systems to facilitate the heavy load on the heart of flight, wings, etc. Can natural selection realistically account for all of that -- without the goal of being able to fly? How can a sightless species develop eyes unless the goal is vision? Eyes are only valuable to conscious beings, e.g. since plants are not conscious they don't need eyes and therefore there are no plants with eyes. Why do we see eyes only on conscious life forms? Can mutation + natural selection understand that a life form is conscious and therefore can see, and therefore sets out to develop eyes? Of course not. Yet we have eyes that are extremely sophisticated and are only of use to us because we are conscious. Why are the only species that have eyes are the ones that are conscious? Without the goal of giving us the ability to see we shouldn't see eyes only on conscious species.mentok_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill, "In brief, “fitness” is a measure of reproductive success." Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? And secondly, Darwin must not have been very fit himself by that measure.Clive Hayden_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Upright biped asks if I am incapable of humility. Actually, one of the first things I tell my students is that I certainly do not know everything about the science of evolutionary biology, much less the science of biology as a whole. Therefore, when we hit a subject about which I am not informed, we all (me and my students, but especially me)have a responsibility to learn as much as we can about it, so that we can at least follow arguments about the subject, if not participate in them. And so, let me ask the question again: how, precisely, does the fact that "fitness" is defined in terms of individual relative reproductive success in any way lead to the conclusion that certain "races" are "superior" to others? Please be as explicit as possible with your answer.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Personally, I think that the decision about whether to pursue embryonic stem cell research should be made by the public and their elected representatives, rather than scientists. And, oddly enough, that's exactly who has made the decision this time...unless you want to argue that President Obama and the senators and representatives who have supported his decision to remove the ban on certain limited forms of embryonic stem cell research are all evolutionary biologists.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill seems confused. For an ID supporter to point out that Darwin's ideas were used (in part) to justify eugenics, Hitler's selective killings, etc. doesn't mean we think science *should* be used to determine morality, ethics, etc. It's only an observation that some have. Similarly, various supporters of neo-Darwinism have extrapolated that human life is no more important than animal life, that there is no basis for morality (because there must be no God), etc. To point out these inappropriate uses of "science" (I'm reluctant to call neo-Darwinism science), doesn't mean that we condone the behavior. Some have used Darwin's ideas to conclude that nature (or perhaps destiny) has selected some races as superior to others. That's simply a fact. This is one of the reasons why Expelled! was so important. It points out WHY it is important that scientists be able to dissent from mainstream thought -- because any position that cannot be challenged can is more likley to lead to horrific acts. Look at the embryonic stem cell debate. We are now being told that scientists should determine how to best approach research. What? Isn't that also allowing scientists to determine that which is ethical? To take a page from "Watchmen": Who's watching the scientists?mtreat_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

It is clear that virtually none of the ID supporters commenting on this thread have the faintest idea of how evolutionary “fitness” is measured. In brief, “fitness” is a measure of reproductive success. That is, those individuals who produce the most surviving offspring in a given population have the highest “fitness” in a population.
Wow Allen, how profound. No one in the ID camp had any idea that was the mark of fitness. It so crazy that in all the text written in support of evolution and no one ever thought to comment that fitness was measured in reproductive success. Golly. We should get Michael Denton on the phone, I bet he didn't know this tidbit of evolutionary wisdom either! - - - - - - Allen, are simply incapable of humility?Upright BiPed_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

To be as explicit as possible, if unaided evolution (i.e. without guidance) cannot produce "complex specified information", and therefore requires the guiding intervention of an "Intelligent Designer" (identity unspecified), then which theory is progressive and goal-oriented, and which isn't?Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

In #98 jerry wrote:
"To argue that many organisms are not further on the road than others is sheer folly and is recognized by current evolutionary biology."
"Further on the road" to what? To humans? To liver flukes? To intestinal viruses? This comment demonstrates precisely the problem: evolutionary theory and most evolutionary biologists are quite clear that evolution is not progressive. There is no goal to natural selection, nor to any of the other processes that result in biological evolution. Indeed, that evolution is not progressive or goal-oriented is one of ID's criticisms of evolutionary theory. ID supporters believe very fervently that evolution is progressive and goal-oriented, and that the goal that it is guided toward is the evolution of humans, right? Not to mention other forms of "specified complex information". I thought the whole disagreement between EB and ID was that evolutionary biologists fail to admit that evolution is "purposeful" and "guided" by an "intelligent designer". But here, in this thread evolutionary biologists (beginning with Darwin) are charged with exactly the opposite. That is, we are charged with promoting the idea that certain races are "chosen" by evolution as being "superior" over others, and therefore deserving of "special consideration". Hmm, the parallelism between that sentence and the idea of a "chosen people" doesn't seem accidental to me. Would the ID supporters on this thread like to speculate where the idea that certain "races" are "chosen" and "special" comes from? Does this idea find its justification in Darwin's theory or, just perhaps, some other corpus of "theory" about origins? Just curious...Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

"Does Darwinism “explain” the evolution of sentience, intelligence and ethics or not?"
No Maybe, but we don't know how yet NoAllen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

In #85 jerry makes some good points, and then drives off a cliff:
"That is a major claim of all the evolutionary biologists. That competition drives increased capabilities."
This is simply not the case. One of the most fertile areas of evolutionary theory in the second half of the 20th century has been the development of theories explaining the evolution of sociality in animals. Every one of these theories (and there are several) agree on one fundamental point: that the evolution of sociality is driven by the evolutionary advantages of cooperation, rather than competition. That is, those individuals who cooperate with each other have a higher evolutionary "fitness" than those who compete. Furthermore, it is now becoming clear that this advantage is not necessarily tied to genetic relatedness. Which leads me to a brief consideration of what evolutionary biologists consider "fitness" to consist of. It is clear that virtually none of the ID supporters commenting on this thread have the faintest idea of how evolutionary "fitness" is measured. In brief, "fitness" is a measure of reproductive success. That is, those individuals who produce the most surviving offspring in a given population have the highest "fitness" in a population. Furthermore, the kind of "fitness" that generally matters is "relative reproductive success". That is, what matters is how many surviving offspring an individual has relative to the other individuals in its local population. Ergo, simply having a huge number of offspring may not be conducive to higher "fitness" if most of them die (or fail to reproduce, which is the same thing from an evolutionary viewpoint). Now, let's apply the basic principle of "fitness" = "reproductive success" to the arguments made by most of the ID supporters in this thread. Is it the case that evolutionary biologists today, using this definition of "fitness", believe that "Nordics" (or any other group, for that matter) have a higher "fitness"? Of course not, because fitness is not a function of groups, it is a function of individuals. Natural selection happens at the level of individuals, not groups (at least in the "modern synthesis" version of mathematical evolutionary theory). So, virtually all of the criticism leveled by the ID supporters in this thread against evolutionary biologists and evolutionary theory as they exist today has simply demonstrated that they have virtually no understanding whatsoever of the basics of evolutionary biology. And, their continued attempts to link the science of evolutionary biology to the philosophy of ethics demonstrates that they have virtually no understanding of basic ethical theory as well.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

In #83 aussieD wrote:
"Many eminent Australian scientists of the day were to express similar attitudes. In Victoria, throughout the frontier years (between 1835 and 1850) the intellectual argument that the Aborigines more closely resembled “the ourangoutangs than men” made it easier for the squatter to treat the Aborigines as subhuman, to lump them with the dingo and shoot them as a “rural pest.”" [Emphasis added]
Once again, Darwin's Origin of Species (in which he did not discuss human evolution) was published in 1859, and his Descent of Man was published in 1871. Ergo, it is literally impossible (unless one believes in "backwards causation") for his ideas to have inspired the events aussieD imputes to his inspiration.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

In #81 Mark Frank asks:
"How do you remove/edit a post? Do you need special privileges?"
Yes, if you are a moderator for this website. You can tell the people who are moderators: their posts show up with a white background. Like Clive's, so that was how he could make his embarrassingly false statements disappear. Fortunately for those of us who are interested in getting to the bottom of an argument made on the basis of evidence rather than character assassination, guilt by association, and ad hominem "logic", most of the commentators on this thread have no such special privileges.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

In #76 vjtorley wrote:
"If [Darwinists] wish to do this, however, they should make it clear to school and college students that Darwinism is unable to supply us with any ethical norms, and that the workings of nature are utterly amoral."
I teach evolutionary biology at Cornell, and this is precisely what I do. And when I do so, I cite the work of G. E. Moore, who over a century ago made precisely the same point: that one cannot legitimately derive ethical prescriptions from scientific descriptions. That is, one cannot derive a statement about how the world ought to be from a statement about how the world is. As to the question of where ethical prescriptions are supposed to come from if not from nature, that is legitimately the purview of philosophical ethical theory. Pick any introductory textbook on the subject of ethics and you will learn quite quickly that philosophers have debated this subject for centuries, and concluded that all ethical theories can be divided into two different types: those that are justified by their effects (for example, utilitarianism) and those that are justified with reference to logical consistency with a non-naturalistic principle of justice or fairness (for example, the theory of justice of John Rawls). Ergo, discussions in which "Darwinism" is linked to morality are completely philosophically bankrupt, regardless of which side in the EB/ID debate makes them, and illustrates their complete misunderstanding of basic ethical theory.Allen_MacNeill_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

We have a couple of issues here and a lot of heat has been generated and not too much light. We seem to spend a lot of time on Darwin's personal character and the social implications of his ideas. For example, it is obvious that Darwin did not invent racism or slavery so any comments on either topic prior to 1859 are meaningless other than to show what was typical of human kind or socially accepted ideas. But reliance to these pre Darwin facts as proof that he or his ideas did not have any applicability to race is also nonsense. The issue is whether his ideas has any effect post 1859. Now we can probably say that the first few years after 1859 are out of bounds too but let's say did Darwin's ideas have any effect on racial attitudes either positive or negative post 1875. Interesting sub issue to this is what is a positive or negative racial attitude? Obviously the eugenics movement thought they were on a positive agenda. Was Darwin himself a racist? And a related issue is if he was, did this attitude have any affect on what was written. Can we examine his works and come to any conclusion as to whether he was a racist or not and if he was a racist did it have anything to do with what he wrote about evolution in general. The third thing is the validity of Darwin's ideas regardless of his personal attitudes. Suppose he was a racist but his ideas were bogus and these bogus ideas affected other's attitudes either positively or negatively on racial matters. What are the implications. Interesting enough many of Darwin's ideas are accepted by ID so it would be interesting to see which of Darwin's ideas are contributing to the various attitudes people had post 1875. All of this could make several PH.D. dissertations or several books and not likely to be solved here or in any of the dissertations or books.jerry_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

jerry, then what exactly were you trying to say? because I have a hard time making sense of things like this:
It is kind of silly to say there has been no movement or that some are not further along on the road on some capabilities especially this capability. It is certainly true that there are many capabilities and no one species is best on all and it is obvious that some are almost completely deficient on some. But to say that there has not been movement along various dimensions does not meet with reality.
Khan_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

What sort of time machine were you thinking of, David? Please answer carefully.Arthur Smith_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

DonaldM [97],
If it were the case that the actions taken towards the native americans were based on a racial view influenced by Darwin and his writings, then maybe. Has anyone tried to make such a case and connection between the two?
Any connection would have to include a time machine.David Kellogg_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply