Dawkins is out of date.

_{Mark

August 11, 2007

Intelligent Design}

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

According to Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, Richard Dawkins is “out of date” with his genetics. Listen to his opinion on how changes happen in science. This interview is edited from Australian ABC Science Show 11th August 2007.

http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/ssw_20070811.mp3

Comments

Rob, "ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not what Calder says in the posted audio clip: which is that evolution can also sometimes happen in larger steps as mutations affect multiple genes. Which would mean that Dawkins has understated the abilities of naturalistic undirected evolution. Hardly encouraging for ID." I suppose that depends on the way you look at it. The larger the "step" you can take in the same amount of time, the more teleology seems to be in play. Or so it would seem to me. In the end, it all comes down to how you look at the data. Me, I see the philosophical case for directed evolution getting all the stronger with every new discovery.nullasalus_{August 12, 2007
August
08
Aug
12
12
2007
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

idnet.com.au (7): "the main point for us from Calder is that the idea that Richard Dawkins has supported in his 10 or so books, that evolution by natural selection progresses in tiny steps is now considered wrong." That's not what Calder says in the posted audio clip: which is that evolution can also sometimes happen in larger steps as mutations affect multiple genes. Which would mean that Dawkins has understated the abilities of naturalistic undirected evolution. Hardly encouraging for ID. "What Calder says is what Michael BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s latest book demonstrates. There is really microevolution, but macroevolution has neither been observed nor explained." - Where does Calder say this? He doesn't say anything remotely like that in the clip you posted.Rob_{August 12, 2007
August
08
Aug
12
12
2007
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H, My own take on this: 1. I don't think the point is to take one's opinion as being more valid than the other. Rather the exchange served as an important reminder that, while science as a whole often challenges old orthodoxies, promotes new thoughts, and welcomes new data, scientists don't necessarily do this. In fact, they can be downright stubborn - interpreting data in ways that suit themselves rather than the research, clinging to old ideas that may be strongly challenged or even discarded by new data, etc. 2. Again, "what Calder says is the right interpretation" isn't really the point here. It's that there are challenges to existing orthodoxies (even when discarding the ID view of things), which may lead to any number of new discoveries, or modified/overturned schools of thought. As for relevancy, why be so hasty with regard to epigenetics? From what I've read, those processes have only recently been given much attention - no need to discard them so early.nullasalus_{August 12, 2007
August
08
Aug
12
12
2007
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

I'm curious about a couple of points: 1. Why should we take Calder's opinion to be more valid than Dawkins'? Unless one is active in research in evolutionary biology, siding with one or the other is simply a matter of choosing which authority to believe. What reasons are there for thinking that Calder is more of an expert than Dawkins? 2. What does Calder think is right, exactly? My impression from his comments was that he was thinking about epistasis, but the interviewer then throws in epigenetics, which is another matter entirely. Incidentally, neither is relevant to issues of gradualism. BobBob O'H_{August 12, 2007
August
08
Aug
12
12
2007
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

Let me try to summarize the macromutation thinking. Premise: micromutations have a lot of problems. Premise: evolution has to be true Conclusion: macromutations!geoffrobinson_{August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

nullasaluss [6]: "Max Planck, I think, said that his goal wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t to convince the existing professors that he was correct, as they were too stubborn. Instead, it was to convince the up-and-coming professors who would replace them." My feeling is that UD has exactly the same hope: we're not going to convince those who were taught by those dogmatically attached to NDE; but the generation that follows......now that presents hope (I think Darwin said, pretty much the same thing) BTW, for what it's worth, I think Nigel Calder has something like "The Plausibility of Life" in mind when he makes his criticisms of Dawkins. That is, he's thinking along the lines of "macromutations" via "homeobox" genes (or Hox genes). That's probably where the next challenge to UD will come; but, IMHO, it is, logically speaking, easy to deflect since one has to only ask, Whence the Hox genes?PaV_{August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

I think the main point for us from Calder is that the idea that Richard Dawkins has supported in his 10 or so books, that evolution by natural selection progresses in tiny steps is now considered wrong. The optomists amongst evolutionary scientists say that the big changes are easy by mutating the gene control systems. This will prove just as fruitless as an ezplanation if ID is correct. (That is a prediction) What Calder says is what Michale Behe's latest book demonstrates. There is really microevolution, but macroevolution has neither been observed nor explained.idnet.com.au_{August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Dawkins is a science-stopper? :D Interesting example for him to pick. I remember reading about this when I first looked into quantum physics - Max Planck, I think, said that his goal wasn't to convince the existing professors that he was correct, as they were too stubborn. Instead, it was to convince the up-and-coming professors who would replace them.nullasalus_{August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

[...] From UD Dawkins is out of date. And Darwinists generally are nineteenth century positivists in a maladapted culture niche, doomed to extinction. According to Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, Richard Dawkins is Ã¢â‚¬Å“out of dateÃ¢â‚¬Â with his genetics. Listen to his opinion on how changes happen in science. This interview is edited from Australian ABC Science Show 11th August 2007. [...]Darwiniana » Dawkins’ genetics obsolete_{August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

An interesting claim that Mr. Calder made was that there are "far more scientists than ever before, but the pace of discovery has not increased" (0:55 to 1:02). This would be an interesting research topic to confirm or falsify this claim.JJS P.Eng._{August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

I was particularly intrigued by the two possibilities for science to advance posited by Nigel Calder (from approximately 1:35 to 2:00). Human nature (i.e. arrogance) being what it is, I'd say the first possibility - "we know everything" (my paraphrasing) - is likely to continue no matter which paradigm dominates. However, his second possibility raises an intriguing opportunity for both the ID and evolutionist/ materialist researchers to work side-by-side, each side providing checks and balances to the other. I have seen this in action, both on this site and at TT. This is definitely a situation I would advocate and support. But then reality would kick in. Ah, one can dream, eh?JJS P.Eng._{August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Rob, This doesn't strengthen ID scientifically at all. Nor does it undermine it at all. It may one day represent a big PR victory if it is ever allowed to get there. One of the premises of ID is that life has never been shown to change very much by gradualistic approaches and people like Calder are agreeing. Calder may not be ID friendly. I do not know what he thinks. There are a large number of non-ID friendly evolutionary biologists that are unhappy with the gradualist approach. However, each hypothesizes some other form of mechanism for change but presents little evidence for their particular mechanism. The problem for evolutionary biology is that they have invested so heavily in the gradualistic mechanism that to officially abandon it would seem like the ID people were right all along and crticicism of Darwinian approaches should have been admitted into the curiculum a long time ago. They are between a rock and a hard place on this issue.jerry_{August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Calder claims (2:30 into the clip) that Dawkins is out of date because mutations can happen which are more complex than those which Dawkins acknowledges, which gives evolution even more possible avenues to explore and make the process work even quicker than Dawkins gives it credit for. "[Dawkins's] account of evolution is hopelessly out of date. There are all kinds of things that happen to genes that just don't figure in his way of thinking. There are all kinds of ways in which accelerated evolution can occur, involving several genes at one time. And yet the idea of the single mutation being tested by natural selection which has been the dogma for 70 or 80 years is dead, defunct." I don't know if Calder is right about any of that. But if he is it means that Dawkins has been understating the speed and ability of natural processes to create and improve the features of living organisms. Please explain how this strengthens ID (compared to naturalistic evolution) as an explanation for the development of life.Rob_{August 11, 2007
August
08
Aug
11
11
2007
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply