Evolution is a Fact!
| September 20, 2009 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
Just so we are clear, I am certain that everyone who posts at this site believes evolution is a fact (or fact! fact! fact! as some of our more breathless opponents prefer).
Whoa Barry! Are you telling us that Uncommon Descent does not oppose the concept of evolution? Yes, I am telling you exactly that.
Then what is all the fuss and disagreement about? I’m glad you asked. But before I answer that question, let me begin with what the fuss and disagreement are NOT about.
The fuss and the disagreement are not about whether evolution occurred. Obviously evolution occurred if by “evolution” one means, “things are different now than they were in the past.” I don’t know anyone who disagrees with that. That bare fact is uninteresting, even trivial.
The important question is not WHETHER things are different now than they were in the past. They obviously are. The important question is “WHY are things different now than they were in the past?” As Phil Johnson has pointed out, the Darwinist starts with the following proposition: “Given materialist premises, Darwinian evolution or something very much like it simply must be true.” Therefore, since the Darwinist already “knows” that Darwinian evolution exhausts all of the options open to investigation, he interprets all of the data to – big surprise here – confirm Darwinian evolution. It is almost literally the case that a Darwinist is incapable of seeing data that does not confirm or tends to disconfirm his theory.
But the Darwinist’s initial premise is false even on materialist terms. Even uber-materialist Richard Dawkins admits that the complexity and diversity of life might be the result of the actions of super-intelligent aliens. This explanation requires no supernatural act to have occurred and violates no precept either of philosophical or methodological materialism.
Therefore, the fuss and the disagreement is about whether “intelligent cause” must be ruled out from the beginning as a possible causal factor for why things are different now than they were in the past. It is exactly like two police detectives standing over the body of a person whose head has been bashed in by a blunt object and having the following conversation:
Columbo: “I am a materialist. Therefore, given my premises I know for a certain fact that this person’s death must have been caused by blind, unguided natural forces. Therefore, I already know that all of the data I find will support that conclusion. Moreover, the certain knowledge I have before I ever even look at the data means I will never even have to consider the possibility that this person’s death was caused by the acts of an intelligent agent, and I can safely ignore any data that might tend to disprove my starting point or confirm an “intelligent agent” theory. My theory is that a rock fell from above and hit him in the head. Probably the rock was dislodged from the side of a hill by the wind or rain and rolled down the hill and smacked him. Bad luck all around. By the way, I call the rolling rock theory a “theory” only for form’s sake. We both know it is a fact! fact! fact! Bad luck all around. Case closed.”
Holmes: “I am not going to make up my mind in advance about whether this death resulted from blind, unguided and exceedingly bad luck or whether it is the result of the acts of an intelligent agent, that is to say, murder. By the way, I am willing to assume materialist premises too, at least on a methodological basis, but you are wrong to say that assumption precludes the act of an intelligent agent. All murderers of whom I am aware have been quite human. I understand your rolling rock theory, and I just don’t think it is supported by the data. First of all, the body is almost at the top of the hill, so it is unlikely that even if a rock were dislodged by the wind and rain it could have gathered enough momentum to do the work you ascribe to it. Also, I note that there are no bloody rocks anywhere around the body. Finally, I note the presence of a bloody club near the body, and on that club are the fingerprints of the dead person’s worst enemy who swore to kill him only two days ago. I conclude that the “accident theory” while not impossible from a mathematical or logical perspective is not the most likely explanation. This scene bears indicia of design. I conclude the victim was murdered.”
Columbo: “Fundamentalist cretin!”
If the case were to proceed to trial, we might also have this:
Judge Jones: “I understand that Holmes went to Sunday School when he was a child. Therefore, his theory must be disregarded as the musings of a religious fanatic. Case dismissed. Bailiff, set the defendant free!”
108 Responses to Evolution is a Fact!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Moseph:
Of course by “credible evidence” Moseph means a meeting with the designer(s).
Excuse me but there isn’t any evidence that natural selction can design anything from scratch.
So what evidence did Darwin think he found?
What evidence does Dawkins think there is?
If the refusal to accept/ allow the design inference is evidence, well…
Absolutist, #87
Maybe these?
Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain
Joseph [from 93]
“Excuse me but there isn’t any evidence that natural selction can design anything from scratch.
So what evidence did Darwin think he found?
What evidence does Dawkins think there is?”
Not wanting to sound like I’m blatantly on Dawkins’ PR team, but Dawkins has just written a book answering that very question – The Greatest Show On Earth.
There is a tonne of evidence that natural selection ‘designs’ things from scratch. Now will you rise to the challenge and actually READ it, or will you simply ignore it and continue to insist that there isn’t any evidence?
I wonder…
If Dawkins has scientific evidence then he needs to get in into a scientific journal.
Perhaps you can just post some of the alleged evidence.
BTW Dawkins doesn’t even know what makes an organism what it is.
He doesn’t have any clue as to what is responsible for eye development, nevermind its evolution.
He also makes the mistake of saying 50% of an eye is better than 49% ebven though the system doesn’t work until it is 100% complete.
IOW can Dawkins misrepresent reality and then say that misrepresentation supports his cklaims?
Sure- he has done exactly that before.
So how about an example of natural selection designing something from scratch.
That way I can decide if the book is worth reading or not.
Ya see I have read several of his books and they are all very flawed.
I need a valdi reason to waste any more of my time on Dawkins.
Joseph, #96
Maybe you should tell the Murex snail or the Nautilus that their less than complete eyes do not work.
Joseph [from 96]
“Perhaps you can just post some of the alleged evidence.”
Perhaps I can. You be the judge.
For one thing he points to this experiment by Richard Lenski which shows evolution happening right before our eyes:
http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....e-lab.html
And here is a very interesting exchange relating to this study:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair
Then there’s this fascinating study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....112433.htm
Although I think my favourite piece of evidence is not mentioned in his book, but it is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEtnyx0Yo9I
I am only halfway through the book so there’s more to go. Nevertheless, I think this should be enough for you to be getting on with.
“BTW Dawkins doesn’t even know what makes an organism what it is.”
Why isn’t ‘it’s genes’ a good enopugh answer?
“He doesn’t have any clue as to what is responsible for eye development, nevermind its evolution.
He also makes the mistake of saying 50% of an eye is better than 49% ebven though the system doesn’t work until it is 100% complete.”
Utter nonsense. Check this link out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw
“IOW can Dawkins misrepresent reality and then say that misrepresentation supports his cklaims?
Sure- he has done exactly that before.”
Has he? Where?
“Ya see I have read several of his books and they are all very flawed.”
Which ones?
camanintx, #94
Thanks for the link. In the article summary you provided “this delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.” (emph. mine)
The word “presumably” indicates an hypothesis or theory for the existence of (a complex rearrangement of matter into) “high-level control areas” (of the brain), not certainty.
Unfortunately biological parts, or a complex rearrangement of them, do not know the difference between desiring to be a good investigator (as opposed to being incompetent) or answering questions truthfully (as opposed to dishonorably), persons do.
So what makes the free decisions (moral or not) if it’s not the brain itself? Something that’s not fragmented for starters, something uncomposed or simple. Some substance deeply integrated in the body, but immaterial. The dreaded word – a soul.
camanintx #97
“Maybe you should tell the Murex snail or the Nautilus that their less than complete eyes do not work.”
Showing less complicated eyes is like showing less complicated mousetraps.
From the OP:
I had assumed that Dr. Cornelius Hunter disagrees that ‘evolution is a fact.’ Many of Dr. Hunter’s posts object to scientists saying or implying that evolution is a fact.
—Larry Tanner: “I had assumed that Dr. Cornelius Hunter disagrees that ‘evolution is a fact.’ Many of Dr. Hunter’s posts object to scientists saying or implying that evolution is a fact.”
Dr. Hunter agrees that “things are different now than they were in the past,” which is the way BarryA defined “evolution.”
absolutist [from 100]
“Showing less complicated eyes is like showing less complicated mousetraps.”
You are missing the point. The fact that ‘simpler’ eyes work mean that complicated ones can evolve from them. Complicated eyes are not irreducibly complex! Nor are simple eyes, by extension.
StephenB [from 102]
“Dr. Hunter agrees that “things are different now than they were in the past,” which is the way BarryA defined “evolution.””
BarryA may define it so, but who else does? That is simply not the biological definition of evolution.
absolutist, #99
Complex adaptive systems can exhibit some very interesting behavior, can’t they?
camantix,
The snail and nautilus have complete vision systems.
So what the heck are you talking about?
I asked for SCIENTIFIC evidence for natural selection designing something from scratch.
For that Ritchie presents lenski which isn;t anytrhing from scratch but something from an already existing organism.
From SCRATCH Ritchie.
And again EVOLUTION is NOT being debated.
That you are still confused about this demonstrates you do not undersatnd the debate.
Joseph [from 105]
(to camantix)
“The snail and nautilus have complete vision systems.
So what the heck are you talking about?”
I believe his/her point was that the eyes of a nautilus are much simpler than our are, and represent an earlier stage in the development of eyes. Remember gradualism? At every stage, the eye has to be functional. 50% of an eye has to be better than 49% of an eye. Well, from our point of view the nautilus DOES have 50% of an eye. And it works. Just not as precisely as ours. It is nevertheless more use than 49% of an eye.
I suggest you take another look at the link he/she cited:
http://media-2.web.britannica......F00EE8.jpg
[from 106}
“I asked for SCIENTIFIC evidence for natural selection designing something from scratch.
For that Ritchie presents lenski which isn;t anytrhing from scratch but something from an already existing organism.
From SCRATCH Ritchie.”
You do realise, I hope, that evolution cannot produce something from absolutely nothing at all? It can only adapt what is already there? So asking for something FROM SCRATCH is a bit unfair, because that is not how evolution operates. Small mutations simply produce small differences, which eventually become big differences. Macroevolution from microevolution. That was the relevance of the links I posted.
Nevertheless, I assume you are talking about big features such as eyes or limbs. Those work for me. I’ll cite the eye then as evolution producing something ‘from scratch’ (though technically not true, it is what I presume you are asking for). Here’s a link to help:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/ne....._sys.shtml
“And again EVOLUTION is NOT being debated.”
No? Then why do you not see it as amply sufficient to explain all the species, and all the features of all the species we find in nature?
That you are still confused about this demonstrates you do not undersatnd the debate.
absolutist, #100
Thank you for refuting the concept of Irreducable Complexity.