Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Would You Answer These Questions?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend writes to inform me that his son’s high school biology teacher is busily indoctrinating him into Darwinism by writing test questions that force the student to spew back Darwinist party-line answers in order to receive credit. Here are the questions:

1. One argument made against evolution is: evolution is random, so it cannot generate complex, orderly organisms. Explain why this statement is false.

2. Some people argue that evolution cannot be observed today. Explain how natural selection is observable in each of the following professionals (and makes their work more difficult): medical professionals, exterminators, and farmers.

If the student were in college, I would advise him to simply spew back the party line as the teacher expects. At that level the stakes are higher, and the professors are more ideologically driven. We all know that ideologues are reflexively intolerant of the slightest dissent and will abuse their power by punishing the slightest deviation from the officially-approved doctrine. Best to keep your knowledge of the truth well hidden from such as these.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the average high school biology teacher is often not heavily invested in materialist ideology. In my experience they dutifully present the Darwinist agitprop in the officially-sanctioned textbooks even though very often they do not believe it themselves. Therefore, while there is still some risk (who knows whether this one is a true believer), as a general matter they are much more tolerant of diverging viewpoints so long as the student demonstrates mastery of the subject matter.

With that in mind, I am going to throw the questions out for answers from the UD community. I will get us started. How would you answer?

Barry’s answers:

1. Neo-Darwinian theory posits that natural selection acts on random changes such as mutations by preserving those changes that create a survival advantage and deleting those changes that do not. As advantageous changes accumulate over countless generations, simple organisms gradually morph into more complex organisms. While it is true that the theory posits that the changes are random, it is not true that the theory posits that the overall process is random, because natural selection is not random. As the law of gravity “directs” a stone to fall to the earth, the law of “natural selection” directs the evolutionary process in a way that is analogous to a dog breeder developing a new dog breed. Therefore, it is false to say that Neo-Darwinian theory posits a purely random process. That said, natural selection has never been observed to actually direct the creation of large scale evolutionary changes such as new body types, and there are good reasons to believe it cannot do so.

2. It is simply false to say that evolution has never been observed. It most certainly has. Scientists have actually observed microbes develop antibiotic resistance through a strictly Darwinian process. Obviously, the work of medical professionals becomes more difficult when the microbes they are trying to eradicate evolve resistance to antibiotics. Similarly, the work of famers and exterminators becomes harder when bugs evolve resistance to pesticides. Thus, Darwinian evolution at this scale has been observed many times, and it is therefore false to say evolution cannot be observed. That said, it is also true that in contrast to small scale changes within a type (such as the development of antibiotic resistance), large scale evolutionary change that result in complex new organs or new body types has not been directly observed. Rather, since Charles Darwin and his finch beaks, theorists have assumed that the same process that results in small changes can be extrapolated to account for large changes. There are, however, very good reasons to believe that assumption is unwarranted.

Comments
Mung, Joe, and Paleysghost: I admit that I'm completely baffled by Zachriel referring to himself in terms of "we" and "our." Do any of you know whether there are grounds for the majestic plural or whether he's hosting a tapeworm? He's never answered this question and everyone wants to know! ;-) -QQuerius
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
Mung: what was required was a retraction, not a clarification. Our restatement was quite clear. That you ignored it repeatedly is on you.Zachriel
April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
So, basically -- Zachriel is the kind of guy who never gives up even after it's been explained to him why he is wrong. That's called "A Darwinst".Paleysghost
April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT
Zachriel, what was required was a retraction, not a clarification.Mung
April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Mung: That was you, not me Which we clarified. Z (in reply to Mung): We used the term “force”, but should have used scare-quotes. Z: Air molecules are in constant, random motion. They fit a probability distribution. Brownian motion is one test of that randomness. If you prefer, the motion is random with respect to the targeted nostril. It is that motion which guarantees the dispersal of the perfume.Zachriel
April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
A history lesson for Zachriel:
Chance can be a very power force.
That was you, not me. So far you have yet to tell us just what sort of powerful "force" chance can be and where that "power" comes from. Zachriel: You seem to be playing with semantics. LoL. Not that you would be able to see it with that log in your eye.Mung
April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
You seem to be playing with semantics.
The irony.
Not sure if you have made any substantive point.
Followed by more irony. Nice own goal, Zachriel.Joe
April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Mung: Yet no intelligent person claims it was caused by chance. You seem to be playing with semantics. Not sure if you have made any substantive point.Zachriel
April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Zachriel: However, pulling a high card is a matter of chance. Yet no intelligent person claims it was caused by chance.Mung
April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Mung: no intelligent person claims it was caused by chance. No. Shuffling is usually done by card players. However, pulling a high card is a matter of chance.Zachriel
April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Mung... Quote: "Would you say that because it’s impossible to predict when, that it is caused by chance?" Caused by something we don't fully understand....yet, that's all. in any event, still "caused". :)55rebel
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
StephenB.... Quote: "There is a school of thought that warns writers like me to never use tongue-in-cheek humor since some readers will actually think I am being serious." Yup, that be me!!! ......My Bad You had me going there...DOH! Thought that you were... "one of those" :P "Yes, that’s the way it works. If you have not yet done so, please pass the word on to the Darwinists" I could try, but I'm sure it would not register....no one home.55rebel
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Shuffling playing cards randomizes them. An no intelligent person claims it was caused by chance.Mung
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
Steve: They imagine evolution creating the scent using an oil substrate which will release scent molecules in the air, knowing the randomly jiggling molecules will eventually arrive at the target nose. Actually, the perfume is designed, produced, and deployed by humans. However, the mechanism for moving the scent across the room is diffusion due to the random motions of air molecules (and some incidental convection, of course).Zachriel
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Zachriel liken evolution to a designer. They imagine evolution creating the scent using an oil substrate which will release scent molecules in the air, knowing the randomly jiggling molecules will eventually arrive at the target nose. But having said that the Zachriel will tell you that there is no directing of the scent molecules, there is no targeting of the nose, there is no purpose to the object/scent/transport mechanism/receiving mechanism/subject process. They will obfuscate using deflecting discriptors like non-random, which of course means directed. But you know how they feel about directedness. Its all just too much invisible intelligence. That queezy feeling that they are being watched sets in.
Zachriel: As we said, if you prefer, they are random with respect to the targeted nostril.
Steve
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
The result is diversity, the nested hierarchy, and adaptation.
Evolution is too messy to produce a (pristine) nested hierarchy, you ignorant fool.Joe
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
SteRusJon: The individual molecules do not respond to the “probability distribution” any more than they go off in some “random” direction after a collision. Shuffling playing cards randomizes them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomization As we said, if you prefer, they are random with respect to the targeted nostril.Zachriel
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Zachriel, @35 you counter "Air molecules are in constant, random motion. They fit a probability distribution. " and, thereby, add "probability distribution" as more words to cover our ignorance of the specific motions of the individual molecules. The individual molecules do not respond to the "probability distribution" any more than they go off in some "random" direction after a collision. Not a single molecule moves randomly. We cannot manage the information at that scale so we must evaluate the situation statistically if we have any hope of handling the situation. But, our short-comings do not make the motions "random" or the outcome of their motions due to "chance." The motions involved are completely the result of lawful behavior. Strict adherence to the conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. Typical, non-concession policy behavior. Keep shoveling. StephenSteRusJon
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
55rebel
WOW, Could you please give us just one example of “any effect” manifesting without a cause? …Thanks.
There is a school of thought that warns writers like me to never use tongue-in-cheek humor since some readers will actually think I am being serious. Isn't it evident that I was laughing at the teacher and his unstated attack on causality. Reread the paragraph with that context in mind and it will become clear to you.
No Cause? ….NO Effect.
Yes, that's the way it works. If you have not yet done so, please pass the word on to the DarwinistsStephenB
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Our point was that waving your hands and exclaiming “chance” doesn’t mean we can’t make valid predictions, sometimes predictions with great precision.
You should pay better attention to what you write. You were the ones ascribing to chance the power of causation.Mung
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Mung: Would you say that because it’s impossible to predict when, that it is caused by chance? We used the term "force", but should have used scare-quotes. We already clarified our remark above. Z: Air molecules are in constant, random motion. They fit a probability distribution. Brownian motion is one test of that randomness. If you prefer, the motion is random with respect to the targeted nostril. It is that motion which guarantees the dispersal of the perfume. Our point was that waving your hands and exclaiming "chance" doesn't mean we can't make valid predictions, sometimes predictions with great precision.Zachriel
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
55rebel, having taken physics, perhaps you can tell us the cause of a given instance of radioactive decay?
Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.
Would you say that because it's impossible to predict when, that it is caused by chance? That's what Zachriel is claiming, though in his particular case he's talking about diffusion.Mung
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
StephenB... Quote: "Indeed, any effect can occur without a cause." WOW, Could you please give us just one example of "any effect" manifesting without a cause? ...Thanks. I have taken physics, and am very familiar with the 'immutable law' of "Cause and Effect". Spelled out in plain English, this means: that for EVERY Cause (Action) there IS an Effect (Reaction), AND for EVERY Effect (Reaction) there IS a Cause (action), period. No Cause? ....NO Effect. And BTW, what do you think the term "effect" means?!! LOL!55rebel
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
tjguy: Right. We know the explanation for why this is. Good. Then we agree that just saying "random" doesn't mean we can't make predictions. tjguy: When it comes to biological evolution, there are no such laws of science by which we can claim that we will come up with the same result every time. The result is diversity, the nested hierarchy, and adaptation.Zachriel
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
Maybe a little OT? Not sure. The title of this OP is: "How Would You Answer These Questions?" Let's apply it to this post: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-561599 Thanks.Dionisio
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
Zachriel @38
Barry Arrington: If a woman douses herself in perfume and walks into a room, the 2nd law pretty much demands that everyone in the room with a working nose will smell her.
That’s right. And the explanation for that effect is due to the random motion of molecules in the air and the law of large numbers. It’s an irreversible process, of course.
Right. We know the explanation for why this is. We can test it, experience it, and verify that explanation so that it is no longer a hypothesis but is supported/confirmed by the scientific method. The only part Chance plays in this process is the order in which people smell it or the direction the smell travels first. But we know the end result will be the same each time we try it. If only we could say the same thing about evolution! When it comes to biological evolution, there are no such laws of science by which we can claim that we will come up with the same result every time. The claim is made by evolutionists also that we have an explanation for the effect(life and newer, bigger, & better organisms), but, lacking good hard scientific experimental proof it is this claim that remains in contention in many people's eyes.tjguy
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
Some great comments! The problem with arguing with a teacher or professor is that it's a losing proposition: 1. They are generally well-versed on the arguments; 2. They are an authority figure, control class grades, and can mock dissenters or even honest questioners by rolling their eyes, shaking their heads, etc.; 3. They have the final say.
If the student were in college, I would advise him to simply spew back the party line as the teacher expects. At that level the stakes are higher, and the professors are more ideologically driven. We all know that ideologues are reflexively intolerant of the slightest dissent and will abuse their power by punishing the slightest deviation from the officially-approved doctrine. Best to keep your knowledge of the truth well hidden from such as these.
This is so true! For example, one of my kids was already pretty knowledgeable in computer science before he went to college. He took a class in the subject to get credit for his knowledge and hopefully learn some new things. Unfortunately, he found the class far more difficult than he anticipated, because he often found himself more up-to-date than his professor. He wanted to avoid embarrassing him in class, and on tests he had to submit incorrect or outdated answers for the course. Yes, he talked with his professor after class, but my son found that he had to be very diplomatic. And CS of course is not nearly as controversial as some of the untestable ideas that they teach about evolution! On the positive side, one will learn current evolutionary theory (hopefully). The drawback is that evolution is usually taught as incontrovertible FACT, despite that the theory seems to be morphing quite a bit. This type of teaching misleads students into thinking that all science is settled as a series of fossilized facts and traditional terms rather than a structured method of dynamically challenging, adjusting, or overthrowing current knowledge. -QQuerius
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Human convection plume- that is what gets the aroma flowing.Joe
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: If a woman douses herself in perfume and walks into a room, the 2nd law pretty much demands that everyone in the room with a working nose will smell her. That's right. And the explanation for that effect is due to the random motion of molecules in the air and the law of large numbers. It's an irreversible process, of course.Zachriel
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
Z @ 35. Give up. Stephen is correct. If a woman douses herself in perfume and walks into a room, the 2nd law pretty much demands that everyone in the room with a working nose will smell her.Barry Arrington
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply