ID vs. Darwinism: Same evidence, different interpretations?
| July 22, 2006 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
ID advocates and Darwinists can look at the same evidence and see different things. The recent National Geographic film March of the Penguins created a minor furore because some thought of it as pro-ID, though the filmmakers denied that.
One difficulty is that, denial or not, elements of the penguins’ behavior inevitably raise questions about Darwinism. However, some Darwinists respond to the problem simply by reinterpreting those elements along Darwinist lines.
For example, responding to the idea that the male penguins co-operate to share the body warmth, the well-known Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, replies,
A group of penguins standing upright looks like co-operation, but in fact the ones on the outside are struggling to get in and those on the inside are trying to stand their ground: it’s a classic Darwinian struggle. The idea that the life of a penguin is any more beautiful than that of a malaria virus is absurd.
Actually, the book narrative and the film do not depict a classic Darwinian struggle. The book states that the male penguins, left alone with the eggs in a harsh climate while the females return to the ocean to feed, spiral in and out of their “turtle” formation, in a slow and orderly way, taking their fair turn in the warm center of the huddle:
The males can be aggressive the rest of the year. But they are docile and cooperative now, united to protect the eggs and survive the cold. Each takes turns getting warm by spending time near the center of the turtle. The huddled mass coils around itself in an undulating spiral. The penguins on the outside move in toward the center, the ones on the inside go outward. And this rotation happens very gently in order to safeguard the eggs. (p. 75)
So the French polar team on the site saw a completely different scene from Steve Jones!
The French polars may support “evolution,” as they say (but so?). But they are clearly not convinced Darwinists, as is Jones, or they would see a struggle of the fittest for survival, just as Jones did. As my co-author Mario Beauregard (Harper San Francisco, 2007) likes to say, quoting the Talmud, “You do not see life as it is. You see it as you are.”
Note: A biologist friend writes me to say that
… there IS no “malaria virus.” Malaria is caused by a protozoan, a parasite. Biologically speaking, it’s even further removed from being a virus than a bacterium. If Darwinist Steve Jones actually said what’s quoted above, he’s surprisingly ignorant.
Of course, Jones may have been misquoted by the reporter. After all, a New York Times reporter recently quoted Discovery Institute’s Steve Meyer as referring to “biblical science,” when he actually said “biological science.” (It’s the second item.)
In any event, Jones has announced that he has given up trying to persuade “creationists” , because he fears being quoted out of context or accused of lying. So I don’t suppose he will be in any mood to discuss any of this.
39 Responses to ID vs. Darwinism: Same evidence, different interpretations?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Vestigial structures have lost their original main purpose . . .
Or maybe their purpose is their purpose.
Where have you seen people with this misconception? There IS a reason that in my other comment I said \”vestigial organs OR a loss in functionality\”. I know there is a reason to separate the two. Also, thanks for making my point for me:
In WikiPedia
I just take issue with people arbitrarily assigning the label of vestigial when the evidence is limited or there is another perfectly good explanation (or the structure might retain its original function, evolved or not). I also edited the Wikipedia entry a little…let us see how long it lasts till the editors kill it.
Was thinking about this a little further…in the light of the modern sense of NDE isn’t this part of the definition of vestigial now useless? After all, pretty much everything would have evolved by Indirect Darwinian Pathways (Co-Option) and thus would have “lost their original main purpose”. So does that make everything a vestigial organ?
Wikipedia’s Darwin Police strikes again…a mod already removed my edit:
In the supposed spirit of Wikipedia I tried to keep my modifications nonbiased. Now if I really wanted to bias that article I could have removed speculation related to ancestry…but I didn’t. Perhaps modifying the 4th sentence was going a bit too far since in a sense this subject is still “controversial”. But I really don’t see a reason to remove the 2 last sentences I added. Whatever. As usual the unstated rule at Wikipedia is “thou cannot even hint at contradicting Darwinism”.
Patrick asks me: “Where have you seen people with this misconception?”
I’ve seen plenty of creationist papers that attempt refute the vestigial designation solely by providing the functions of the organ. In fact, your post at 28 is a prime example. You claim that the appendix is not vestigial by providing a list of it’s functions. What is that supposed to be proving? We all understand that vestigial organs can have functions. The appendix is still a rudimentary, diminished version of an organ in other animals, making it vestigial. If you can show that it isn’t, then supply that evidence.
While I believe that you understand that vestigial organs have functions, you seem to be furthering the misconception with comment #28.
Patrick: “Was thinking about this a little further…in the light of the modern sense of NDE isn’t this part of the definition of vestigial now useless? After all, pretty much everything would have evolved by Indirect Darwinian Pathways (Co-Option) and thus would have “lost their original main purposeâ€Â. So does that make everything a vestigial organ?”
This is an interesting point. Drawing lines and making definitions in biological systems is always very difficult. (What exactly is a species again?) My guess is that once the organ develops enough of it’s own functionality and loses it’s resemblance to it’s non-diminished form, then it is no longer called a vestige. You’re right, it’s a vague definition. But what in biology isn’t a vague definition? There are still debates over what it means to be alive for goodness sakes.
Hmmm…you’re right. That quick off the cuff response in #28 does seem to support that misconception. Oops.
I’d have to look into the evidence related to the assertion that the appendix is a vestige of the cecum before making any more comments. But I’m not sure how anyone would show “definitely” that it isn’t…only that the case for this is weak and convergent evolution or some other explanation fits the evidence better.
Patrick,
Not many that enter into this debate, on either side, are able to admit to any error, no matter how small. I applaud you. I look forward to discussing other topics on other threads in the future. I just need to find/make the time to join in on an intersting discussion.
[...] why should Jones “of all people” know better? Steve Jones was the biologist who insisted that, in the dramatic sequence in March of the Penguins where the male penguins are moving slowly [...]