It is a common mistake to believe that evolution and natural selection are the same thing: they most emphatically are not. A fairly good definition for “evolution” is “the change in allele frequency in a population over time”. That’s not really a complete definition, of course, because it doesn’t take into account changes in cellular machinery which are not themselves genetic. For example, both mitochondria and chloroplasts are not properly part of an organisms genome. But to a first approximation, this will do.
Now, most people are familiar with the idea that evolution entails not only natural selection, but mutation as well. Less commonly appreciated is that mutations can themselves evolve without any pressure from natural selection. One common example of this is when a mutation happens to be very close on a chromosome to the gene for a useful trait. Since genetic material which is physically close tends to get inherited together, all sorts of mutations which luck out in being near useful genes get a “free ride”. But even this is just indirect natural selection.
A great deal of an organism’s DNA is never expressed (that is, involved in protein synthesis), so there’s no selective pressure on that part. Sometimes, a mutation just gets lucky — the mutation happens in the regions of DNA which don’t do anything and at the same time happens in an organism that just happens to be successful. Its children have the mutation, and their children have the mutation. The mutation doesn’t itself do anything, but if it’s lucky, it becomes more wide-spread in the population.
If you don’t believe me, it’s relatively easy to create a simulation of a population with 4 traits that have no effect on the individual’s survival, with 25% of the population having each trait. On each iteration, kill off each individual with a probability of 50% and replace it with an “offspring” of one of the survivors. In a population of 1000 individuals, you’ll find that in about 100,000 generations one of the traits will have completely dominated the population. People familiar with statistics will recognize this as an application of the casino problem: in a fair game, your probability of winning everything is the amount of money you have over the total amount of money in the game. Since the individuals die randomly without regard to the trait, with very high probability in the second iteration, the populations will no longer be equal, and then you expect a victor.
Eventually, a mutation with no effect can become commonplace the population, and then mutations of the original mutation will occur frequently. Eventually, some of those combined mutations will become common enough to get mutations of them, and so on. In this way, it’s possible to assemble the gene for a useful protein without any selective pressure helping this evolution along until the gene suddenly starts working (i.e. the cell’s machinery starts using it to create proteins).
The sudden aquisition of complex traits without any selective pressure guiding them into existence is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution. It is not, of course, likely to happen. But that’s the problem with probability: you don’t expect unlikely things to happen often, but you can’t say whether those infrequent occurrences will happen early or late. You expect a 1 in a million event to happen once every million times you try, but it’s equally likely to happen on the first try as on the last try.
{ 24 comments }
Nor to simplify any of the confusion but it says here that:
"…natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism".
Indeed, ctl, this is precisely the exciting point of the recent Lenski paper, in which a mutation which apparently has no real effect is a pre-requisite for successive mutations that allow a new metabolic function to emerge. Â Contingency is, as Gould noted, quite important in the development of biological life.
Bad’s last blog post..Being a Buddhist is the Hardest Job in the World
Here’s a question that always puzzled me. Consider the statement excerpted from the above post:
You expect a 1 in a million event to happen once every million times you try, but it’s equally likely to happen on the first try as on the last try.
I was under the impression that the above statement is only true in the sense that as the number of random trials goes to infinity, we can always find a point where the success/trials ratio is as close as we want to 1/1million. Not that it will happen on the first million tries or even the millionths million tries. Â
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the fact that we can observe "random" behavior conforming to the "Law of Large Numbers" as human beings is a remarkable thing. There is no gurantee that the number of trials of any random behavior required for observing probabalistic effects would be on the scale of, say, a human lifetime on any consistant basis. Therefore, the observation of the "laws of probability"  is evidence of intelligent design of the universe.Â
Perhaps I’m not understanding probablity theory correctly. But if I am, why isn’t our ability to apply probability and statistics to do useful things used by folks as evidence against a "random" and G-dless universe.
Well first off if there were an intelligent designer, and they could shape things over time as they saw fit, then it wouldn’t be very random would it? I think that’s what you were saying. However to truly offer that as evidence against a random and Godless universe you would have to prove that something did indeed use these tools to create the universe. Since it cannot be proven, there is no evidence.
I would also like to point out that using science to either prove or disprove an intelligent creator is a fruitless endeavor at best. What intelligent design does is it passes religious belief off as science through a series of rationalizations. What the hardcore stance of ‘science proves there is no God’ does is it creates a new philosophy from a set of rules that really have nothing to do with whether a God exists or not. When people finally stop trying to use science to prove their philosophy on how the universe was created we can go back to trying to cure cancer and colonize Mars or something, and that would be a great day indeed.
Back on to topic, mutations can be very difficult to pass down considering that it may not be a dominant mutation which further complicates the issue. Where in that instance if it is passed down it only manifests if both parents had the gene and in a spontaneous mutation they probably do not. If the children breed with one another then there’s a chance you’d see another with the gene manifest, but that’s wrong on a lot of levels.Â
Also, while random chance dictates that a spontaneous genetic mutation can occur, it also governs the fact that the children of said person with the spontaneous mutation may very well not inherit the gene to pass down at all. Haploid cells are pretty random. The haploid cell passing the person’s genetic material to the other person’s haploid cell may very well not even contain the mutation.
I’d say one in a million would be a very optimistic estimation of a gene that changes mankind. However, it is probably a pretty fair estimation for a spontaneous mutation that dies with the person considering the people you see every now and then with four arms and such.
It is but it’s not particularly compelling by itself. Or, perhaps more accurately, it is compelling, but boring.
The statistical odds of the series of events occurring randomly that are necessary for life are so astronomical it moves far beyond the realm of scientific impossibility (which is 1 in 1000 if I recall).
So, this point that cannot be debated or denied is left to the side in favor of more flashy arguments.
Trust me, the people that argue against a random universe know the statistics and probability. It’s just that the other side doesn’t feel like talking about it and, unfortunately, they’re the ones that often get to define the terms of the debate.
"The statistical odds of the series of events occurring randomly that are necessary for life are so astronomical it moves far beyond the realm of scientific impossibility (which is 1 in 1000 if I recall)."
The error in this thinking is taking an observation and looking at the probabilities in hind sight.
For example, if we go back only 10 years in the past, what would be the odds of you and I commenting on this website on this topic? Probably in the billions, yet it would be absurd to attribute this event to a higher power.
KevinD: "The statistical odds of the series of events occurring randomly that are necessary for life are so astronomical it moves far beyond the realm of scientific impossibility (which is 1 in 1000 if I recall)."
Oh really? Â A fascinating claim. Â But please, do show us your math.
detriotVB: "Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the fact that we can observe "random" behavior conforming to the "Law of Large Numbers" as human beings is a remarkable thing. "
Ontological surprise is tricky stuff. Â It’s not clear on what basis you base the judgment that some state of affairs is remarkable: with what other set of possible universes, are you comparing this one, and finding it so unusual? Â And how did you come to know what that set contains?
Perhaps what’s really remarkable, for all we know, is how little we know, and not so much. Â Perhaps we are so remarkably ignorant, compared to what we might otherwise expect from intelligent life in a universe, that to explain it we can only appeal to the existence of an intelligent agent who deliberately dumbs things down.
Bad’s last blog post..Being a Buddhist is the Hardest Job in the World
Ontological surprise is tricky stuff.  It’s not clear on what basis you base the judgment that some state of affairs is remarkable: with what other set of possible universes, are you comparing this one, and finding it so unusual?  And how did you come to know what that set contains?
Ontological ignorance is also tricky stuff. Everyday and all day we function within a framework of an orderly understanding of the world and our expectations of it. Everyday we function with notions of significance. I’ll take those everyday notions as my universe of significance. To deny the world is ordered in a significant fashion seems to be an intellectually dishonest position to me, especially since right after the argument the arguer returns to his daily business of living in which he uses all of those assumptions and feelings of order and significance. The arguer is in effect claiming that everything is absurd, but then wants me to discuss his own ideas with him as if he were not himself absurd. Â
Let’s go further – "random" is ususally misused. True random means no stability in any quality whatsoever. Size changes by the moment. Position changes by the moment. Density changes by the moment etc.  Now its a kangaroo, later its a tractor, then a potato, then it disaasembles etc. That’s what random behavior truly means. The universe, by exhibiting  laws of physics, is not at all random. Since the only possibilities are random or intelligently ordered, science offers evidence for intelligent design. In fact, any casual observation of the world not behaving in a truly random manner offers this type of evidence. Or we are all completely absurd. Â
An interesting fact (and for what it’s worth, I don’t have any problem with evolution or Darwinism, never have) to ponder is that, up until at least the 1980s, it was utterly uncontroversial amongst evolutionary biologists to say that random mutation and natural selection by themselves were insufficient to explain the complexity of life as we see it today, and that there had to be other factors in play which we could not (yet?) explain. "Other factors" did not mean "God" or whatever, just what any good scientist would call "stuff we don’t understand right now."
What has fascinated me is that not really all *that* much has changed in evolutionary biology in the last 30 years, but now such a statement–which was made by Stephen Jay Gould in a sworn affidavit, by the way–now causes almost spastic responses of rage out of a lot of people, including some scientists. I was practically shrieked at by blogger Pixy Misa for pointing it out, for example.
What most astonishes me about this entire discussion–most of which I find uninteresting, I gave up on it years ago for the most part–is the shrieking passion it brings out of people, as if anyone coming to the wrong conclusions represents a danger to the civilized world and rational thought and science itself. It’s really childish behavior.
I certainly agree that the social dangers of creationism are overblown.Â
But people get upset when they are misrepresented, and then continually misrepresented, and smeared, and so on. It builds bitterness and touchiness. And the fact that there are people out there who try to make their arguments in a very dishonest and often covert manner makes people suspicious. There’s nothing astonishing about that. It’s unfortunate, but not surprising.
Bad’s last blog post..Being a Buddhist is the Hardest Job in the World
detroitVB: "Ontological ignorance is also tricky stuff."
Well, it’s the same thing in this case. We are essentially ignorant of what ontological possibility is, and thus have no real warrant to be surprised by the nature of our universe, or think it especially improbable.
"Everyday and all day we function within a framework of an orderly understanding of the world and our expectations of it. Everyday we function with notions of significance."
That’s quite fine as long as you understand that the context for those notions IS this universe. Applying them TO the universe, on the other hand, would be a philosophical category error.
"I’ll take those everyday notions as my universe of significance. To deny the world is ordered in a significant fashion seems to be an intellectually dishonest position to me, especially since right after the argument the arguer returns to his daily business of living in which he uses all of those assumptions and feelings of order and significance. The arguer is in effect claiming that everything is absurd, but then wants me to discuss his own ideas with him as if he were not himself absurd."
I have no idea what you are talking about here. This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I said: I haven’t argued that the world is without any natural order. Clearly it is. Am I mistaken in thinking that this was directed at me? Â
"Let’s go further – "random" is ususally misused."
True: in science, generally all it means is that one thing is seemingly uncorrelated to another thing, not that literally anything can happen with no reason for it. QM is sort of breaking that concept, but only really on the quantum scale.
"True random means no stability in any quality whatsoever. Size changes by the moment. Position changes by the moment. Density changes by the moment etc.  Now its a kangaroo, later its a tractor, then a potato, then it disaasembles etc. That’s what random behavior truly means."
Indeed, and I find such a situation nearly impossible to envision. Which, if you agree, as you seem to, should limit our range of universes that we consider ontologically possible, and hence limit our surprise in finding ourselves in a universe with some order.Â
"The universe, by exhibiting  laws of physics, is not at all random. Since the only possibilities are random or intelligently ordered, science offers evidence for intelligent design."
This doesn’t follow in the least. You haven’t demonstrated that ANY degree of order, particularly the degree of order we see in our universe is ontologically exceptional (indeed, as I pointed out, for all we know, it could be exceptional in its relative lack of order) implies design of any sort. And you’re employing the fallacy of equivocation to pretend that the random we speak of when we speak of randomness in evolution is the same as your extreme randomness that you explained earlier.
"In fact, any casual observation of the world not behaving in a truly random manner offers this type of evidence."
Your claim of "evidence" here is about as sound as me asserting that it a volcano explodes every time the volcano god gets angry.Â
See? It just exploded. More evidence of the angry volcano god.
Bad’s last blog post..Being a Buddhist is the Hardest Job in the World
Well, it’s the same thing in this case. We are essentially ignorant of what ontological possibility is, and thus have no real warrant to be surprised by the nature of our universe, or think it especially improbable.
OK, but when you look up at the stars or Grand Canyon or the ocean and feel awestruck just remember it could have been better. (Not)
That’s quite fine as long as you understand that the context for those notions IS this universe. Applying them TO the universe, on the other hand, would be a philosophical category error.
No. This is an abuse of language. Universe is, by definition, what is. You can’t stand outside of what is and apply some greater context to it.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I said: I haven’t argued that the world is without any natural order. Clearly it is. Am I mistaken in thinking that this was directed at me?  Â
No, but you’ve done the equivalent by denying any "ontological significance" to that order (since it is, in your view, just one out of infinitely many possible orders that exist in some "universe" of your imagination).
This doesn’t follow in the least. You haven’t demonstrated that ANY degree of order, particularly the degree of order we see in our universe is ontologically exceptional (indeed, as I pointed out, for all we know, it could be exceptional in its relative lack of order) implies design of any sort.Â
But I have. The point is, to develop ontologicaly significant order, all I need to demonstrate is order that you would consider order. That, indeed, is the entire point of the ontological argument. i.e. that we can’t concieve of a concept with no reality to it. Once we agree the universe displays what we call order, it requires an Orderer.Â
"OK, but when you look up at the stars or Grand Canyon or the ocean and feel awestruck just remember it could have been better. (Not)"
This isn’t any sort of answer to my point. You are the one insisting that the state of our universe is so exceptional that it demands some further conclusion. All I am asking is: exceptional compared to what? You’re trying to use a concept outside of the context in which it makes sense.Â
"No. This is an abuse of language. Universe is, by definition, what is. You can’t stand outside of what is and apply some greater context to it."
But that’s precisely what you are doing by insisting that this or that feature of it is surprising. How can you possibly know that without abusing language?
"No, but you’ve done the equivalent by denying any "ontological significance" to that order (since it is, in your view, just one out of infinitely many possible orders that exist in some "universe" of your imagination)."
Ok hold on: do you not know what "ontology" means, or what a possible world is?
"But I have. The point is, to develop ontologicaly significant order, all I need to demonstrate is order that you would consider order. That, indeed, is the entire point of the ontological argument. i.e. that we can’t concieve of a concept with no reality to it. Once we agree the universe displays what we call order, it requires an Orderer."
First of all, you haven’t even mentioned what we refer to as "the ontological argument" (much less specified which one of the many you’re now talking about). Though I’ve never heard of one that involves "not concieving of a concept with no reality to it"… whatever the heck that even means.
Second of all, I simply don’t concede the point that the level of order apparent in our universe implies anything at all. We simply don’t know what is characteristic for universes, and what is required for this or that aspect of them. Unless you are prepared to explain, in all of your infinite wisdom, how the ontological nature of the universe comes to be what it is, and then demonstrate that ours is such that it could not be the way it is without your preferred ideology, then your assertions are simply baseless.Â
Finally, the link to "Orderers" is just begging your own conclusion. What’s the point of that?
Seriously, in nearly every post you don’t really respond to my arguments, and you start talking about some new concept you hadn’t even mentioned before. At least past concede points before trying to bring up new ones.
Bad’s last blog post..Being a Buddhist is the Hardest Job in the World
Bad,
I think we are speaking from a different set of assumptions, so it looks like I’m not responding to you. Perhaps I can at least clarify this difference.I belive you are evaluating the level of order in the universe by assuming :
1. There are many possible functions f1, f2, … fn that we could call orderings of the universe.2. That there is a function that orders these functions, an ordering of orders, F(fx) , if you will. 3. You are asking "what gives you the right to say that F(f10) [where f10 is our particular universal order] is high (i.e. there is high "ontological surprise") when we don’t know the nature of F(fx) and the values it produces for other orderings of the universe. And since we can’t determine with any certainty that there is "high ontological surprise", we have no right to say – our world requires an organizing intelligence for us to have arrived at this level of ordering. I am negating this line of thought. I am saying
1. There are only 2 possible ways of describing the totality of what is (our Physical Universe) a. Random b. Non-Random – i.e. Ordered
2. Without guiding intelligence, we expect the Universe to be Random. If there is an Ordered Universe, this is a sign of a guiding intelligence.
3. We see evidence that the Universe is Ordered, therefore this is an Ordering Intelligence.
You are saying that only if F(f10) is a high value would you even consider admiting 3.Â
I am saying there is no such function as F and no relevance to your "possible" orders f1, f2, … fn. I refute your points here by noting that it is impossible for you to meaningfully discuss the concept of F since the existance of F assumes the existance of a frame of reference that subsumes the Universe. By defninition, the Universe is the totality of what is. And we are in it. It is inherently meaningless to talk as if we weren’t in it and as if there was something else.
Our task here is to simply attempt to percieve – random or ordered, using our intuition as mediated through our logic. Hence my appeal to the sense of awe and wonder – an intuition of a higher meaning, significance and ultimately ordering. Also, in a straightforard manner, the appeal to our sense of inherent order in the universe, as attested to in a simple way by how ordered our universe seems to a casual observer or in a sophisticated way by noting it behaves in accordance with "laws" of physics.
To put it simply, I’m saying its quite possible to percieve if the Universe is ordered enough to require an Orderer. Our intuitive perception tells us. You are saying – no we must first compare the universe to an infinite number of universes I dreamed up, and since I can dream up lots of them, this "particular" universe has no special significance. To which I’m answering – you’re talking crazy talk. Open your eyes and look around you and trust your intuitive perception. You wouldn’t say a Swiss watch movement isn’t a marvelously ordered mechinism because of imaginations of universes with different types of watches. You’ld say – who made that watch!
As a side point, since you brought up the term, the Ontological Argument for the Existance of an Intellegent Creator is based on the insight that we humans can’t concieve of things that have no reality to them. It has been debated in Western texts for 1000 years. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/anselm.htmlhttp://www.formalontology.it/ontological-proof.htm    I hope this clarifies our points of dispute.Â
Bad,
I think we are speaking from a different set of assumptions, so it looks like I’m not responding to you. Perhaps I can at least clarify this difference.I belive you are evaluating the level of order in the universe by assuming
1. There are many possible functions f1, f2, … fn that we could call orderings of the universe.2. That there is a function that orders these functions, an ordering of orders, F(fx) if you will. 3. You are asking "what gives you the right to say that F(f10) [where f10 is our particular universal order] is high (i.e. there is high "ontological surprise") when we don’t know the nature of F(fx) and the values it produces for other orderings of the universe. And since we can’t determine with any certainty that there is "high ontological surprise", we have no right to say – our world requires an organizing intelligence for us to have arrived at this level of ordering.Â
I am negating this line of thought. I am saying
1. There are only 2 possible ways of describing the totality of what is (our Physical Universe) a. Random b. Non-Random – i.e. Ordered
2. Without guiding intelligence, we expect the Universe to be Random. If there is an Ordered Universe, this is a sign of a guiding intelligence.
3. We see evidence that the Universe is Ordered, therefore there is an Ordering Intelligence.You are saying that only if F(f10) is a high value would you even consider admiting 3.Â
I am saying there is no such function as F and no relevance to your "possible" orders f1, f2, … fn. I refute your points here by noting that it is impossible for you to meaningfully discuss the concept of F since the existance of F assumes the existance of a frame of reference that subsumes the Universe. By defninition, the Universe is the totality of what is. And we are in it. It is inherently meaningless to talk as if we weren’t in it and as if there was something else. Our task here is to simply attempt to percieve – random or ordered, using our intuition as mediated through our logic. Hence my appeal to the sense of awe and wonder – an intuition of a higher meaning, significance and ultimately ordering. Also, in a straightforard manner, the appeal to our sense of inherent order in the universe, as attested to in a simple way by how ordered our universe seems to a casual observer or in a sophisticated way by noting it behaves in accordance with "laws" of physics.
To put it simply, I’m saying its quite possible to percieve if the Universe is ordered enough to require an Orderer. Our intuitive perception tells us. You are saying – no we must first compare the universe to an infinite number of universes I dreamed up, and since I can dream up lots of them, this "particular" universe has no special significance. To which I’m answering – you’re talking crazy talk. Open your eyes and look around you and trust your intuitive perception. You woulnd’t say a Swiss watch movement isn’t a marvelously ordered mechinism because of imaginations of universes with different types of watches. You’ld say – who made that watch!
(As a side point, since you brought up the term, the Ontological Argument for the Existance of an Intellegent Creator is based on the insight that we humans can’t concieve of things that have no reality to them. It has been debated in Western text for over 1000 years. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/anselm.htmlhttp://www.formalontology.it/ontological-proof.htm  ) Â
I hope this clarifies our points of dispute.
Bad,
I think we are speaking from a different set of assumptions, so it looks like I’m not responding to you. Perhaps I can at least clarify this difference.I belive you are evaluating the level of order in the universe by assuming
1. There are many possible functions f1, f2, … fn that we could call orderings of the universe.
2. That there is a function that orders these functions, an ordering of orders, F(fx)Â if you will.
3. You are asking "what gives you the right to say that F(f10) [where f10 is our particular universal order] is high (i.e. there is high "ontological surprise") when we don’t know the nature of F(fx) and the values it produces for other orderings of the universe. And since we can’t determine with any certainty that there is "high ontological surprise", we have no right to say – our world requires an organizing intelligence for us to have arrived at this level of ordering.Â
I am negating this line of thought. I am saying
1. There are only 2 possible ways of describing the totality of what is (our Physical Universe) a. Random b. Non-Random – i.e. Ordered
2. Without guiding intelligence, we expect the Universe to be Random. If there is an Ordered Universe, this is a sign of a guiding intelligence.
3. We see evidence that the Universe is Ordered, therefore this is an Ordering Intelligence.You are saying that only if F(f10) is a high value would you even consider admiting 3.Â
I am saying there is no such function as F and no relevance to your "possible" orders f1, f2, … fn. I refute your points here by noting that it is impossible for you to meaningfully discuss the concept of F since the existance of F assumes the existance of a frame of reference that subsumes the Universe. By defninition, the Universe is the totality of what is. And we are in it. It is inherently meaningless to talk as if we weren’t in it and as if there was something else. Our task here is to simply attempt to percieve – random or ordered, using our intuition as mediated through our logic. Hence my appeal to the sense of awe and wonder – an intuition of a higher meaning, significance and ultimately ordering. Also, in a straightforard manner, the appeal to our sense of inherent order in the universe, as attested to in a simple way by how ordered our universe seems to a casual observer or in a sophisticated way by noting it behaves in accordance with "laws" of physics.
To put it simply, I’m saying its quite possible to percieve if the Universe is ordered enough to require an Orderer. Our intuitive perception tells us. You are saying – no we must first compare the universe to an infinite number of universes I dreamed up, and since I can dream up lots of them, this "particular" universe has no special significance. To which I’m answering – you’re talking crazy talk. Open your eyes and look around you and trust your intuitive perception. You woulnd’t say a Swiss watch movement isn’t a marvelously ordered mechinism because of imaginations of universes with different types of watches. You’ld say – who made that watch!
As to your points:
1) Is wholly unjustified.  There is no reason to think that there couldn’t be different levels of order and randomness possible, and even that’s assuming that you’ve defined those terms well enough that they mean anything useful: which I’m not sure you’ve done in any case.  Your assertion is more indicative of BPD than a philosophical assertion.
2) Again: a bare claim with no justification given whatsoever. Â As far as I can tell, you’ve just always assumed this, but there’s no reason to assume it. Â Orderers, in any case, do not explain order (if we assume that any explanation is demanded): they merely compound the problem further.
In fact, if you are going to discount modal logic entirely, then you’re even more at a loss, because now you have 0 basis for surprise whatsoever. Â This leads to bizarre claims like this one:
" I’m saying its quite possible to percieve if the Universe is ordered enough to require an Orderer."
You’ve just done away with the only basis on which you could conclude that the universe is ordered "enough to" imply anything at all. Â Rid yourself of possibility, and you are left with a universe that is simply brute fact, allowing no particular implications to be drawn about why it is the way it is.
Your entire argument is, for that reason, basically an exercise in self-contradiction. Â I guess I didn’t understand what you were saying because I never assumed it could be so straightforwardly silly.
And essentially, in the end, you have no argument at all, just an "intuitive perception"… which basically means that you simply assume your own conclusion, end of story. It certainly took a heck of a lot of thrashing around for you to get to stating it clearly though, which makes me wonder if the point here was simply distraction.
" You woulnd’t say a Swiss watch movement isn’t a marvelously ordered mechinism because of imaginations of universes with different types of watches. You’ld say – who made that watch!"
Again, this argument makes sense in the context of the universe in which we live. Â It makes no sense to apply it to the nature of the universe itself: again, this is what is known as a logical category error. Â It’s like you are saying "look at how unnatural nature is!" You might as well be expressing surprise at how white the color black is.
(and it, of course, the watch example, while valid on its own terms, has been shown to break down in the particular case of biological life, which is not analogous to a watch on the beach)
Bad’s last blog post..More Misleading Atheist/Theist Surveys
Bad says:
But people get upset when they are misrepresented, and then continually misrepresented, and smeared, and so on.
And so, in response, they misrepresent and smear and so on. All the time claiming to be the voice of reason and logic. Â
"And so, in response, they misrepresent and smear and so on. All the time claiming to be the voice of reason and logic."This sort of tit-for-tat concept may be a satisfying way to view the controversy, but I don’t think it’s accurate.  I do think that the misrepresentation here is overwhelmingly on the side of creationists and ID proponents, and specifically on factual matters.  Most of the unfair criticisms on the evolution side come from speculating too much about motives and religious beliefs, rather than misrepresenting the specific arguments and goals of the various movements.
Bad’s last blog post..Obama Against ?Mental? Exceptions to Late-Term Abortion Bans
Bad says:
This sort of tit-for-tat concept may be a satisfying way to view the controversy, but I don’t think it’s accurate.
The "satisfying way to view" seems to be your take. You’re the one trying to rationalize away irrational behavior directed at Dean, who is neither a creationist nor an IDer. If this were one or two posters on the internet, one would brush it off. But the irrationality seems to pervade much of the Darwinist community.
We can’t solve here the issue of which side does more "misrepresentations".  But that it seems the other way to someone like me, who used to be a Darwinist, should trouble folks in that community. But it doesn’t.
They proclaim themselves the rationalists, but don’t seem to grasp the concept. Nor do they seem to understand the concept of "more harm than good".Â
"You’re the one trying to rationalize away irrational behavior directed at Dean, who is neither a creationist nor an IDer"
I don’t know exactly what you’re talking about, since you don’t really cite a lot of examples, and I’m not familiar with the conversations in question and so can’t judge who was right.  But you and seem to neglect the issue that what someone "is" is irrelevant to whether they may or may not be making specifically bad arguments, and getting criticized for them. Â
"We can’t solve here the issue of which side does more "misrepresentations"."
Sure we can. Â These are factual matters. Â And on such factual matters, I don’t think there is much legitimate dispute about how dishonest and misleading the vast bulk of creationist and ID claims turn out to be. Â From quoting mining to vastly misrepresenting entire disciplines worth of material to repeatedly using outdated figures despite being called on it over and over, to employing mathematical arguments that don’t actually model what they claim to, and so on.
"They proclaim themselves the rationalists, but don’t seem to grasp the concept."
This is the sort of empty rhetoric that anyone can level at anyone, which gets us nowhere.
Bad’s last blog post..Blog Shorts: Bush Smears Jefferson, Colson Smears Atheists, Cthulhu Smears Your Entrails Across Campaign Trail
Bad says:
Sure we can. These are factual matters.
And then you go on to merely offer an opinion with no evidence. But I’m sure no True Scotsman could disagree with that opinion.
Not being Scottish, however, I do. And that takes us back to square one, no closer to resolving the factual issues.
As far as mathematical arguments go, I will admit that I’ve seen arguments from both IDers and creationists that I disagree with. But I’ve also seen them from a lot of Darwinists. Indeed, there was a major conference in the early 60′s where mathematicians gathered to point out the lack of a mathematical basis for the Neo-Darwinian claims.
So, the knife cuts both ways. The difference, as I see it, is that we are still selling the Darwinian myth to our school children, even though most mathematicians know it is absurd.Â
Roger,
The seminar you speak of is, I believe, the University of Pennsylvainia Wistar Institute Symposium. I read the entire procedings.  I wrote the mathematicians asking them "did the other side address your issues". Murry Eden, then Chief of Biomedical Engineering and Instrumentation at the NIH wrote me back, in April 1985,  and said:
"So far as I know, nobody has ever published a rebuttal to the arguments those of us on the mathematical side made. Of course I have talked to evolutionists in the years since the symposium. Their position seems to be that the calculations are irrelevent for several reasons. First, they do not really use the word "random" in the sense of a mathematician. (Of course they don’t, that’s part of the problem.) Second,they are sure that discoveries of modern biology , especially molecular biology, will help clarify the mechanisms of evolution (they may be right, but who knows). Finally there is a very strong movement in evolution theory aganst gradualism. The names most often associated with the "punctuational" theory are Ernst Mayer and Steven Gould. Here the idea is that changes are very rapid at certain special times and places. To my view this simply complicates the mathematical difficulty, but they don’t think so. "
"And then you go on to merely offer an opinion with no evidence."
My point was simply that it is a resolvable question, no true scotsman fallacies necessary. In this case, the creationist side is so outrageously commonly and characteristically dishonest that it’s simply no contest.
Take a look at nearly any YEC argument, and you have a recipe for nonsense. Nearly every creationist quote turns out to be misleading. And so on.Â
Bad’s last blog post..Defending Obama’s ?Faith-Based? Funding Changes: Special Rules for the Religious?
Comments on this entry are closed.