The evolution debate.

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

This is one of those subjects that I never get enough of. If I were rich and much younger I would love to go back to school and study biology. The modern debate is both revealing and promising. The popular readings include Dawkins, Behe, etc. The heated debate raged for several years between Darwinists and I.D. supporters. Eventually the I.D. proponents were defeated and religated to the annels of history. I personally think it’s a sad story for science. Darwinists like Richard Dawkins sidestepped the flaws in Darwinism that Behe in particular challenged and lead a political war against I.D. I understand that they were terrified that creationists would exploit these scientific arguments in the hopes of mandating religious explanations in science classrooms which I am strongly against. However this was an opportunity for science to recognize the weakness in a theory and to explore natural explanations. Some have done so though their work is not exactly mainstream. I read all of Dawkin’s books hoping he would offer a “rational” and scientific argument that would directly counter the arguments given by Behe. However they are speaking past each other. Behe is describing the challenges for Darwinism at the microscopic level and Dawkins is responding with generalizations at the macroscopic level. Allow me to briefly outline the argument: (Those who are familiar with the debate and arguments may want to skip this section.)

Popular Belief = Darwinism 1) Common Descent
2) Random mutation
3) Natural Selection

Behe = [b]Intelligent Design /b
He does not argue against Common Descent or Natural Selection.
Argument is against Random Mutation
Primary arguments of I.D.
1) Irreducible Complexity. Behe contends that certain system could not have developed by random mutation and natural selection because the individual components of the system offer no advantage to the organism and would therefore neccesarily be discarded by natural selection.
2) Oversimplification of Darwinists. For example Behe suggests that Darwinists draw an evolutionary line from a simple sense organ that can sense the saturation of a specific chemical to the complex eye of a human being. At the Macro level this seems intuitive but at the microscopic level the number of pieces that have to be changed and coordinated is highly implausible given the time frame.

Stuart Kauffman = Complexity Theory
Like ID Kauffman accepts natural selection and Common descent.
Kauffman dimisnishes the power of Random Mutation by adding another player “Self-organization” or Order for Free as he calls it.
1) Order for Free. The idea that from something simple and chaotic something complex and ordered can emerge. see Fractal Geometry.

Anyone have anything to add? If you haven’t read Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, or Stuart Kauffman’s Origins of Order I highly recommend them.
-Lelldoren

2

There was a major lawsit at Dover Area School District in USA, where the school wanted to introduce the ID into their teaching.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller … l_District

It ended with ID being fully rejected, as it was a hidden way of introducing religious teaching in a clever disguise, where it’s explicit written that religion and state matters must be seperated, and therefore violtated the law.

My personal note, is that many naive people will be tempted by this ID, because it sounds so convincing, imo these people are Sheeple.

3

"1) Irreducible Complexity. Behe contends that certain system could not have developed by random mutation and natural selection because the individual components of the system offer no advantage to the organism and would therefore necessarily be discarded by natural selection. "

So do you think the model of the world you have in your brain, in the controlled environment of you own mind, is superior, knows more, is more complete, can predict what can and cannot be, as opposed to what nature or reality or the laws of physics (or whatever you want to call the universe) has given you ? Do you think your brain or even mankind’s brain and knowledge, his language, his decoding of the world according to his internal logic, his sense organs, the way the world is organized and the way his mind - brain - sense organs and muscles interact with reality is a sufficient instrument to cover all possibilities ? Do you really think this total quirk of the human mind - brain is some kind of reference system from which to measure and decide what is intelligent and what is not, what can be and what cannot, what sequence of causes and effects are possible or probable and what are not “given the time frame” ? Exactly what is the time frame ? does more time make something more probable ? what if it was just an extremely precise sequence of events that happened one after another in such a highly coordinated way, in such a perfect way, as to have created life from scratch in a few days ? Can’t be ? Who says ? What makes a process that can last a billion years more real or more probable than a process that lasts only a few days ? The number of years is some kind of gauge to truth ? A bigger number is truer than a smaller one ? Just because we are used to seeing things go through processes at a certain speed excludes that they can’t go faster, even very much faster ?

The entire debate on evolution and intelligent design is so full of ridiculous assumptions of all kinds, is so full of illusions on our capability to model the world, on our capability to understand that which will forever be unknowable because the very nature of the sequence of events, ( if there was even a sequence, maybe everything just got together in one picosecond and created the first complete cell, who can exclude this? ) will be forever unknown.

The debates on ID and evolution are very fertile grounds for philosophical analysis of all kinds. Just because you assign a one shot guy in the sky that created life, do you think you explained it ? Or does a process that lasts billions of years following all our knowledge of physics and chemistry explain it ? Exactly what explanation will “comfort us” ? What movie do we want to associate with the beginning of life in our mind ? Why do we even need a movie or explanation ? And even if it was 100 % clear and explained, what if we weren’t comforted at all ? What if it was not enough, what if it was never enough ? Exactly what do we want to get out of the debate ? I could go on forever, I just answered this because I’m bored. Check out all the threads I answered already, this issue has been beaten to death, I have been beating it to death for years, I created life, ok ? That is my explanation, I invented it and created it, now sue me…

Check out:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=174349

viewtopic.php?t=150714

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=167276

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=150657

4

Hex,
I am aware of the Dover ruling but if you read the transcripts you will find that the reason ID was rejected was political. The Dover Schools District was concerned that by opening the door to ID they would be blurring the lines between science and religion, possibly opening the door to Creationist discussions. I by the way am not convinced of ID. I never was but being a thinking person I pursue all ideas without prejudice. As always your comments come down to name calling and have no real argument in them. If you have an answer to the arguments of ID please lay it out for us. Have you even read any of the scientific proposals of Behe or his colleagues? Your prejudice against the conclusion of ID stops you from even examining the premises.
-Lell

5

Nice double standards. Besides as a critical thinker I got to the root of the problem, instead of chasing rainbows as others.

Seems you have only 2nd hand information about the actual ruling, as it wasn’t purely based on politics, but also mostly based on a scientific ruling.

1 of ID’s claims was that very advanced things such as the bacterial flagellum, couldn’t possible create such highly evolved propulsion system without an external designer, specially because taking 1 thing out of the construction would ruin everything, which was disproved.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

In the court case, ID prestented many arguments, many against convernsional Darwinism and many for ID, all were scientificly disproven, why I can’t see how it was a political ruling, as the majority of the ruling was based on science …not politics.

6

Lell I await your answer, it should be easy to disprove me since you read the whole transscript as that thinking person you are, besides I never have any real substance in my argumentation.

…or is it that you don’t comprehend those admissable things I always says? Just ask for an explenation, and I’ll be happy to motivate you to google them.

7

Hex,

Though it is a complete waste of time to argue with you I will respond one last time. In your “rebuttal” you quote the following from Wikipedia,
"]Evolutionary pathways supported by the Theory of Natural Selection and Evolution (see: "The Flagellum Unspun and PBS/Nova Science’s television production of Intelligent Design on Trial) have since been identified for the bacterial flagellum; thus, undermining Behe’s argument.[40
While that would tend to satisfy most people like yourself who simply want to be right if you really look at it its not an aswer. The “pathways” they discovered are not proven or articulated scientifically. They are oversimplified theories used to support a weak premise. As I have said many times I am not a champion of any theory so you waste your time trying to prove “me” wrong when its the theory that needs to be argued. Frankly so many of these discusions digenerate into b/s because people like you simply want to argue. You are so insecure that you have to go around telling people how smart you thik you are. My suggestion is do some friggin research and more importantly figure yourself out. You demonstate Russells adage, “all the the problems of this world can be explained by the fact that dumb people think they have all the answers and smart people are always in doubt.”

Lelldoren Out.

8

I don’t really see the scientific theory of evolution as a debateable subject. I see it more as a matter of changing as new discoveries and analyses progress.

I should add: those that would like to turn it into a controversy or a debate generally have their own agenda, religious and/or political. I could also say the same thing about climate change.

9

You need to present an argumentation why it’s wrong, not just your usual slander which explains nothing in itself.

“pathways” The natural selection is some of the best proven about Darwinism, and you need to expand on your statemen of why it’s not proven or articulated scientificly.