Darwinian Philosophy | Philosophy Lounge

April 22, 2013

Some Disconnect on Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

Filed under: Biological Evolution,Darwinian philosophy — Tags: Darwinian Evolution, Religious Creation — jbernal @ 1:18 pm

Juan Bernal

The following exchange resulted when a philosophical acquaintance, call him Pablo, asserted that “the Darwinian revolution in biology … only challenged orthodox religious explanations.” He also objected to a few other statements that I made concerning Darwinian thought.

I offer them as examples of common misunderstandings – especially among some philosophers — of some aspects of Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
————————–

Against the claim that Darwin only challenged orthodox religious explanations, I pointed out that many historians and commentators on Darwin argue the contrary: namely, that Darwin’s work, Origin of the Species, faced a variety of resistance, only part of which stemmed from religious doctrine. Undeniably, Darwin challenged orthodox religious accounts of life on earth (origin and maintenance); and religious doctrine was a big factor in the thinking of most people. But more importantly to the history of biological science, Darwin’s evolutionary science also challenged prevailing theories and beliefs of secular scientists and other people who did not base their views on religion at all. The idea of fixity of life species was a far broader idea than just something gotten from religious doctrine.

To this Pablo replied that he disagreed and repeated his view that

most of the scientists before Darwin thought the fixity of species were fixed because of notions got from the Old Testament. Granted, there may have been some who were not biblically influenced, but, by far, most were. Give me a few examples of those who did not get there views on species from the Old Testament. I don’t think you will find many compared to the many who did.

But doesn’t it greatly oversimplify things to say that philosophers and scientists who continued to believe in the constancy of species and in some kind of intelligent design did so only because of their belief in the Old Testament account of creation? The philosophical and scientific situations were much more complex than that.

As Ernst Mayr, Daniel Dennett, and others have pointed out, essentialism and finalism (teleological ideas) prevailed among many scientists of the time and surely among most philosophers (since Plato and the ancients advanced that perspective on reality) even after belief in the creation story of the Old Testament had largely been abandoned. Below I include some quotes from Ernst Mayr’s great book, The Long Argument – Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought.

“Even the geologist Charles Lyell, whose work profoundly influenced Darwin — was a theist who believe that species were created by God’s hand. In all the writing s of the naturalists, geologists, and philosophers of the period, God played a dominant role. (Mayr, 12,13) . . “The reason why Lyell, like Henslow, Sedgwick and all the others of Darwin’s scientific friends and correspondents in the middle of the 1830s , accepted the unalterable constancy of species was ultimately a philosophical one. The constancy of species – that is, the inability of a species, once created, to change — was the one piece of the old dogma of a created world that remained inviolate after the concepts of the recency and constancy of the physical world had been abandoned.” (op.cit., Mayr, 17)

Under the essentialist philosophy all living species were fixed and eternal. This philosophy had long been the prevalent one and had very little to do with religious belief in creation:

“Essentialism had dominated Western thinking for mare than 2000 years, going back to the geometric thinking of the Pythagorians. . . . Essentialism, as a definite philosophy, is usually credited to Plato, even though he was not as dogmatic about it as some of his later followers, for instance the Thomists. . . .
“All of Darwin’s teachers and friends were … essentialists. For Lyell, all nature consisted of constant types, each created at a definite time. “There are fixed limits beyond which the descendants from common parents can never deviate from a certain type. . . It is idle … to dispute about the abstract possibility of the conversion of one species into another … (Lyell 1835: 162) For an essentialist there can be no evolution: there can only be sudden origin of a new essence by a major mutation or saltation.” (Mayr, 40-41)
“Virtually all philosophers up to Darwin’s time were essentialists. Whether they were realists or idealists, materialists or nominalists, they all saw species of organisms with the eyes of an essentialist. They considered species as “natural kinds,” defined by constant characteristics and sharply separated from one another by bridgeless gaps. The essentialist philosopher, William Whewell stated categorically, “Species have a real existence in nature, and a transition from one to another does not exist.” (1840, 3:626) For John Stuart Mill, species of organisms are natural kinds, just as inanimate objects are, and [kinds are classes between which there is an impassible barrier.]”
“Essentialism’s influence was great in part because its principle is anchored in our language, in our use of a single noun in the singular to designate highly variable phenomena of our environment, such as mountain, home, water, horse, or honesty. . . The simply noun defines the class of objects. Essentialistic thinking has been highly successful, indeed absolutely necessary, in mathematics, physics, and logic. The observation of nature seemed to give powerful support to the essentialists’ claims. Wherever one looked, one saw discontinuities — between species, between genera, between orders and all higher taxa. Such gaps as between birds and mammals, or beetles and butterflies, were mentioned often by Darwin’s critics.” (Mayr, 40-42)

Although these ideas were consistent with Biblical accounts of the origin and nature of living forms, essentialism was not a philosophy gotten from Biblical accounts of creation at all. It developed apart from belief in the Old Testament account of creation. Many scientists and philosophers who held to it did so independently of any belief in Genesis. Hence, they were reluctant to accept Darwin’s claim that species changed and even gave rise to new species on the basis of philosophical and what they saw as scientific reasons, not the doctrine gotten from the Old Testament.

Among these philosophers and scientists we find: British philosophers of science: Wm Whewell, JS Mill, J. Herschel — other philosophers holding to teleological views of biology: Leibniz , J.G. Herder, I Kant — scientists: German biologists of the19th century: K E von Baer, Eduard von Hartmann held the teleological concepts of biology. Natural theology (study of nature to reveal God’s design leading to perfection), with its emphasis on design (leading to perfection) was strong in England at the time of Darwin, “all of Darwin’s teachers and peers particularly Sedgewick, Henslow, and Lyell were confirmed natural theologians. This was Darwin’s conceptual framework when be began to think about adaptation and the origin of species.” (Mayr, 55) None of these philosophies: essentialism, teleology, and natural theology were simple applications of the Old Testament.

Pablo also objected to my statement that many people in Darwin’s time could simply not accept the idea that human beings – with their great mental capabilities, moral, and religious aspirations – could be explained as evolving from earlier forms of animal life. This difficulty which characterized much of the thinking of the middle nineteenth century, and which is still present today, did not always arise from religious doctrine.

Pablo remarked:

Well, I think you’re exaggerating a bit. There were some Greek thinkers who suggested evolution so it wasn’t really that new of a suggestion.

Of course, the idea of evolution was not originated by Darwin. But I failed to see the relevance of this to the issue of the great difficulty that many people — not only religious people — have in accepting the idea that humans evolved from earlier species. Yes, the idea of evolution has been floating around, at least since the time of Empedocles and Epicurus. Many people, including the grandfather of Charles Darwin, had proposed a theory of evolution. But these were mainly just philosophical ‘theories’ which did not rise to the level of scientific hypothesis, supported by empirical evidence and subject to testing, as was the case with Darwin’s theory natural selection.
Pablo also asserted that “… the notion of Darwinian evolution is far simpler and inferior a hypothesis to what was accomplished by Einstein and the founders of QM. ”
Again, I did not see the relevance of these remarks. The issue at hand was one relating to biological evolution. What do Einstein’s relativity physics and QM have to do with that?
I had also stated that scientists of the time (naturalists, geologists, etc. and even skeptical philosophers like David Hume) simply could not accept the idea that a natural, material process like natural selection could explain the presence of human life and human reality. As an example of this reluctance to apply the theory to natural selection to human beings, I noted that even Wallace, co-founder of natural selection, who could comfortably accept evolution from earlier life forms in the case of non-human animals, balked at the idea that this also might apply to humans.

Pablo replied:

I find that surprising (if true). Perhaps he wasn’t familiar with the thoughts of Empedocles (5th century B.C.E.) and others.

Again, what was the relevance here? Neither Hume’s inability to see natural evolution as explanatory of life forms nor Wallace’s difficulties concerning Darwin’s Descent of Man had anything to do with their alleged ignorance of the Empedocles or any other pre-Darwinian evolutionary theory (of which there were numerous). Wallace, like many others since Darwin’s book on the descent of humans, simply could not fathom how a natural, materialistic process like natural selection could ever give rise to human beings with their intellectual and moral capabilities. Wallace was comfortable with a naturalistic account of the evolution of non-human animals; but with humans, he drew the line, so to speak.

Comments (0)

December 14, 2011

C Rulon: Creationism & Intelligent Design: To debate or not to debate

Filed under: Darwinian philosophy,Social Philosophy — Tags: debating creationism, Debating evolution — jbernal @ 10:20 am

By Charles L. Rulon

Several years ago I participated in a debate at LBCC on Intelligent Design, the Trojan horse of creationism. These were my opening remarks.

I want to be up front with all of you. I have real mixed feelings about being here today to debate those who reject the established fact of our biological evolution. Let me emphasize that word “fact”. Evolution (meaning that all species, from trees and insects to fish and humans, have a common ancestry going back billions of years) is as much a scientifically settled fact as the fact that our earth goes around the sun. We are cousins of apes and even more distant cousins of all mammals. Our extremely ancient ancestor was a species of fish that went extinct hundreds of millions of years ago.

Scientific evidence for evolution continues to pour in. Millions of fossils, including tens of thousands of so-called “missing links,” can be seen in museums around the world. Strong evidence also comes from the fields of genetics, molecular biology, embryology, biogeography and comparative anatomy and physiology. Few, if any, scientific concepts have been more extensively tested and more thoroughly proven than our evolution. Essentially the entire scientific community worldwide now accepts that biological evolution is a fundamental aspect of nature.

Millions of Christians in the U.S. have also now accepted the scientific fact of our evolution as God’s way of creating us. They believe that, since God is the author of all truth, whatever is demonstrated as being scientifically true is a signal that God made it that way. They believe that the purpose of Scripture is distorted by those who try to make it a science text. For some, the vast scope and scale of evolution only magnifies their admiration for a god who could set such an incredible process in motion.

So why am I here today? Have I actually deluded myself into thinking that I have some silver bullet arguments to convert my opponent, not to mention all of the creationists in this audience? No. I gave up on that long ago. Decades of personal experience have convinced me that there’s no scientific evidence I can present that would sway the large majority of anti-evolutionists. Up to now, the only way that creationists have been defeated from introducing their dogmas into public school science classes have been in court cases where their fake science has been exposed.

So, again, why am I here today? I guess it’s because I believe that science educators have a duty to defend the scientific method and good science from irrational attacks. I also feel an obligation toward those students in the audience who are still undecided — students whose minds haven’t already been snapped shut by anti-evolution pseudo-science. Even so, there are still several excellent reasons for both scientists and science educators to not debate the anti-evolutionists — for my not being here today. Here are some of them.

Debating skills trump facts

First, in science it’s the rigorous application of the scientific method that counts, not the oratory skills of the scientists. Yet, the overwhelming majority of public debates are not won by the actual scientific evidence presented, but by the emotional rapport, public speaking skills, likeability, and apparent authority of the debaters. How could it be otherwise given the way our evolved brain works and given the audience’s lack of scientific expertise? Creationists know this. Many are excellent debaters with impressive, entertaining, power-point presentations. In fact, for decades many Christian fundamentalist colleges have been churning out lawyers and other graduates who are highly skilled in debating and in attacking evolution science.

Debates legitimize the creationists

The second reason for my not debating creationists is that there is no such thing as bad publicity for their movement. It’s pure Hollywood. If a scientist shows up to debate, it’s “proof” that a scientific controversy actually exists. If the scientist declines to debate, it’s “proof” that evolutionists are running scared. Let me say this again. Creationists set up debates to mislead audiences into thinking that a scientific controversy actually exists between biological evolution and Intelligent Design — that evolution is just a theory, a weak and crumbling one at that. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s not kid ourselves. Regardless of superficial scientific appearances, today’s Intelligent Design arguments were mostly fabricated by a handful of Christian apologists and political organizations with the mission of discrediting evolution and of bringing biblical teachings and conservative Christian values into public school classrooms.

Debates spread misinformation

A third reason for my not debating creationists has to do with the subject of misinformation. From my own frustrating personal experiences, the anti-evolutionists are capable of presenting more scientific misinformation in 30 minutes than I could possibly refute in a week. It is a relatively easy task for them to churn out dozens of pseudo-factoids in a very short time span. They are counting on the fact that very few science teachers, much less students in the audience, have the necessary expertise in the scientific method or in evolutionary biology, historical geology, anthropology and paleontology to be able to quickly and skillfully expose the plethora of half-truths, poor logic, outdated references, misleading quotations, selective data, and outright falsehoods of those who continue to attack evolution.

Equal time arguments

A fourth reason for not debating creationists is that equal time is given to both sides. So what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that fair, the democratic way? What’s wrong is that science is not democratic. Equal time is not given to competing theories. Instead, there is the rigorous evaluation of all the evidence on all sides. Regarding our biological evolution, the scientific evidence in support is monumental, enormous, vast. Not so for creation/Intelligent Design “science”. Thus, to require science teachers to give equal time to both (only possible by using spurious arguments to attack evolution and to support Intelligent Design) is to require teachers to lie to their students. This appeal for equal time has been an effective propaganda tool for creationists for decades. By appealing to fair play and by persuading ignorant and/or religiously motivated legislators, judges and school boards, creationists have successfully wedged their anti-scientific religious beliefs through the back door into science classes in school districts across the country. Many powerful politicians continue to support these efforts.

Debates are membership drives

A fifth reason for my not debating creationists is that these debates are also publicity stunts for the benefit of increasing the membership of conservative Christian clubs on high school and college campuses. Such clubs across our nation now number in the tens of thousands. Most are spreading falsehoods regarding evolution, thus creating serious obstacles to the ongoing science education of those students who believe these falsehoods. Let’s not forget that when Christian clubs convince students to reject evolutionary biology they are, in effect, also convincing students to reject large chunks of well-established physics, chemistry, astronomy, anthropology and geology. And they are persuading students to reject the most valuable tool humans have ever discovered to reliably advance our empirical knowledge. I’m talking about the scientific method, itself. Thus, creationists are, in essence, trying to push us back into the dark ages of ignorance and superstition.

To make matters worse, many of these Christian clubs hold religious beliefs that can seriously interfere with students’ ability to make rational, compassionate and scientifically informed decisions in other important areas such as emergency contraceptive pills, the abortion pill, gay rights, death with dignity and overpopulation. And let’s not forget the extremely scary End Times apocalyptic theology beliefs currently held by millions of biblical creationists. After all, why be concerned about global climate change, or the destruction of our planet’s life-support systems, or WMDs when the devastation of our world is inevitable anyway as foretold in Scripture. Why work for peace and nuclear disarmament talks, since doing so could interfere with the timetable for Christ’s return.

In closing

America’s time-tested freedom of (and from) religion means that every sect may worship however it wishes in its own private church, but it cannot use the power of government to push its beliefs on others. Yet, today, the U.S. is being confronted with large numbers of articulate, scientifically ignorant, politically active Christians who are locked into ultra-religious, anti-scientific views and who want to force these views on others through our elected officials, our courts and our schools. To quote Sam Harris in his book, The End of Faith, “Our world is fast succumbing to the activities of men and women who would stake the future of our species on beliefs that should not survive an elementary school education.”

This is why I’m here today.

Charles Rulon is an emeritus of Long Beach City College where he taught in the

ife Sciences for 34 years. He can be reached at ruloncl@yahoo.com

Comments (1)

May 3, 2011

C Rulon: Is Evolution a Fact?

Filed under: Darwinian philosophy,Social Philosophy — Tags: Darwinian Evolution — jbernal @ 11:06 am

By Charles Rulon
Emeritus, Life Sciences
Long Beach City College

The following Q&A evolved from numerous questions raised by my students over the years.

Q. My pastor told us that evolution is a weak theory on the verge of collapse. Is this true?

No. Evolution’s fundamental principle—the shared ancestry of living organisms—has overcome all scientific challenges. It has been scientifically settled for over a century. We really are related by common ancestry to gorillas, kangaroos and starfish. The National Academy of Sciences in its second edition of the booklet Science and Creationism even stated that our evolution is considered a “fact” by scientists the world over because the “evidence in support of evolution is so strong that scientists no longer question whether or not it took place”.[1] Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, as usual put it bluntly:

“Evolution is not a theory, and for pity’s sake let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.”

Hundreds of thousands of dated fossils, including tens of thousands of transitional forms found in museums around the world, have clearly demonstrate the evolution of major types of organisms (including us) from earlier forms. Strong evidence for our evolution also converges from the fields of genetics, molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, taxonomy and biogeography. In fact, few, if any, scientific concepts in the last 150 years has been more extensively tested and more thoroughly corroborated than our evolution over the last several billion years.

Today almost every major scientific organization in this country and throughout the world has published statements supporting its reality.[2] In addition, over two dozen top scientific organizations have published statements supporting the use of evolution in biology classrooms as the “mega-theme” upon which an understanding of the life sciences must hang. The National Science Education Standards even specifies that evolution is to be taught as a fundamental, basic concept in science in grades 9 through 12.[3]

Q. Still, aren’t there many unanswered questions surrounding evolution?

Of course. Since biological evolution spans billions of years, with hundreds of millions of different species having evolved and then mostly going extinct, questions will always remain regarding specific evolutionary mechanisms, the speed of evolution and exactly what evolved from what. But one thing essentially all scientists doing real science agree upon is the fact of evolution itself.

Q. Are you saying that you, personally, have no leaps of faith when it comes to evolution?

Right, unless you would consider it a leap of faith that:

—Our planet really does exist about which scientists are able to obtain reliable knowledge.

—Hundreds of thousand of scientists over the past 150 years and across the globe have not been perpetrating a gigantic hoax.

—Some supernatural entity didn’t plant all of the mountains of evidence for evolution down to the very last detail.

Remember, the scientific method has proved itself over and over again to be the most powerful tool we’ve ever discovered for understanding how our world works—not the way we might want things to work, but the way things actually seem to work.

Q. So scientists absolutely know that we evolved?

Philosophers debate the meaning of the word, absolute, and whether or not the absolute truth about anything can ever be known. Perhaps there are no absolutes in science, only varying degrees of probability. However, for any number of scientific theories this level of certainty is very high. There are laws and mega-theories of physics for which no exceptions have ever been found. Today there is no doubt that the earth goes around the sun, that germs cause a variety of diseases, and that all life on earth evolved. The fact that jet airplanes, satellites, computers and cell phones work so well attests to the strength of the scientific method and of relevant scientific theories.

But all scientific theories (unlike religious dogmas) are constantly open to the possibility of modification, even rejection in light of new evidence. Even incredibly well-documented theories could conceivably become part of (or give way to) even more grand theories not even imaginable at this time. Evolution is not some kind of religious dogma for me that I’m clinging to like millions of Americans cling to the totally disproved Genesis creation myth.

Q. Is natural selection also a fact?

No. But natural selection, as the primary (but not only) mechanism driving evolution, is considered a very strong theory. It’s a mindless automatic process where the constant appearance of random genetic variety is followed by fitter organisms surviving and reproducing, while the less fit are weeded out. That’s it. No evidence of an Intelligent Designer directing the process; no evidence of superb planning. In the extremely unlikely event that natural selection was ever to be replaced, evolution would still stand. All of the fossil and non-fossil evidence would still exist.

Q. Couldn’t Darwin have been biased by his atheism?

As a youth Darwin firmly believed the Bible to be the inspired word of God and spent three years at Cambridge preparing for ordination as a clergyman. Yet, through his prolonged study of nature it slowly became apparent to him that his creationist beliefs were false. In the last half of his life, Darwin was probably an agnostic, not an atheist. However, even if Darwin had consciously or unconsciously twisted the data to fit some atheistic ideology, other researchers would have eventually caught his fabrications and corrected them. This is how science works.

Q. How can evolution be scientific since it happened only once and no one saw it? It’s not reproducible.

How do we know about anything that has happened in the past? Because evidence is left behind. The scientific fields of astronomy, historical geology, archaeology, paleontology and physical anthropology all rely on the collected evidence of events that happened only once and were never directly seen by humans.

Regarding evolution, scientists have evidence from many different scientific fields. There are millions of fossils. There is abundant molecular and genetic evidence. There is considerable evidence from comparative anatomy and from biogeography. If all this data is collected in a scientific manner and if the theory which explains this data also makes new and precise predictions which can be checked out, then the theory (in this case, evolution) is definitely scientific.

Besides, much of the evidence for evolution is reproducible in that other paleontologists can go into the same geological areas and discover similar fossils. The ages and authenticity of these fossils can be double-checked by independent labs. In thousands of instances, rocks have been dated by two or more different radioactive clocks and the ages determined have been in good agreement.

Remember also, no one has ever seen radio waves, X-rays or electrons. But we’re quite sure they exist because we see the evidence of their reality when we turn on the radio, study an X-ray film, or correctly predict the operation of electrical devices. And if a murder suspect left his fingerprints on the murder weapon, the victim’s blood is under the suspect’s fingernails and there’s a strong motive, it’s usually an open and shut case even though no one actually saw the murder. Conversely, millions of people claim to have seen things which have never been found to exist at all, like ghosts and space aliens.

Some final thoughts

Today, the mega-theme of biological evolution is securely tied by literally thousands of lines of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other area of human knowledge. Thus it would appear to be the height of scientific ignorance, stubbornness and/or religious blindness to reject evolution just because it sounds too impossible, or because it’s personally distasteful, or because it conflicts with a literal reading of one specific ancient creation story. One might just as well reject gravity.

But that is what has happened. Today, tens of millions of Americans (including members of Congress, at least two U.S. Supreme Court Justices and one-third of all high school biology teachers) are convinced that evolution is a spiritually bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact—that only an atheist could ever believe this Satanic idea—that Christ didn’t die to save some evolved monkeys!

———————————————-
[1] To obtain a copy of Science and Creationism, go to their web page .

[2] This list includes the National Academy of Sciences, the American Astronomical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers’ Association, the American Geophysical Union, the Paleontological Society, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the Association of American State Geologists, the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Society, the Botanical Society of America and the American Association of Physics Teachers.

[3]As a reflection of this certainty and its importance, the California Department of Education mandated back in 1990 that, as of 1992, biological evolution was to be included as one of six basic science themes for all the high schools in California. Their publication, “The Science Framework for California Public Schools K-12″ (1990) referred to biological evolution as a fact and natural selection as a theory (p. 134). There has been continuous strong religious pressure to have this mandate watered down.

Comments (4)

January 22, 2011

Robert Richert: SHOULD PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS DEBATE CREATIONISTS/INTELLIGENT DESIGN ADVOCATES? A PROPOSAL

Filed under: Darwinian philosophy,science and philosophy,Social Philosophy — Tags: evolution debates — jbernal @ 12:30 pm

Despite their latest defeat in a Dover, Pennsylvania courtroom, the Creation/Intelligent Design (ID) movement is not going away; it remains a formidable social force. One of the ways that supporters of this movement attempt to gain credibility with the public is by holding debates with scientists and other advocates for evolution. Several arguments have come forward from supporters of evolution about the merits of debating with Creationist/ID supporters. Some of the best arguments for participating are that:

1. It affords scientists the opportunity to explain evolution and counter the Creationist/ID arguments.

2. Not participating fuels the misconception that scientists are afraid to defend evolution in public because they cannot answer their critics.

3. By not showing up, the Creationist/ID side wins by default.

Some of the best arguments against debating are that merely by participating, false impressions may be created in the minds of audience members, such as:

1. Creationism/Intelligent Design is a serious issue in science.

2. There are two and only two competing ‘theories’ about evolution.

3. Both ‘theories’ are of near equal intellectual and scientific merit.

It seems that there are reasonable arguments on both sides. However, experience has shown that debating creationist/ID supporters is no walk in the park. Any scientist contemplating participating in a public debate should be made aware that there are many potential pitfalls, including:

1. Most Creation/ID verses evolution debates are entertainment venues, not serious intellectual discourse. The majority of attendees arrive with previously formed opinions, often strong opinions! They come to cheer for their side, and to gain psychological reinforcement for their viewpoint. Sometimes, Creationist/ID supporters from local churches arrive by the busload and overwhelm the audience! This can be quite intimidating.

2. Some biologists spend most of their debate time merely explaining evolution. Since this is their specialty, minimal preparation is required. They perform as if they were giving a lecture, and assume that like the lecture hall, the audience will listen attentively, absorb the information, and accept their authority. This strategy is ineffective. Lecturing to a captive audience in a college setting is a much different form of communication than participation in the adversarial atmosphere of a debate. In a public debate, one must use the skills of persuasion and polemics to ‘sell’ ones ideas and arguments to the audience, some of whom are skeptical or hostile to those ideas.

3. Creationists are very adept at blind-siding their opposition with a barrage of novel arguments, often outside of the scientist’s field of expertise. In debates, this strategy has made some professional scientists appear inept, lacking in confidence, or unprepared.

4. In debates, the facts, evidence, and arguments are most effective by the way they are used against the opponent! Pro-evolution debaters cannot ‘win’ by merely presenting a mini-course in evolution. Instead, they must obtain a thorough knowledge of the opponent’s ideas and arguments and use most of their allotted time exposing those flaws. Unfortunately, this requires much time and effort directed toward research and preparation.

5. After major setbacks in the courts, Creationism morphed into Intelligent Design, which is more sophisticated than Creationism and spans many disciplines. Dissecting the flaws in ID often requires specialized knowledge in a diversity of fields. Now, ID has suffered a major defeat in the courts and is ‘evolving’ again. Thus, keeping current on the subject is an arduous task for anyone, including scientists.

6. ID, like Creationism, consists almost entirely of criticisms of evolutionary theory. In debates, this places the pro-evolution side in a defensive position from the outset, and adds more fuel to the misconception that evolutionary theory is weak or in jeopardy.

7. Several biologists have commented that Creationist/ID advocates can spew out more misinformation in five minutes that biologists can possibly dispel in five hours! Thus, Creationism/ID is analogous to a huge ball of tangled twine. It is far easier to tangle a twine than to unravel it, especially in the limited time parameters of a debate.

8. Unfortunately, the information content and the strength of the arguments themselves seldom ‘win’ a debate. Instead, the debater that displays superior public speaking skills usually makes the greatest impression on the audience. Many in the audience perceive qualities such as charisma, salesmanship, sharp wit, effective sound bytes, and even attractive physical appearance as synonymous with superior polemics and/or knowledge! This plays into the hands of the Creationists. Their persistent efforts at evangelizing, sermonizing, and debating, have enabled them to hone and polish persuasive public speaking and polemic skills. In addition, because they perceive “Evil-ution” as a threat to their worldview, they are highly motivated to defeat it. Thus, backed by strong financial resources, Creationists/ID advocates employ an army of skilled polemicists and debaters that work full-time in this effort.

Under present circumstances, it is probably wise that professional scientists not participate in public debates with Creationist/ID advocates. When professional scientists participate in these debates, not only do they cow-tow to the Creationists, they demean themselves and their profession. However, some of the arguments for debating are quite persuasive. Thus, the question of whether to debate poses a difficult dilemma: It seems that heads we lose, tails we lose. However, I offer a way out. I propose a strategy that should satisfy both opponents and supporters of participating in debates, and bring some good P.R. to pro-evolution supporters.

I strongly recommend that when asked to debate Creationist/ID advocates, all professional scientists and academics respond something like this, “Yes, I will participate in a debate and my speaking fee is $10,000!” Of course, the amount of the fee will vary based upon ones credentials, but it should be quite high – I suggest a minimum fee of $10,000! I realize that some will regard this proposal as outrageous. However, the beauty of my proposal is that it allows the scientist to accept the offer to debate and, at the same time, provides a strong deterrent to the Creationist/ID opposition. It places the ball in their court – put up or shut up! In order for this strategy to be effective, all potential debaters must insist that the Creationist/ID group sponsoring or participating in the event is obligated to pay the full amount of the speaking fee.

When asked to debate, scientists should immediately seize upon the opportunity to explain that such debates are really just entertainment venues – that they have nothing to do with real science – that it gives Creationism/ID undue credibility – that scientists would rather spend their precious time doing real science – and most importantly – that if forced to debate, the scientist’s time, reputation, and expertise is highly valuable.

If my proposal is widely adopted, professional scientists could no longer be accused of cowardice by ducking debates. At the same time, it is very doubtful that the Creationist/ID advocates will ever pay such high fees. However, in the rare circumstance that they do accept the offer, the money could compensate for the time needed to prepare or be donated to charity. Another potential benefit is that the fee would help drain some of the opposition’s resources. In summary, I think that asking for high speaking fees can be used as an effective bulwark and public relations tool against Creationism and Intelligent Design.

It’s time to ‘turn’ things around and place the Creationist/ID crowd on the defensive. Adopt my proposal and heads we win, tails we win!
———————————-
Robert A. Richert

Comments (3)

October 6, 2010

Did Darwin Suppress his work in the Face of Religious Opposition?

Filed under: Darwinian philosophy,philosophy history — Tags: Darwin's Delay in Publishing — jbernal @ 9:45 am

I appreciate books that argue in favor of Science and the ideals of the Enlightenment against the obstruction of religion and the obscurity of philosophy. Timothy Ferris has written such a book, The Science of Liberty. It promises to be a book well worth our time of close, critical reading. However, Mr. Ferris commits a minor error which I found annoying. In the third chapter of his book, “The Rise of Science,” Ferris refers to Charles Darwin and the delay in publishing his famous work, The Origin of the Species. Ferris classifies Darwin with history’s “martyrs to the cause of science,” such as Galileo, who was coerced by the Inquisition into recanting a few of his early astronomical findings. Ferries writes:

“Every age has produced its own martyrs to science. . . Charles Darwin long suppressed his theory of evolution rather than face the religious indignation that indeed greeted its eventual publication.”

(page 45)

This is a surprising, somewhat annoying statement for some of us who know a little of the history of the writing and publication of Darwin’s great work; taken as an explanation of Darwin’s delay in publishing his great work, it is simply false.

Most students of Darwinian evolutionary theory and the history of science know that Darwin took over twenty years to research, prepare, write, and eventually publish his great work. Students are also aware of the great opposition and hostility that its publication inspired from the religious authorities and from a great part of the intellectual community of the mid-nineteenth century England. Those of us who are familiar with some biographical works, publications and film on Darwin, know that he was aware of, likely apprehensive about, the controversy that his work would trigger. He also lamented that his elimination of a Creator from his account of life’s evolution would have a troubling affect on his wife, Emma, who was a pious Christian. But to my knowledge there is nothing in any reputable biography of Darwin’s life or in any of Darwin’s letters and autobiographical comments for the years leading up to the 1859 publication of the The Origin of the Species which indicates that Darwin suppressed publication of his work because he was reluctant to face the “religious indignation that .. greeted its eventual publication.” The facts, as recounted in such biographies (e.g., The Survival of Charles Darwin, by Ronald W. Clark) and in autobiographical statements and letters by Darwin himself, are that it took over twenty years of intense research and development before he felt he had an adequately grounded theory to present. He did not suppress or delay publication because of religious or political factors; he simply did not feel that his work was ready to do what he hoped to do: make as strong a case as possible for natural evolution of species in the face of centuries of belief in God’s creation of animal and plant species in static, unchanging forms.* As Steve Jones remarks,

“Before Darwin, the great majority of Naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created.”

(page xviii, Introduction to Jones’ book, Darwin’s Ghost).

In short, Darwin faced opposition from variousl camps, not just religious ones; but his delay had nothing to do with his reluctance to fly in the face of such opposition.

Admittedly, Ferris’s remark to the contrary (that Darwin suppressed publication of his work because of religious opposition) is not an important part of the idea that he develops in Chapter 3 (“The Rise of Science”) of his book, namely that science has had its share of “martyrs” and that many significant steps in the development of a naturalistic theories of the world and humans have met with strong opposition from the religious side. But Ferris should have taken more care and not included such a misleading statement about Darwin’s momentous work, and misleading it is, if not outright false.

In his book, Darwin’s Ghost, Steve Jones tells us that in spite of his twenty-year search for evidence, Darwin was so conscious of the gaps in his thesis that he might never have made it public; and that his book is full of apologies:

“To treat this subject at all properly, a long catalogue of dry facts should be given; but these I shall reserve for my future work . . . It is hopeless to attempt to convince any one of the truth of this proposition without giving the long array of facts which I have collected, and which cannot possibly be here introduced . . . I must here treat the subject with extreme brevity, though I have the materials prepared for ample discussion.”

Jones then adds,

“Today’s readers may feel a certain relief that the promised book never appeared. By happy chance, Darwin was stung into publication of a summary of his ideas by an unexpected letter from Alfred Russel Wallace containing the same notion.”

(xxiii-xxiv)

Here Jones refers to a few elements of the long story of how Darwin finally got around to publishing his great work. The facts seem to be that he was developing such a big work that publication seemed a remote event. Eventually he was compelled to put together what he called an abstract of his greater work. Clark writes

“Darwin’s “Abstract” of which he wrote to Spencer in November of 1858 was the result of a series of traumatic events. IN the spring of 1855 he had written to William Darwin Fox: “I am hard at work on my notes, collecting and comparing them, in order in some 2 or 3 years to write a book with all the facts & arguments, which I can collect, for and versus the immutability of species.” The plan then was for something much longer and almost certainly less readable than The Origin turned out to be. At the worst, it could have been a book that would never be finished at all.”

Clark than tells us that

“these prospects were dramatically changed by the appearance on the scene of Alfred Russel Wallace, then in the Far East, to whom “a sudden flash of insight,” as he called it, had revealed a solution to the species problem identical in its main idea to Darwin’s.”

(page 95)

In summary, the story here is not one of delay and suppression because Darwin feared the indignation of religious authorities. The story, rather, is one of a natural scientist who wanted to build the best possible case for his theory of evolution of species, who apparently could not stop accumulating additional evidence for his theory, and who eventually was spurred to publication of an “abstract” of his work by the prospect that Wallace would get priority with his publication of a theory of natural selection. In all works on Darwin which I have studied, including Clark’s very detailed biography ** and account of the events leading up the publication of The Origin of Species, and some autobiographical material and letters by Darwin himself, there is absolutely no reason for concluding that he suppressed publication of his work because he anticipated great religious indignation and opposition.
——————————————————————–

*If anyone can find information to the contrary (supporting the Ferris remark) in any reputable work on Darwin, I’ll be glad to look at it.

** more biographical information relevant to the subject from Clark:
Clark: “…Wallace’s book was never written. But in September 1855 issue of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History there appeared his paper “On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species.” A cautious argument for the evolution of species, the paper maintained: “The following law may be deduced from these facts: –Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.” . . . Wallace’s paper fell short of the theory on which Darwin was working, but there were sufficient similarities in it to alarm Lyell, who wrote to Darwin urging that he should delay no longer in publishing his own findings. . . . . Darwin still dallied, and it was April 1856 before he revealed to Lyell the position that he had now reached. (97) . . Lyle urged Darwin to publish his theory, and his other scientific friends appear to have agreed . . . Surely now was the time for Darwin to start writing. But he still hesitated. “I hardly know what to think, “ he wrote to Lyell on May 3, “but will reflect on it, but it [publication] goes against my prejudices. To give a fair sketch would be absolutely impossible, for every proposition requires such an array of facts. If I were to do anything, it could only refer to the main agency of change – selection – and perhaps point out a very few of the leading features, .. and some few of the main difficulties. But I don not know what to think; I rather hate the idea of writing for priority, yet I certainly should be vexed if any one were to publish my doctrines before me.” (98) . . . He was still anxious that his theory should be presented to the world only when every detail was buttressed by evidence, when all the questions that he knew would be raised could be countered by satisfactory answers. (98-99) But he was also worried about priority. His ideas were farther ahead, and far more detailed, than those of Wallace. But he was only human. . . (99) . . . On May 14, 1856, he noted in his personal journal: “Began by Lyell’s advice writing species sketch,” and on June 10 he told William Darwin Fox that Lyell was strongly urging him to write a preliminary essay. “This I have begun to do,” he said, “but my work will be horribly imperfect & with many mistakes so that I groan & tremble when I think of it.” Once he had begun, the prospects of a “little volume” quickly vanished. “Sometimes, “ he wrote to Fox, “I fear I shall break down, for my subject gets bigger and bigger with each month’s work.” (99)

References:

The Science of Liberty, by Timothy Ferris (Harper-Collins Publishers, New York, NY, 2010)

The Survival of Charles Darwin, by Ronald W. Clark (Random House, New York, NY, 1984)

Darwin’s Ghost, by Steve Jones (Ballantine Books, New York, NY, 1999)

Charles Darwin- Autobiography and Letters, (Ed. by Francis Darwin, D. Appleton & co. New York, NY, 1893)

Comments (2)

July 23, 2010

Robert Richert: Second Letter to a Christian friend

Filed under: Darwinian philosophy,science and philosophy — Tags: making life by way of evolution — jbernal @ 10:29 pm

Hi Friend,

In a recent conversation, you brought up the point that we mere mortal humans do not have the science and knowledge to make something as simple as a leaf. You made this argument to me several months ago – I surmise the implication is that scientists will never be able to create life out of non-life. As to this question, ‘life’ has been created in the laboratory, albeit primitive life. Check out the article on the website below.

Craig Venter creates synthetic life form

Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world’s first synthetic life form. For more information on Venter’s work, link to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form

As to the question, can humans ‘make’ something as simple as a leaf, the answer is yes, and it is done every day! For example, if you want to ‘make’ oak leaves, just plant acorns, nurture them and wait for the tree to grow. Eventually, you’ll get oak leaves. Before you dismiss my point here, please understand that there is a method to my madness! You see, if one looks to nature, one sees a clear distinction between the way that humans make things – usually by assembling various parts – and the way that living things come into existence. No leaf or any living thing for that matter is assembled whole cloth from a batch of parts lying around. Instead, living things begin as a single cell that divides, diversifies and eventually grows into an adult with various complex parts. It amazes me that some people cannot accept that we humans evolved by means of a step by step process from simple one-celled organisms over eons of time – when each individual human goes through a similar evolutionary process from fertilization to adulthood in a few years!

We tend to be anthropomorphic. That is, we tend to view nature from our own perspective and apply our own ways and means of thinking and doing to nature. What makes Darwin’s insight – evolution by means of natural selection – so brilliant and magnificent is its counter-intuitiveness – and its continual confirmation since its debut in 1859. Nature, in ‘making’ living things, doesn’t work like a watchmaker, an architect, or an engineer. I do not have the time or space to show how natural selection works – I can say that it is NOT like a tornado rushing through a junkyard and assembling a 747, as Creationists say. Natural selection IS a powerful process that in an incremental, step by step way that adds/builds upon previous changes as it goes, produces incredible complex ‘design’ purely by natural mechanisms. This is known beyond reasonable doubt – it has been observed in nature and reproduced in the lab. There are many good sources that explain this process, and I would be glad to send you references if you so desire. To conclude this section, I pose this thought from the perspective of a religious believer: Which God is wiser – one who must make each living thing or species individually like a factory worker – or one who creates a vast universe in which with the touch of a button (so to speak) initiates a process that needs no further guidance or tweaking: Just lots of space – the right raw materials and conditions (lots of stars, planets – the right elements; water, etc.) – add in deep time for all of this to unfold – and eventually (on a few rare worlds) evolves intelligent creatures like us! The latter is what Christian evolutionary biologists believe.

Everyday, scientists are discovering more about how living things evolved, and more importantly, the genetic mechanisms involved in evolution – its nuts and bolts. For example, did you know that each of us humans has a gene for ‘making’ the distribution of hair over our bodies virtually identical to that of a chimpanzee? Did you know that each of us has a gene for making a tail? Our genetic code includes many such remnants of our past. So…why aren’t we hairy and have tails? Because these genes get switched off during development of the embryo! Over time in the distant past, humans gradually lost their ape-ish hairiness and mammalian tales, but the gene is still with us; they just became dormant. It is one of the many little details about us that separates humans from our cousins the apes and other more distant relatives, and also demonstrates our connection to them. In fact, we are learning that many evolutionary changes in organisms are due to a ‘mutation’ that causes a particular gene or gene segment to switch on or off. Finally, upon rare occasions, humans are born with tails or hairy like an ape. Not that long ago, these unfortunate ‘freaks of nature’ would be ostracized by family and society. Many ended up working in circuses and side shows in order to make a meager living. However, thanks to our modern understanding of evolution and genetics, we know why these people are the way they are.

We now have fantastic sequences of fossils demonstrating evolution. For example, we have a beautiful fossil sequence of many specimens showing the evolution of whales from a ground dwelling carnivore that looked somewhat like a wolf and lived over 50 million years ago. We have sequences of fossils showing the evolution of fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, and reptiles to mammals and birds. We have over 200 specimens of our own ancient ancestors. We now know that our ancestors and that of the chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor 6 to 7 million years ago. We know that our ancestors began to walk upright long before our brains became bigger. The famous fossil Lucy is about 3.5 million years old. Her skull and brain case is much more – but not exactly – like that of an ape than that of a modern human. Yet, her pelvis and leg structure is much more – but not exactly – like that of a modern human. Lucy has characteristics more human than ape and others more ape than human and others right in between the two – a transitional form between species – exactly what was predicted by Darwin’s theory before we had these fossils!

I know that your church or elements of your church are Creationists. I must say that Creationism and its counterpart, Intelligent Design (ID) have zero credibility in academia! In fact were it not for their well financed efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution in our schools, they would be a laughing stock. There are no Creation/ID departments at any major university in the free world, no scientific conferences on the subject, no papers being published in peer reviewed scientific journals. In short, no Creationist/ID activity, research, or even slight interest as a real science exists within the scientific community at all! In fact, despite Creationist’s bogus claims of thousands of scientist supporters, there are only a tiny handful of Creationist/ID people with advanced scientific degrees related to evolution – and none of this pitifully few has any status or stature in the scientific community. Creationism/ID is a social/religious movement, NOT a scientific one. The only debates in science about evolution are about the details of how evolution works, not whether it happened. In science, evolution by means of natural selection has been a settled issue for over 100 years. It’s a done deal!

If there were no Book of Genesis, there would be no conflict about evolution today between Fundamentalists and scientists. In fact, most mainstream Christian churches have made their peace with evolution (ex. Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists). What is ironic to me is that the two creation accounts in Genesis, when taken literally, do not jibe at all with what we now know about the universe, earth, and life – and to make matters worse, the two accounts don’t even match each other!

My friend, you are an intelligent, inquisitive person. Yes, you can be a good Christian and also accept the reality of the world as science has ‘revealed’ to us. Most Bible scholars will tell you that the Bible, especially Genesis, was not written to be taken literally. The Bible is NOT a science book! In fact, many religious thinkers believe that Biblical Literalism undermines the deeper meanings and greater scope of the Bible’s message.

This is my long-winded response to your comments…and I have plenty more! I hope this e-mail gives you some food for thought.

Bob

Comments (2)

March 16, 2010

Robert Wright’s Failed Tactic: His Promotion of Teleology in Natural Selection.

Filed under: Darwinian philosophy,science and philosophy — Tags: evolution, natural selection, purpose — jbernal @ 2:47 pm

One of the many confusing points advanced by Robert Wright in his recent book, The Evolution of God, is the claim that the ideas of a purpose and an end (for which organism are “designed”) are found in the Darwinian philosophy of evolution by natural selection. In other words, Wright, while trying not to be too obvious about it, argues for a form of teleology in biological evolution. He even attempts to recruit Daniel Dennett, a well-known exponent of Darwinian natural selection. We can admire Wright for his tireless effort, but ultimately there are good reasons for rejecting his attempt to show that teleology is part of Darwinian natural selection. Wright’s surprising move is a tactic that fails; as I will show, his attempt to “recruit” Dennett on his behalf is without merit. When we look closely at what the Darwinian philosopher, Daniel Dennett, says concerning natural selection we find a categorical rejection of the idea that purpose plays any role in Darwinian natural selection.

First, let’s look at how Wright brings out his case:

On page 402 (The Evolution of God), Wright gives us the following:

Indeed, so special is natural selection that lots of biologists are willing to talk about it designing organisms. (Or, actually, “designing” organisms; they tend put the word in quotes, lest you think they mean a conscious, foresightful designer.) Even the famously atheist Darwin philosopher Daniel Dennett uses that kind of terminology; he says this process of “design” imbues organisms with “goals” and “purposes.” For example: organism are “designed” to pursue goals subordinate to that ultimate goal, such as finding mates, ingesting nutrients, and pumping blood.

The take-home lesson is simple. It is indeed legitimate to do what Paley did: inspect a physical system for evidence that it was imbued with goals, with purpose, by some higher-order creative process. If the evidence strongly suggests such a thing, that doesn’t mean the imbuer was a designer in the sense of a conscious being; in the case Paley focuses on, it turned out not to be. Still, the point is that you can look at a system and argue empirically about whether it has, in some sense, a “higher” purpose. There are hallmarks of purpose, and some physical systems have them.

“Well, the entire process of life on Earth, the entire evolving ecosystem — from the birth of bacteria through the advent of human beings through the advent of cultural evolution, through the human history driven by that evolution — is a physical system. So in principle we could ask the same question about it that we asked about organisms; it could turn out that there is strong evidence of imbued purpose, as Paley and Dennett agree there is in organisms. In other words, maybe natural selection is an algorithm that is in some sense designed to get life to a point where it can do something — fulfill its goal, its purpose.

(p. 402, The Evolution of God, Little, Brown, and Co., 2009)

As has been the case throughout much of his book, Wright tends to equivocate. On the one hand, he tells us that the process of design imbues organisms with “goals” and “purposes”; but adds that biologists don’t really mean a “conscious, foresightful” work of a designer. He discounts Paley’s argument for a conscious designer (i.e., a creator God); but affirms the notion of design in nature in the sense of a “higher purpose.” But then he tells us that “Paley and Dennett agree there is [imbued purpose] in organisms,” suggesting that Dennett (and his kind of Darwinist) agree with Paley that some kind of purpose works in biological evolution.

Any casual look at a dictionary definition of “purpose” shows that the word connotes a purpose in some mind or arranged by some intelligent being. For example:

Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “purpose” as 1.something one intends to get or do. Intention, Aim 2.Resolution, determination 3. the object for which something exists or is done. It gives as synonyms: INTEND, INTENTION.

Obviously, our definitions of purpose imply connection with a mind or intelligent giver of purpose. When Wright mentions “higher purpose,” he surely insinuates some aim or goal set down by some intelligent agency. Throughout his book, he relies a lot on the Logos concept, which he takes from the ancient Jewish theologian, Philo. Obviously Wright’s “higher purpose” working in history is another way of referring to Philo’s Logos principle.

But this talk of “higher purpose” and the Logos is a long way from anything that Daniel Dennett wrote about in his exposition of Darwinian Natural selection in his book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.

Dennett elaborates his interpretation of Darwin’s theory [my highlighting]:

“What Darwin discovered was not really one algorithm but, rather, a large class of related algorithms that he had no clear way to distinguish. We can now reformulate his fundamental idea as follows: Life on earth has been generated over billions of years in a single branching tree —the tree of life— by one algorithmic process or another.” (Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Simon & Schuster, 1995, p.51)
“ . . . Here, then, is Darwin’s dangerous idea: The algorithmic level is the level that best accounts for the speed of the antelope, the wing of the eagle, the shape of the orchid, the diversity of species, and all the other occasions for wonder in the world of nature. It is hard to believe that something as mindless and mechanical as an algorithm could produce such wonderful things. No matter how impressive the products of an algorithm, the underlying process always consists of nothing but a set of individually mindless steps succeeding each other without the help of any intelligent supervision; they are “automatic” by definition: the workings of an automaton.(Ibid., p. 59)

Dennett sees this process of natural selection as being a type of algorithm:

“Darwin offered a skeptical world a scheme for creating Design out of Chaos without the aid of Mind. . . The theoretical power of Darwin’s abstract scheme was due to several features that Darwin .. identified, and appreciated better that many of his supporters, but lacked the terminology to describe explicitly. . . Darwin had discovered the power of an algorithm. An algorithm is a ..formal process that can be counted on —logically— to yield a certain sort of result whenever it is “run” or instantiated. . . [Algorithms have an] underlying mindlessness: Although the overall design of the procedure may be brilliant, or yield brilliant results, each constituent step, as well as the transition between steps is utterly simple. … simple enough for a dutiful idiot to perform — or for a straightforward mechanical device to perform.

(Ibid., pp. 59-60)

Dennett elaborates on this interpretation of Darwin’s theory:

As we well know, Darwin showed that higher, complex forms of life evolved from lower, simpler forms of life by the natural selection alone. Thus, we have refutation of the traditional view that complexity could never arise from the less complex except by intervention of an external, intelligent designer

. (Ibid, p.153)

Dennett states the upshot:

“Darwin explains a world of final causes and teleological laws with a principle that is … mechanistic but —more fundamentally — utterly independent of “meaning” or “purpose” . .

(Ibid, p.153)

In summary, Daniel Dennett shows that the main thrust of the Darwinian response to all creationists and intelligent design advocates is that the wonderful complexity and apparent design found in nature can be explained on a strictly natural, material basis. Yes, it is understandable that we should stand in awe at the physical laws that governed the formation of the universe, at the incredibly fine tuned forces and physical relations, at the unimaginable complexity of the DNA molecule and other building blocks of life, and at the workings of the brain leading to the emergence of high level mental activity (Mind); and understandable that some commentators, like Robert Wright, should invent signs of purpose and design in all this.

Ironically for Mr. Wright, Dennett’s main work on Darwinian natural selection is a categorical rejection of people like Robert Wright (“those who find signs of purpose and design”). We can reject his misguided suggestion that Dennett endorsed his misbegotten, undeveloped philosophy of a “higher purpose” working in the biosphere and universe too.

Comments (1)

February 24, 2010

An Exchange of views on ‘Consciousness’

Filed under: Darwinian philosophy,philosophy of mind — Tags: animal capability, consciousness — jbernal @ 10:51 am

Recently one of my philosophical correspondents and I engaged in the following exchange regarding the concept of consciousness. I offer part of that exchange below with no implication that anything was resolved. At best, we raise the issue of consciousness and touch upon some of the consequential puzzles.

Call him the “S-Factor.” Call me “Moi”

S-Factor:
“My consciousness of what I am doing is irrefutable evidence of the existence of consciousness.”

Moi:
In other words, you claim that the following inference is sound:
1. I am conscious of what I am doing (viz. keying in a sentence).
2. Hence, consciousness exists.

I would agree if all you mean by “consciousness exists” is that there are beings (myself, in this example) who are capable of consciousness; i.e., there are beings (biological beings) who are capable of being conscious of things.

But this means that your valid inference above shows can be restated:
3. I am conscious of what I am doing (viz. keying in a sentence).
4. Hence, there exists a being capable of being conscious. (Or a being capable of conscious states; or, as you might prefer, a being capable of consciousness)

My awareness what I am doing is irrefutable evidence of the existence of a being (namely, myself) capable of being conscious of something or other. The inference then becomes rather trivial. Moreover, one can argue that ‘consciousness’ in this sense is a biological concept insofar as it refers to the capability of a biological being.

Isn’t it true that if I can explain the evolution of beings capable of conscious states I have explained the evolution of ‘consciousness’?

The alternative is to argue that when you claim that ‘consciousness’ exists you’re saying more than simply “beings who are capable of conscious states exist.” But this seems to imply that ‘consciousness’ is an entity or property over-and-above the reality of beings who can have conscious states, that it is “a strongly emergent property of organisms,” as you state it. “Consciousness, at least, is a strongly emergent property of organisms. ”

When you state that consciousness exists are you saying more than I say if I were to say: “Conscious beings (namely, persons) exist”?

Obviously, explaining how animals capable of complex conscious states evolved is a difficult job. But in my opinion it is the job of explaining the evolution of beings (animals) with complex brains and sense faculties, capable of being conscious of their surroundings and eventually capable of self-consciousness and reflection. It is not the job of explaining the “strongly emergent property of consciousness,” with the suggestion that consciousness is something apart from the evolved capability of biological beings.

————————————————————
S-Factor:
You pose the question: When you state that consciousness exists are you saying more than I say if I were to say: “Conscious beings (namely, persons) exist”?

The answer to the question is no. I am not saying more than you would be saying if you were to say that conscious beings exist.

Yes. That’s the job. But is it possible? That remains to be seen. Meanwhile, if we keep using the term “consciousness” but are unable to explain this property in terms of lower level processes, we are at least treating it as a pragmatically emergent property. Furthermore, if we think that we really do have this property, that it is not a mere fiction, we are treating it as strongly emergent.

It is not the job of explaining the “strongly emergent property of consciousness,” with the suggestion that consciousness is something apart from the evolved capability of biological beings.

The phrase “strongly emergent property of consciousness” does not carry the suggestion that consciousness is something apart from an evolved capability of biological beings. In fact, the term “property” in the phrase tells us that we are not talking about a substance in its own right, but about a property of a substance. But until the explanation of the origin of this property is given, it’s an open question how these beings got this property. Any explanation we could give would have to be in terms of some sort of natural process (otherwise we wouldn’t consider it a legitimate explanation), but until such an explanation is given we can’t just assume that there is such a process.

——————————————-
Moi:
Yes, but I still have a problem with your way of stating things, rather your way of framing things. Your way of stating the problem certainly suggests that consciousness is some type of entity (even if you qualify it as a property). The very fact that you assume that there’s a significant issue as to whether it exists or not, suggests to me that you’re leaning very heavily to the idea that consciousness is not simply another capability of human beings, but is something unique (maybe even mysterious). After all, you include an argument demonstrating “irrefutable evidence of the existence of consciousness.” In my previous email, I tried to show that this sounds very strange when you substitute for “consciousness”, “persons who are capable of consciousness.” Is this something that is subject to doubt so that one has to produce arguments demonstrating “the irrefutable evidence that conscious persons exist”?

Also, I question your assumption that “consciousness” is not a biological concept. Many commentators and researchers argue that it is. I realize that this is a debatable issue; but I don’t concede that the consensus is not (ultimately) biological in nature. Again, I believe your assumption is part of an effort (maybe subconscious!) to differentiate “consciousness” as something over-and-above the other unquestioned capacities (abilities) of persons.

You ask whether it is even possible to explain consciousness in biological terms, and again, suggest that this may not even be possible. A number of people in the neurological, cognitive, and psychological sciences have been working this project. Some have even written books. Do such explanatory theories succeed? Maybe not yet, but surely such theories are possible and do much to clarify the issue. Why would you suggest that such a project is not even possible? If not possible, do you then set “consciousness” aside as another profound mystery?

Comments (1)

February 5, 2010

Pseudo Explanation & The Spirit of Darwin

Filed under: All,Darwinian philosophy — Tags: atheists, charles darwin, pseudo explanation — jbernal @ 9:59 am

PITY FOR ATHEISTS, AND THE SPIRIT OF CHARLES DARWIN.

I once heard a woman, call her Diane, say that the only time she felt sorry for atheists was when she considered the problem faced by an atheistic parent when trying to answer the questions that curious children ask. Her example was the question, Why is the sky blue? The way she put it was that, at least, other parents (i.e., theistic parents) could easily answer the child’s question by saying that God made it that way, i.e. God made sky blue. But what was the poor atheistic parent to say? Something along the lines of “….well, the sky is blue because of the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the effect of the sunlight hitting it … (so on and so forth)” ? Probably not many of us could answer the child in an intelligent way, one not relying on religious myth. (But most of us know that the answer is available if we care to look it up, and that we could give the child a good answer.)

Anyhow, Diane’s feeling pity for atheists and her statement as to how people often reply to a curious child got me to thinking about explanations of natural phenomena, the distinction between good and bad explanations and eventually, the Darwinian explanation of life in our world.

Diane may not have realize it, but she gave us a perfect example of a pseudo explanation, one that looks like it does the work of explaining, but in fact does no work at all. She made the popular assumption, still heard today, that by invoking God’s creative activity one can effectively explain how things are in the world. But saying that the sky-is-blue because this is how God created it is simply a religious way of conceding that one does not have any useful, significant explanation to give. Does the child, on hearing such an “explanation,” have any real understanding of the blue sky? No, for the very same answer would be given if the sky were orange, or purple or green. The answer reduces the flat response: this is simply how things are. Diane’s answer also can be seen as refusal to do the hard work of coming up with a rational or factual response.

We can take Diane as representative of the large numbers of people who continue to believe that the only way to explain the origin and presence of life in this world is by invoking God’s creative action. Let’s imagine that the same child who wanted to know about the blue sky grows into the type of young person who curious about things, who poses other tough questions: How did life come about on this planet of ours? How did earth come to have such an incredible variety of life forms? Consider the “answer” that Diane would give to these types of questions: God created the world and all living creatures.

Well, as children and young people, we might have been satisfied with such an answer, after all, our parents and all respectable adults seemed to know that this was true. However, if we did not let the adult orthodoxy dampen our natural curiosity about things, and if we persisted in trying to understand things, we might have experienced the uneasy suspicion that people like Diane were not really explaining anything at all. We also might have suspected that they were taking the easy road and avoiding the hard one, the one that requires the work of searching for a scientific explanation.

Charles Darwin, on the contrary, was one person who did not avoid the hard road. Like most of his contemporaries, he could have taken the easy path and accepted the pseudo explanation that life in the forms we know it today was the result of one act of divine creation. But he saw clearly that these were pseudo explanations:

“It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the “plan of creation,” or “unity of design,” or such, and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact.”

(from Darwin’s work, The Origin of Species)

Because of his great contribution to human knowledge, we have a good understanding of how the great variety of animal and plant life evolved on this planet. His theory of evolution by natural selection also gives us a basis for developing plausible theories of how life may have evolved from non-life, theories which omit any ad hoc reference to the workings of a mysterious deity.

Charles Darwin personifies the scientific spirit. He demonstrates that commitment to the spirit of science and rational inquiry will not let us rest easy with the primitive, pre-scientific and complacent belief that the various life forms are what they are because God so created them. He gives us the perfect response to Diane, with her misplaced pity for atheists, and to the religious, creationists, complacent in their false assumption that religious myth effectively explains things.

—————————————————————

What is this process of ‘natural selection’ which some of us find so admirable?

—————————————

Darwin’s own statement of the process of natural selection:

“If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and …if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, … then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection. (Origin, p. 127 (facs. ed. of 1st ed.))

——————————-

My attempt to summarize the process of natural selection:

There’s a struggle for existence – Competition for scarce resources
There’s variety among the organisms competing - Some variables give an advantage
Those competitors with advantageous traits survive and reproduce
Those variable traits which proved advantageous are passed to offspring
Offspring compete for scarce resources.
There’s variety among the competitors – some variables give advantage
those competitors with advantageous variables win and reproduce
Their offspring inherit favorable variables.
There’s a continuing struggle for existence

Chance mutations result in variation.

Some of these variations (mutations) will prove advantageous.

Animals possessing these favorable variations will prevail in the struggle and will reproduce

Offspring of these animals will possess the favorable traits.

‘Selection’ results when favorable traits allow animal to prevail in the competition for survival. Selection, success in the competition, is conditioned by specific animal traits (including favorable variations) and environmental conditions.

Selection means that only some of the random mutations are passed down.

Selection results in incremental changes over long periods of time.

Selection is cumulative in that only the favorable traits are saved and passed down.

Subsequent selection works on a base of accumulated favorable modifications.

Given an ‘X’ that replicates and has variations, natural selection can do its work of evolving better models and even different models. Eventually, given a sufficient stretch of time, some of those evolved models will possess perceptual faculties, brains, and the capacity to invent culture, with its religions, technologies, sciences and philosophies.

Comments (4)

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31