Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Loads of profs and docs dissent from Darwinian "consensus"

Bernie Gunther said:
Well, it seems different to me. I don't think there is any debate within science about creationism. Certainly not in the evolutionary biology literature.

On the other hand after some very real initial difficulties due to its unorthodoxy, Margulis's stuff, which was real science got past peer review and subsequently, due to the evidence supporting it, became orthodoxy. So it doesn't seem to me like that stuff about a 'church of darwinists' rendering peer-review meaningless stands up to scrutiny. If Dembski and co were proposing testable scientific theories, I think they'd pass peer-review.

I can certainly see why creationists find peer-review annoying, but it doesn't seem to me to get in the way of good science. Quite the contrary, having actually read Dembski's stuff and come to my own conclusions.

I agree there is some debate outside of the scientific literature about creationism, but I'd see that as a separate thing. The creationism debate is typically a response, often by scientists, to the cultural engineering efforts of people like those behind the 'Wedge Strategy' document. It might I guess also be a less politically charged philosophical or theological topic. It's nothing to do with science per se though, as for example the debate about group selection might be, no matter how much the 'wedge' guys would like to create the appearance of a scientific debate.
Click to expand...

But there has always been debate on creation within science. Origin of the Species was an argument against creation. The whole thing had to do with Darwin's coming to conclusions based on his personal views of a creator and nature. He mentioned God many times while explaining that God wouldn't create the world as we see it. It's a metaphysical point of reference that is based on a definition of what a creator is. If a creator, ie. the God in the Bible, is someone's metaphysical north star in their work to understand the natural world then it can't be argued that creation isn't a part of debate. That's not to say there aren't separate forums where these philosophical struggles are heard. Darwinism is used as a club to fend off creationist in the public fight while naturalists debate darwinism behind closed doors.

Margulis isn't the only person who's had trouble. I've read of others who weren't so fortunate. And I'm not sure her church-Darwinism comment was about her own theory. What I've read of dissenters who are naturalist is that they have issues with how Darwinism, as professed by the elite class, has become a theory that can explain anything. This is a very same issue that the Wedge people have. It means this finding or that one may not be given proper critique.
 
I'm still not really sure what you mean by 'Darwinist'.

Maybe this quote from Lynn Margulis will help understand what she means though.
Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, “This is the most wonderful conference I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been to a lot of conferences.” She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism. Echoing Darwin, she said “It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist.” But, she quickly added, “I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point.” She then outlined the basis of her theory of the origin of the cell nucleus as a fusion between archaebacteria (thermoplasma) and Eubacteria (Spirochaeta). “We live on a bacterial planet,” she reflected. “The cell is the fundamental unit of life. A minimal cell has DNA, mRNA, tRNA, rRNA, amino acylating enzymes, polymerases, sources of energy and electrons, lipoprotein membranes, and ion channels, all contained within a cell wall, and is an autopoietic (self-regulating feedback) system.” The biggest break in life, she explained, was between the prokaryotes (cells with nucleoids: monera, prokaryota; archaebacteria, eubacteria) and eukaryotes (cells with nuclei: protoctista, fungi, plantae, animalia).

In this framework, Margulis continued, all of life’s history can be divided into three major eons: Archean (3,500 to 2,500 million years ago), Proterozoic (2,500 to 540 mya), and Phanerozoic (540 to 0 mya). “Most evolutionary biologists deal with the Phanerozoic, which is like saying that history began in 1909 when the Ford Motor Company opened shop in Dearborn, Mich,” Margulis quipped.
Click to expand...
source
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I'm still not really sure what you mean by 'Darwinist'.

Maybe this quote from Lynn Margulis will help understand what she means though. source
Click to expand...

I guess that was both a symposium and Darwin look-alike contest. :D Nice article. I like her though I've never taken to her theory. What she means by Darwinist? She certainly is a Darwinist.

Are you trying to understand what I mean by Darwinist as compared to the term naturalists or that Darwinists should need a definition?
 
Well, 'Neo-Darwinist' has several reasonably clear meanings, you just have to figure out which one you're dealing with. 'Methodological Naturalist' is also pretty clear.

'Naturalist' and 'Darwinist' seem a bit fuzzy though, unless you are using the ideologically overloaded meanings that are peculiar to creationists.

For what it's worth, I think Margulis is a bit nutty (I'm thinking about her statements on 9/11 and AIDS), but I find the work she's done in her area of expertise extremely compelling. I was lucky enough to have been taught a bit by Maynard Smith (my postgrad was in mathematical logic and AI mostly, but he was too good to miss, given that he was on the same campus and was happy to get into it with anyone who was in his vicinity and looked interested), and in their area of application his arguments are also extremely compelling, but Margulis' theories have undeniable explanatory power in areas where neo-Darwinist orthodoxy doesn't reach.

Thing is though, as you can see from that conference, even hardcore neo-Darwinists like Dawkins (whose scientific work is basically a footnote to Maynard Smith) now realise it. You have to give her credit for sticking to her guns in the face of initial rejection, but ultimately the fact that her ideas are now orthodoxy shows that the peer-review process and the scientific process generally actually works, whatever the likes of the Discovery Institute would like people to believe.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Well, 'Neo-Darwinist' has several reasonably clear meanings. 'Methodological Naturalist' does too.

'Naturalist' and 'Darwinist' seem a bit fuzzy though, unless you are using the ideologically overloaded meanings that are peculiar to creationists.
Click to expand...

I was only using generic terms. What type of naturalist doesn't matter for what I was talking about or what kind of creationist either for that matter.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Thing is though, as you can see from that conference, even hardcore neo-Darwinists like Dawkins (whose scientific work is basically a footnote to Maynard Smith) now realise it. You have to give her credit for sticking to her guns in the face of initial rejection, but ultimately the fact that her ideas are now orthodoxy shows that the peer-review process and the scientific process generally actually works, whatever the likes of the Discovery Institute would like people to believe.
Click to expand...

But in fairness to the Wedge people, there are two different versions of Darwinian evolution being used. Neo-darwinism is for the general public, the kids in schools, and another one, one of a handfull of mod-forms, is for the secluded discussions amongst the scientists. There shouldn't be any problem with people knowing what is wrong with the original theory just because there hasn't been found a solid replacement. I'm not saying I'm for teaching ID in schools. I'm just saying that the Darwinist PR department needs to realize it shouldn't need a PR department. I think the Wedge people have a point and I support it. And one thing I wonder is how many of the people that signed the petition are naturalists who are just fed up with the politics. I only looked over it twice but I'd not be able to tell who was who anyhow. I did see Dembski's name but I'm pretty sure he's not one.
 
Scientific debate is one thing, conservative cultural engineering is another.

The science is defined by what's in the journals mostly. The stuff the Discovery Institute guys get into the popular media is appallingly dishonest and nothing to do with science as far as I can tell.

It's the same mindset (and often the same organisations) that told us all a big pack of lies to create that massive disaster in Iraq.

Just because well-funded PR is horribly effective, doesn't mean that it's morally justifiable or in any way contributing to the common good.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Scientific debate is one thing, conservative cultural engineering is another.

The science is defined by what's in the journals mostly. The stuff the Discovery Institute guys get into the popular media is appallingly dishonest and nothing to do with science as far as I can tell.

It's the same mindset (and often the same organisations) that told us all a big pack of lies to create that massive disaster in Iraq.

Just because well-funded PR is horribly effective, doesn't mean that it's morally justifiable or in any way contributing to the common good.
Click to expand...

I should have said in my post above that the "general public" also includes academics, run-of-the-mill scientists. Most scientists don't get into this stuff.

What would you say about cultural engineering from the other end? To push a theory onto people when you know natural selection isn't what it's touted to be is also wrong, imo.
 
Well, I don't think anyone in the scientific community thinks evolutionary biology is 'wrong', but a number of people quite reasonably think that it's incomplete.

That doesn't mean you have to include miracles to make the science work. (see Hume reference earlier)
 
gorski said:
Ach, Kyzer, again - you keep doing it - an unmediated jump from the Animal Kingdom into Human Civilization and Culture and in the same breath/the same sentence... :(

Never mind...:hmm:
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever. You haven't actually answered my question.

gorski said:
Here, genius, knock yourself out [I dare you!:p]:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/ssintrod.htm




Find this in the Animal Kingdom...:rolleyes::p
Click to expand...

What, some rather splendid rhetoric that could be compressed into about far clearer sentences? Unllikely. None of this actually says that humans aren't animals, just that we've got a rather clever mechanism of self-reference...and?
 
Something - obviously - most people on this thread can not get into at all...:p Allegedly claiming and defending it but not being able to evolve to become Humans...:rolleyes::D
 
gorski said:
Something - obviously - most people on this thread can not get into at all...:p Allegedly claiming and defending it but not being able to evolve to become Humans...:rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

That's the most fabulous non-answer I've ever seen.

And again, I refer you to the book 'Dune' - you'd love it, especially the stuff about humans and animals :D
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Well, I don't think anyone in the scientific community thinks evolutionary biology is 'wrong', but a number of people quite reasonably think that it's incomplete.

That doesn't mean you have to include miracles to make the science work. (see Hume reference earlier)
Click to expand...

I think the issue isn't evolution as a process but how much change Darwinian evolution can achieve. Margulis is big on this. What has happened is that instead of letting it be that Darwin's theory has major problems, it's been turned into a super-theory that can explain anything it comes across because all somebody has to do is imagine a gradual pathway of changes in order to get what they're looking at. Imagination becomes evidence.

Truth is there are major problems with every theory dealing with life on earth.
 
dilute micro said:
<snip> What has happened is that instead of letting it be that Darwin's theory has major problems, it's been turned into a super-theory that can explain anything it comes across because all somebody has to do is imagine a gradual pathway of changes in order to get what they're looking at. Imagination becomes evidence. <snip>
Click to expand...

Could you give an example of this?
 
I'm still thinking about this and I'm really puzzled by that assertion. It doesn't seem to me as though the basic framework of evolutionary biology is being challenged by any of the open problems. Certainly there are questions about what else produces variety besides selection and to what extent, but the significance of selection has been demonstrated so comprehensively that it's extremely difficult to imagine any new discovery that could render it doubtful.
 
I haven't been here for a while but here's my take.
Evolution in a nutshell,
1) Organisms can produce offspring.
2) Offspring are often not genetically identical to the parents.
3) Some of the differences in offspring compared to parents are to increase or decrease the probability of staying alive and producing offspring.
4) Goto 1).

When someone can dispute any of the above, then that would be a good argument against evolution.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Could you give an example of this?
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time understanding why you can't think of any. It's more like where can't it be found. Ever seen those dinosaur shows or any Darwinian explanations for biochemical pathways? How about origin science?

I'm still thinking about this and I'm really puzzled by that assertion. It doesn't seem to me as though the basic framework of evolutionary biology is being challenged by any of the open problems. Certainly there are questions about what else produces variety besides selection and to what extent, but the significance of selection has been demonstrated so comprehensively that it's extremely difficult to imagine any new discovery that could render it doubtful.
Click to expand...

Natural selection acting on gradual changes is the number one motor for Darwinian evolution. This is what is being challenged within the top theorists. They don't have a replacement yet.
 
Well, I'd be interested to hear an example and who these 'top theorists' are.

I'm going to take a wild guess that you're talking about punctuated equilibrium here, given the emphasis you're putting on 'gradual' above, but just as it's widely accepted that mechanisms like genetic drift play a role alongside selection, it's also widely accepted that rapid environmental change can speed up speciation.

Sure there is active debate about the details, but it seems to me wildly inaccurate to suggest that the possibility that speciation sometimes happens fairly quickly in any way challenges the fundamentals of evolutionary biology or that explanations of how such a thing might occur are seriously lacking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spymaster
First Space Launch From UK Soil Today
2 3 4 5
Replies
131
Views
4K
T & P
T & P
Sasaferrato
Time started from the Big Bang? Why
Replies
13
Views
469
Signal 11
Signal 11
H
Carbon-neutral fuel made from sunlight and air
Replies
1
Views
270
HAL9000
H
StoneRoad
URGENT [Another] petition to protect Bees from neonictiniods / pesticides
Replies
3
Views
252
bcuster
bcuster
fishfinger
Watch a 10-Year Time Lapse of Sun From NASA’s SDO
Replies
24
Views
709
ska invita
ska invita
Back
Top Bottom