Loads of profs and docs dissent from Darwinian "consensus"

[gorski]

Funny, Darwin in Physics... Well, I never... I really have no idea what Scientists get up to these days...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And if you ask an averagely-educated person in the British street, s/he will tell you that Darwin discovered evolution, and that he was right in everything he said. S/he will probably also say that anyone who thinks Darwin was wrong is a nutter. I know this from my experience on these boards.

But who on here thinks this? That is a silly argument. It is best for intelligent discussion to ditch the word Darwinism and just use the word evolution. As Crispy said earlier, you don't call the theory of gravity Newtonism.

 

[gorski]

Hahahaaaaa!!! And that eliminates the problem, does it? OOOOYYYOOOYYOOOYYYYYOOYYYY!!!!! BRITISH BRANDING IN EARNEST!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT STYLE, DONTHCAKNOW.....

 

[Fruitloop]

And if you ask an averagely-educated person in the British street, s/he will tell you that Darwin discovered evolution, and that he was right in everything he said. S/he will probably also say that anyone who thinks Darwin was wrong is a nutter. I know this from my experience on these boards.

51% of Americans think Saddam Hussien was responsible for 9/11 - this is just argumentum ad populum.

 

[Fruitloop]

The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement to describe evolution. In this usage, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?, Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism." Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief. Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools.

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought — particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern synthesis.

Wiki I know, but apposite nonetheless.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hahahaaaaa!!! And that eliminates the problem, does it? OOOOYYYOOOYYOOOYYYYYOOYYYY!!!!! BRITISH BRANDING IN EARNEST!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT STYLE, DONTHCAKNOW.....

No, it is about clarity. What matters is the theory of evolution, not what a very perceptive man thought 150 years ago. Things move on.

 

[gorski]

Hahahaaaa!!! Now Darwin wants his copyright!!! See, that why Hegel and the rest of the Europeans were laughing their heads off to Bacon and co. with his "cosmetics" and a part of his "philosophy"....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, dear.

 

[Fruitloop]

Funny, Darwin in Physics... Well, I never... I really have no idea what Scientists get up to these days...

Well, do you? I honestly can't tell.

 

[Crispy]

Hahahaaaaa!!! And that eliminates the problem, does it? OOOOYYYOOOYYOOOYYYYYOOYYYY!!!!! BRITISH BRANDING IN EARNEST!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT STYLE, DONTHCAKNOW.....

WAAAHHH JABBER JABBER JABBER JABBER *throws faeces*

 

[gorski]

I would expect that from animals, yeeeesss....

 

[Crispy]

*investigates own rectum*

 

[gorski]

Auuurrghghhh... OKI, 'nuff said, nuff "fun", must fly, have a paper to write...

 

[8ball]

Do the journals accept submissions in crayon?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Wiki I know, but apposite nonetheless.

Yep. 'Darwinism' is a bit of a straw-man term in my view, used by people with axes to grind. That's why I usually prefer to talk about evolutionary biology (meaning what's in the peer-reviewed journals mostly)

When someone keeps wanting to talk about 'Darwinism' rather than what actual evolutionary biologists are up to these days, it always makes me profoundly suspicious.

I think it's fair enough to talk about 'Darwinism' if you make it clear you mean some historical movement, or 'pop Darwinism' or the state of evolutionary theory before the modern synthesis with genetics and or something, but the way it's being used above seems to me quite shifty.

The ideas of Gould and Margulis, or at least the ones that actually stood up to scientific scrutiny, are part of modern evolutionary biology alongside selection, genetics and a whole bunch of other stuff. There is debate about how those pieces fit together to be sure, but someone claiming that e.g. selection no longer plays any role at all has either been seriously misled or is trying to mislead. Thing is, if someone makes such a claim it is easy to show that it is false, whereas waving fuzzy terms like 'Darwinism' around especially if you're conflating what the quote above describes as that word's 'neutral' meanings with the creationist ones, makes it easier to mislead without being shown to be factually wrong. Given that the creationists are doing PR and cultural engineering, rather than trying to get the facts straight, this is a convenient move for them and one which it pays to be alert to.

 

[phildwyer]

Yep. 'Darwinism' is a bit of a straw-man term in my view, used by people with axes to grind. That's why I usually prefer to talk about evolutionary biology (meaning what's in the peer-reviewed journals mostly)

The trouble with that is that every biologist from Anaximander on accepted a theory of evolution. Darwin made a major (and foolish) departure from this tradition with his undialectical unidirectionalism, and so he deserves the specific appelation.

 

[phildwyer]

When someone keeps wanting to talk about 'Darwinism' rather than what actual evolutionary biologists are up to these days, it always makes me profoundly suspicious.

But most evolutionary biologists continue to use Darwin's basic assumptions, even though they apply them to genetics and (in Dawkins's case) even to the history of ideas. So the term 'Darwinism' is necessary to differentiate such people from others, such as Gould, who have broken with Darwin's basic assumptions.

 

[butchersapron]

Do the journals accept submissions in crayon?

I think mayday does.

 

[Fruitloop]

But most evolutionary biologists continue to use Darwin's basic assumptions, even though they apply them to genetics and (in Dawkins's case) even to the history of ideas. So the term 'Darwinism' is necessary to differentiate such people from others, such as Gould, who have broken with Darwin's basic assumptions.

Some elements of Darwin's ideas have persisted in the modern evolutionary synthesis. A much greater number have been discarded. The ideas of hundreds of other thinkers and the work of thousands of researchers make up the MES.

Memetics is a theory of a completely different order, and proof of its definitive falsehood would have no effect on the MES.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

But most evolutionary biologists continue to use Darwin's basic assumptions, even though they apply them to genetics and (in Dawkins's case) even to the history of ideas. So the term 'Darwinism' is necessary to differentiate such people from others, such as Gould, who have broken with Darwin's basic assumptions.

If you're talking about the history of ideas, then fine go for it. You can say 'Darwinism' all you like.

Let's just be very clear though that the foundations of evolutionary biology are not called into question by acceptance of punctuated equilibrium as a potentially useful theory.

In particular, it does not call into question the role of selection alongside other various mechanisms such as genetic drift in speciation. What it does do is provide a plausible account of cases where a small and divergent peripheral population rapidly takes over the range of its ancestral species. In that respect it's got fossil evidence of intermediate forms in a restricted location to back it up in at least a few cases and hence deserves serious consideration. The mechanisms by which that small population diverges though, are still the standard ones of evolutionary biology.

 

[Knotted]

The trouble with that is that every biologist from Anaximander on accepted a theory of evolution. Darwin made a major (and foolish) departure from this tradition with his undialectical unidirectionalism, and so he deserves the specific appelation.

Wasn't this "unidirectionalism" - the belief that evolution produces organisms of greater and greater complexity - due to Spencer not Darwin? Does anybody believe it today?

Why do you think that unidirectionalism removes God? Its dangerously close to asuming there is a God.

Why do you think there is a problem for evolutionary theory here? Why do you propose the most inane reductionist solution - that evolutionary theory must account for all contingent causal inputs - while attacking reductionism.

 

[kyser_soze]

Why do you think that unidirectionalism removes God? Its dangerously close to asuming there is a God.

He's an artisan engineer constantly tinkering with his creation, bringing it closer to perfection...or something...

 

[Knotted]

He's an artisan engineer constantly tinkering with his creation, bringing it closer to perfection...or something...

That's a very natural line for an advocate of "intelligent design" such as Phil. However Phil is rubbishing this line for some reason. He's obviously following Gould here, but why? Gould's argument about contingency is neither controversial or particularly interesting in my view. It certainly does not allow a tinker. What sort of tinker gives evolution a helping hand by chucking meteors at the earth? Instead of mucking about with rocks why doesn't the tinker just tinker with genetic mutations?

Who is this God? A muppet?

 

[kyser_soze]

Come on, He designed a universe which is filled with dangerous things (black holes), potentially dangerous things (supergiant stars) and life-sterilising events like supernovae.

I mean why go to all the trouble of creating a biosphere that can be wiped out becuase you over-egged the fuel pudding in stellar creation?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Come on, He designed a universe which is filled with dangerous things (black holes), potentially dangerous things (supergiant stars) and life-sterilising events like supernovae.

I mean why go to all the trouble of creating a biosphere that can be wiped out becuase you over-egged the fuel pudding in stellar creation?

Why not?

 

[kyser_soze]

Well, I suppose being a trickster god and all that, one would.

You know - setting a challenge to lifeforms everywhere...

 

[gorski]

Leave it out, guys. So many more interesting Q's we can give meaningful form and maybe even give an answer to...

 

[888]

Regarding Darwinism, it has long been disproved empirically. My own view is that SJ Gould came up with the most convincing post-Darwinist theory, and that his theory is perfectly compatible with the existence of God (whereas Darwin's, and those of ultra-Darwinists like Dawkins are not).

R.U. Sirius? You realise Gould's theory is merely a refinement of Darwin's? How is it more compatible with the existence of God than Darwin's? In any case both are extremly incompatible with intelligent design.

 

[8ball]

R.U. Sirius? You realise Gould's theory is merely a refinement of Darwin's? How is it more compatible with the existence of God than Darwin's? In any case both are extremly incompatible with intelligent design.

I think maybe Dwyer was talking about one or two of Gould's really late essays where he was going a bit doolally and nonsensical.

 

[dilute micro]

OMG, this is the teaching ID in schools bollocks.

Creationists call upon a metaphysical entity, and all their arguments are rooted in religous faith and therefore unfalsifiable.

Evolution is a theory that is .

Bernie brought up ID and the Wedge. I was talking of his arguments against Darwinism which don't include either. The better read one is the more they know.

I guess "constantly being tested, updated and amended as new information becomes available" sounds believable and "scientific" and makes people feel confident. I know first hand from my days in biochemistry that putting trust in a person's work because 'peer review' will assuredly guide us all towards truth is hogwash. When your 'peers' happen to author a stupid theory on how this protein combines with that one and have too much pride to let go of it in the face of contrary evidence, then it's easier to see how it can potentially be worthless. It all depends on just how strong people 'believe' in it and how they cast their vote, sometimes rather like the Academy Awards.


Does anyone here actually read about the conflicts and problems with Darwinism? What I sense is that Darwinism or 'evolution' is merely a feel good philosophy to some. They don't bother with it past casual talk and internet discussions. When I bring up "Darwinism" and naturalism and other terms you should be able to understand the meaning if you're well read on it. It's not a bad practice to check out every angle on an argument.