tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post1491314988735265637..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: Folk Science and Self DeceptionDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-19029486078421323602008-03-31T22:51:00.000-04:002008-03-31T22:51:00.000-04:00The Blackadder Says, I think Matheson has it exact...The Blackadder Says, <BR/><BR/>I think Matheson has it exactly backwards. There's nothing wrong with scientists having preconceived ideas and/or trying to fit the evidence to these ideas. Far from being anti-scientific, this is how real live flesh and blood scientists (as opposed to the idealized scientists of myth) actually work. The problem is not that creationists have a point of view. It's that they ignore evidence, or present it in a misleading way, etc. One can say that they aren't consciously aware that they are doing this, but the fact that someone is engaged in self-deception doesn't mean he isn't engaged in deception.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-19685477382646076592008-03-29T19:12:00.000-04:002008-03-29T19:12:00.000-04:00"One of the things to keep in mind is that our con..."One of the things to keep in mind is that our concept of species is based, in large part, on seeing only a single snapshot out of history."<BR/><BR/>That is the entire crux of my complaint. That's my point. I'm viewing all creatures as a continuum, and that continuum has to pass through points it simply doesn't seem capable of passing through. I see a mouse with webbed feet that can't yet fly, but can no longer run. And that's where the continuum jams.<BR/><BR/>Even Stephen J. Gould saw this jam. Why do you think he recommended punctuated equilibrium? The question is, what makes punctuated equilibrium tick? Why mutant now, and not later, or later, and not now? Why remain stable for a long time and then jump? Is radiation increase in outer space involved? I don't have a clue.<BR/><BR/>Hence, my conundrum.Geoffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15357651728684760944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-89398209679361982802008-03-29T19:06:00.000-04:002008-03-29T19:06:00.000-04:00"As for whether or not some scientific theory beyo..."As for whether or not some scientific theory beyond evolution will be needed to explain biological descent -- in a sense it's a moot question since the definition of "evolution" has been consistently updated throughout the last 150 years to deal with new means and methods of biological change."<BR/><BR/>Correct, which is why I keep referring to our "current" theory of evolution.<BR/><BR/>I don't think we've even got a tiny fragment of the final theory down. Their may come a day when our current theory of evolution will be viewed as we view Newtonian Mechanics. In fact, I'm confident there will be such a day.<BR/><BR/>Our "current" theory has fundamental flaws. We need a better one.<BR/><BR/>And no, that better one is NOT "ID" theory. "ID" theory, as I have maintained previously, is NOT science. It's bad theology.Geoffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15357651728684760944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-29718817758096680162008-03-29T17:50:00.000-04:002008-03-29T17:50:00.000-04:00One of the things to keep in mind is that our conc...<A HREF="http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2005/10/evolution-speciation-and-nominalism.html" REL="nofollow">One of the things to keep in mind is that our concept of species is based, in large part, on seeing only a single snapshot out of history.</A> When one starts talking about one species developing out of another species, one is talking, to a great extent, about a human-imposed difference as far as where we draw the line. <BR/><BR/>As for whether or not "evolution" can explain "everything", that of course depends on one's definitions of everything and evolution!<BR/><BR/>Clearly, even if we had a complete account of the ancestry of all creatures, from parent to offspring, throughout history, our knowledge would be only descriptive. Science is incapable of providing us with many of the sorts of knowledge we're most interested in.<BR/><BR/>As for whether or not some scientific theory beyond evolution will be needed to explain biological descent -- in a sense it's a moot question since the definition of "evolution" has been consistently updated throughout the last 150 years to deal with new means and methods of biological change.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-70390350544602600132008-03-29T17:35:00.000-04:002008-03-29T17:35:00.000-04:00"It almost seems to me that GK is saying that ther..."It almost seems to me that GK is saying that there's no point in granting the method validity until it's successfully answered all questions -- and if that's the case than it strikes me as a somewhat impractical approach."<BR/><BR/>Well, I think what Chesterton is saying is that a theory shouldn't claim to explain everything until it actually has. For instance, in another place, Chesterton says: <BR/><BR/>"What is the real truth, what really happened in the variations of creatures, must have been something which has not yet suggested itself to the imagination<BR/>of man. I for one should be very much surprised if that truth, when discovered, did not contain at least a large element of evolution. But even that surprise is possible where everything is possible, except what has been proven to be impossible."<BR/><BR/>This is from one of Chesterton's other essays on evolution: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/On_Darwinism_and_Mystery.txt<BR/><BR/>I agree with the darkness he mentions. Speaking from the perspective of mathematics, I think the evolution of one species into a radically different species might just be a logically determined unsolvable problem, akin to the theoretical "Halting Problem." <BR/><BR/>http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node37.html<BR/><BR/>As confusing and baffling as this might be, science can't prove everything, and we've already proved it can't, indeed, in mathematical terms. Thus, I still remain completely agnostic as to whether we can even come up with an explanation for the bat's development. <BR/><BR/>By the way, I'm not bringing this up as an argument for God or "ID" theory. I'm merely saying that I'll believe one species evolved into another, in accord with our current theory, once I see it. Again, I'm almost certain that old species have gradually spawned new ones, however, this is an intuitional, not a scientific, certainty. Species look similar, even in some instances at the genetic level. Thus, I believe they are related. I am not convinced that our current theory is capable of explaining, in purely empirical terms, how they are related.<BR/><BR/>Now, our current theory of evolution is a wonderful theory to have, under certain circumstances. It helps us fight disease, both pathogen related diseases and genetic defects. We're certainly onto "something," but if we don't watch ourselves, our pride will certainly knock us back off this "something."Geoffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15357651728684760944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-9276622616855466182008-03-29T12:25:00.000-04:002008-03-29T12:25:00.000-04:00Sorry, I hadn't realized that was one of your prim...Sorry, I hadn't realized that was one of your primary questions.<BR/><BR/>First off, much though I enjoy Chesterton, I think it's worth noting that he was writing about this 90 years ago. The change in our knowledge about biology (especially in some very key areas of genetics) have been incredible in the mean time, and much of this has served to move us from a "did evolution occur" situation to a "evolution clearly occurred, but how" one.<BR/><BR/>In regards to development being beneficial at all incremental steps, this is actually one of the major emphases of the modern "directionless" formulations of evolutionary theory. Early formulations of evolutionary theory (including at Chesterton's time) tended to have a back-doored concept of teleology built in with no particular explanation for its presence. People believed strongly that evolution was naturally progressive, and so no one thought much about the need to explain why "higher" features would evolve.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins summarized the more modern approach well in saying that no explanation of feature development can make any sense if it does not explain how half an eye is better than no eye. <BR/><BR/>Now bats to remain to a great extent a mystery, and a big one: one in five mammals is a bat. They're a pretty ancient mystery, with their split off from any other mammals (as measured by genetic divergence) appearing to be at least 50 million years ago. So I don't have an answer to the question in the sense of "here's how it happened", though I can certainly say that evolutionary scientists are looking for exactly the sort of answer that Chesterton asked for.<BR/><BR/>However, I think the thing to keep in mind her is that evolution, like any scientific system, is not an answer so much as a process framework. Now, I'd say the process of looking for the type of explanations that evolution seeks has up to this point been pretty successful in explaining a lot of thing in regards to biology, so I'm quite content to assume that continuing to look for that type of explanation will eventually answer the remaining questions, such as bats. <BR/><BR/>It almost seems to me that GK is saying that there's no point in granting the method validity until it's successfully answered all questions -- and if that's the case than it strikes me as a somewhat impractical approach.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-10243713923111559732008-03-29T11:42:00.000-04:002008-03-29T11:42:00.000-04:00Darwin,Thank you for commenting on several very im...Darwin,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for commenting on several very important points.<BR/><BR/>However, you have not yet addressed my objections to the feasibility of our current evolutionary theory, as outlined in my first post, especially in my quotes from G.K. Chesterton.Geoffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15357651728684760944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-49584200991306774672008-03-29T01:20:00.000-04:002008-03-29T01:20:00.000-04:00Fundamentally, I don't get the whole problem with ...Fundamentally, I don't get the whole problem with ID, and I'm surprised Christians critique it as much as they do. Is it because it smells deist? I think (from the limited amount of it I've seen) that ID offers very fair critiques of orthodox Darwinism. To wit, I just can't wrap my head around how raw materialist natural selection could ever produce what we have -- especially things like sexual reproduction. How could that come about? I just don't get it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-17461177709793503592008-03-29T00:24:00.000-04:002008-03-29T00:24:00.000-04:00Geoffrey,Terminology is a tricky thing, and doubly...Geoffrey,<BR/><BR/>Terminology is a tricky thing, and doubly so on a contentious subject. <BR/><BR/>My general policy is to use words in their most commonly used sense in order to avoid confusion, especially since in the blog medium I'm never sure if I'm dealing with the same readers all the time or a constantly shifting mix.<BR/><BR/>As such, I tend to use "creationism" to refer to "creation science" generally and to both "young earth creationism" and "progressive creationism" in specific. I take it that in that popular sense, most people are familiar with the term "creationism" as referring to the belief that each species is separately created and that species do not in fact descend from one another.<BR/><BR/>When referring to "Intelligent Design", I'm usually referring pretty specifically to the brand of "origins research" being written about by the Discover Institute, which generally speaking involves asserting that some combination of irreducible complexity and specified complexity proves that specific features could not have evolved but rather were specifically designed, whole, by some sort of designer -- generally taken to be God.<BR/><BR/>Now, as you say, as Christians we believe that God is the creator of all the universe and that he actively wills all things into existence, so in a certain sense of the terms we are all both creationists and believers in intelligent design. <A HREF="http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2007/07/pope-calls-creationismevolution-debate.html" REL="nofollow">Benedict XVI rightly observed a year back that the idea of a conflict between the ideas of creation and evolution is an absurdity.</A><BR/><BR/>However, in deference to the current American discussion of these issues, I tend to go on and use these terms as is most common usage. (And because one needs to have some sort of term for these schools of thought.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, the frustrating this about this whole debate is that I often find myself "siding" with views that are most promoted by some rather unpleasant folks. (Though I think I can rightly say I give the Dawkinses and PZ Myerses of the world their share of criticism for their abysmal philosophical abilities.) Nonetheless, so far as I can tell in my position as an interested layman in the field, the modern biological theory of evolution presents the best current description of the history of life on earth, so I tend to defend it and its compatibility with Catholic doctrine.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-31829011140320862092008-03-28T23:55:00.000-04:002008-03-28T23:55:00.000-04:00The book recommended in this essay is also good: h...The book recommended in this essay is also good: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=213&repos=6&subrepos=1&searchid=212757Geoffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15357651728684760944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-27932790938094403922008-03-28T23:52:00.000-04:002008-03-28T23:52:00.000-04:00"Help, where is the 'middle ground'?"The middle gr..."Help, where is the 'middle ground'?"<BR/><BR/>The middle ground is at: http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=3275&SKU=CREV-H&ReturnURL=search.aspx%3f%3fSID%3d1%26SearchCriteria%3devolution<BR/><BR/>And: http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=3187&SKU=CHAPUR-H&ReturnURL=search.aspx%3f%3fSID%3d1%26SearchCriteria%3devolution<BR/><BR/>And: http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=2477&SKU=OHS-P&ReturnURL=search.aspx%3f%3fSID%3d1%26SearchCriteria%3devolution<BR/><BR/>And:<BR/>http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=3272&SKU=CEF-P&ReturnURL=search.aspx%3f%3fSID%3d1%26SearchCriteria%3devolution<BR/><BR/>And: http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=1192&SKU=UML-M&ReturnURL=search.aspx%3f%3fSID%3d1%26SearchCriteria%3devolution<BR/><BR/>Dig around in there some where, in all those books, and in the writings of G.K. Chesterton, and you'll find the middle ground (which is a bit lonely, by the way, and it really shouldn't be).<BR/><BR/>But, be prepared to do some serious work and soul searching.Geoffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15357651728684760944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-58984642188991124042008-03-28T21:51:00.000-04:002008-03-28T21:51:00.000-04:00Could someone point me to a good book about evolut...Could someone point me to a good book about evolution written from a Catholic perspective? I am trying to understand all the issues involved with it and still am coming up with only Darwinism or Creationism. Help, where is the "middle ground"?Karie, the Regular Guy's Extraordinary Wifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09488051857541040772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-75811766672857971732008-03-28T19:19:00.000-04:002008-03-28T19:19:00.000-04:00I don't disagree that species, over time, spawn ne...I don't disagree that species, over time, spawn new species. However, I think G.K. Chesterton said it best in his essay, "Doubts About Darwinism."<BR/> http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Doubts_About_Darwinism.html<BR/><BR/>Again, let me repeat, I have no problem with the natural course of things, as laid out in the beginning, spawning new species from old ones.<BR/><BR/>Now, ultimately, all Christians are "creationists." Indeed, God creates all things from nothing, ex nihilo. God sustains all processes, and holds everything in existence. Indeed, God is pure actuality, with everything sharing in His reality as best it can.<BR/><BR/>In a certain sense then, not only is everything intelligently designed, it is part of a Universal Intelligence, apart from which nothing exists. Christians believe intelligence came before matter.<BR/><BR/>So, if you want to avoid confusing Christians during your criticisms of ID theory, please refine your terminology, and revise your approach. Sometimes, critics of ID theory, even Christian ones, sound as if they are denying the existence of a Designer, and of all design in the universe.<BR/><BR/>Now, my objections to our currently modified Darwinian theory of evolution are the same as those of Chesterton. <BR/><BR/>ID theory is not science. It's bad theology. I accept that tenet. However, things really and truly are intelligently designed. Science isn't the way to go about discovering that, though.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I remain completely agnostic about our current theory of evolution. I see pros and cons to it, but I think it's destined to die and be replaced by a more convincing theory. Namely, a theory that can explain:<BR/><BR/>"For any child or man with his eyes open, I imagine, there is no creature that really calls for an answer, like a living riddle, so clearly as the bat. But if you will call up the Darwinian vision, of thousands of intermediary creatures with webbed feet that are not yet wings, their survival will seem incredible. A mouse can run, and survive; and a flitter-mouse can fly, and survive. But a creature that cannot yet fly, and can no longer run, ought obviously to have perished, by the very Darwinian doctrine which has to assume that he survived."Geoffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15357651728684760944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-35558199578907781962008-03-28T19:07:00.000-04:002008-03-28T19:07:00.000-04:00I'm tempted to do it up in cross-stitch.Oh! With ...<I>I'm tempted to do it up in cross-stitch.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh! With a little mollusk in one corner with a tear?<BR/><BR/>That would indeed be priceless. Is there any way I can beg or bribe you to do it?Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-4352153135411076922008-03-28T16:44:00.000-04:002008-03-28T16:44:00.000-04:00...no one cares about mollusks.Priceless. I'm tem...<I>...no one cares about mollusks.</I><BR/><BR/>Priceless. <BR/><BR/>I'm tempted to do it up in cross-stitch.CMinorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07305306030099439903noreply@blogger.com