Sunday, May 30, 2010

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

Just as Charles Darwin dealt with difficulties with his theory of evolution in Chapter 6 of Origins, so too Denis Alexander deals with objections in Chapter 6 of his book Creation or Evolution. And just as Darwin’s logic was often questionable, so too is Alexander’s. The chief problem is Alexander’s rather selective presentation. For an author of a book about the origins controversy, Alexander seems to be remarkably unaware of the actual debate.

Alexander begins with the objection that evolution is a protected theory, and so not subject to objective criticism. Not at all, explains Alexander:

It is every biologist’s dream to make discoveries that would upset some cherished theory. If you do that then your career is made for life. If you found rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian era, or indubitable evidence for human dna dinosaur fossils in the same sedimentary layer, or evidence for new forms of life from the bottom of some deep ocean that displayed a different genetic code, or solid evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics, then your first author paper in Nature or Science is assured and you can live happily ever after.

Alexander goes on to exhort skeptics to become “a member of the scientific research community” and publish “results in peer-reviewed journals.”

This is a two-dimensional view of science. It reminds me of that seventh grade unit on how science works, which portrayed scientists as objective truth-seekers, toiling away in their white lab coats.

To be sure, scientists do toil away, and some even wear white lab coats. But this is only part of the story. Alexander seems ignorant of the realities of science that occur between the snapshots. Yes, some scientists do want to upset cherished theories, but many have no such dream. In fact science can be quite a conservative discipline. There is substantial risk in going against the accepted wisdom. More typically scientists seek new and better explanations, but within unspoken boundaries. Stray off of the playing field and you place your reputation (and funding) at risk.

One can find no better illustration of this than in one of Alexander’s own examples: the inheritance of acquired characteristics. “Solid evidence” for this phenomenon has been known for years, but evolutionists made it the third rail of the life sciences. The few scientists who dared touch it paid the price.

Alexander’s portrayal of science as easily accepting new findings—all that is needed is the evidence and a scientist to explain it—is again simplistic. The theory of evolution for example, developed by Darwin and Alfred Wallace, was not a revolutionary new idea that arose from the evidence, as evolutionists are fond of thinking. It built upon centuries of theological and philosophical thought that was increasingly influencing science. This Enlightenment influence was by no means dominant in Darwin’s day, but it was rapidly gaining among the elites in politics, culture and science. It is hardly a surprise that Darwin and Wallace concluded for transformationism even without knowing how such change could occur.

Alexander also seems to be ignorant of the many mechanisms in the culture of science that enforce conformity. He exhorts skeptics to become “a member of the scientific research community” and publish “results in peer-reviewed journals.” But there are myriad barriers that ensure skeptics are filtered out at every stage. Everything from passing grades and letters of recommendation to tenure and funding are strongly contingent on conformity. Dissenters are blacklisted so they never have a chance to raise objections.

None of this is to say science is not successful or that scientists should not receive credit for their contributions. Scientists work hard and usually do a good job. But they do not transcend politics or culture and, in fact, they have real bodies.

18 comments:

  1. As I continue to read the arguments of the defenders of Darwinian theory, I invariably ask myself this question: Are they sincerely arguing on behalf of what they are convinced is true, or are they propagandizing on behalf of a theory that they know can no longer be defended?

    Of course, the same question can be directed at us skeptics of the theory. Both sides are convinced by their own arguments.

    Is there a way out of this seemingly endless debate, or is it ultimately a war of attrition as some have suggested? That is nothing will change until the "old guard" dies away and the "new guard" takes over.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius wrote: Alexander is also conveniently ignorant of the many mechanisms in the culture of science that enforce conformity. He exhorts skeptics to become “a member of the scientific research community” and publish “results in peer-reviewed journals.” But there are myriad barriers that ensure skeptics are filtered out at every stage. Everything from passing grades and letters of recommendation to tenure and funding are strongly contingent on conformity. Dissenters are blacklisted so they never have a chance to raise objections.

    In all fairness, Cornelius, it's not peer review that precludes the skeptics from publishing, it's the lack of publishable material. I am sure you are familiar with the fine journal entitled Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design. It folded after 4 years of publishing. Among its articles are such gems as William Brookfield's piece In Search of a Cosmic Super-Law: The Supreme “Second law” of Devolution, where Brookfield argues (I kid you not) that the second law of thermodynamics ought to be replaced with Murphy's law.

    Now IDers have their shiny new journal BIO-Complexity. As far as I can tell, it is published by Biologic Institute. So far it has published 2 articles authored or co-authored by people from Biologic Institute. There are some lively comments written by (you guessed it) people from Biologic Institute.

    OK, maybe in a year or two this new publication will get off the ground, but if history is any guide, I would not bet on it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And wasn't the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial an excellent opportuity for both sides to publically put forward the supporting evidence of their own theories without the need for conformity to the expectations of the status quo which Cornelius insists pervades science?

    Can someone remind me what happened at that trial, please?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius,
    "One can find no better illustration of this than in one of Alexander’s own examples: the inheritance of acquired characteristics. “Solid evidence” for this phenomenon has been known for years, but evolutionists made it the third rail of the life sciences. The few scientists who dared touch it paid the price."

    you have made similar statements like this several times now. do you have any references or examples to back it up?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm currently reading "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin. He writes that all the important positions in physics are occupied by proponents of string theory. Anyone who questions string theory very quickly finds himself wihtout a job. He also describes a great deal of racism, sexism and macho posturing in the physics community.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is this decisive, unpublished evidence? You have a forum here to present it. Let us see it. Maybe you'll gain a few converts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. CH: "But there are myriad barriers that ensure skeptics are filtered out at every stage. Everything from passing grades and letters of recommendation to tenure and funding are strongly contingent on conformity. Dissenters are blacklisted so they never have a chance to raise objections."

    Nothing like that bastion of intellectual freedom you teach at, Biola University, right CH? Oh wait...as Wiki notes

    "Biola holds to the key doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, the idea that the original writings of the Bible were without error with regard to both theological and non-theological matters. The institution also officially holds to the teaching of premillennial dispensationalism, and requires its faculty members to be in accord with this theological and cultural perspective. As a final guarantee of strict adherence to its theological and cultural worldview, the University requires every faculty member, when first hired and again upon application for tenure, to submit their understanding of and complete agreement with each item of the doctrinal and teaching statements to the Talbot School of Theology for evaluation."

    Can you say hypocrite?

    ReplyDelete
  8. oleg:

    "In all fairness, Cornelius, it's not peer review that precludes the skeptics from publishing, it's the lack of publishable material."

    You're still in the us-them rut. The fact that design journals aren't going strong doesn't mean evolution is off the hook

    ReplyDelete
  9. nanobot74:

    "you have made similar statements like this several times now. do you have any references or examples to back it up?"

    If you interested in looking into this, you can start here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/09/paul-kammerer-evolutions-legacy-of.html

    and here:

    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variation

    where it reads:

    ----
    The new findings have immense implications for our understanding of disease and public health. They also have immense implications for evolution, since a fundamental prediction has been falsified. As one evolutionist put it, “The whole discourse about heredity and evolution will change.” That change, however, will not come easily as it is tantamount to heresy within evolution circles. [10] As one evolutionist admitted, “The really heretical thing to say is that the environment could be pushing the epigenetic information in a direction that is beneficial … that raises the hackles.” [14]
    ----

    These by are by no means comprehensive.

    ReplyDelete
  10. CH; "You're still in the us-them rut. The fact that design journals aren't going strong doesn't mean evolution is off the hook"

    What hook would that be CH? The theory of evolution, like every other scientific theory, is sitting right out there in the open for anyone to overturn or falsify. All you have to do is come up with another hypothesis that explains the empirically observed data better that ToE and support it with positive evidence.

    It's that 'positive evidence' part that the IDCers always fail miserably on. It wasn't the fault of science that you guys bit it so badly in Dover. IDC had every opportunity to make its case on a world stage and couldn't even get their clown car out of the garage.

    ReplyDelete
  11. natschuster -


    I'm currently reading "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin. He writes that all the important positions in physics are occupied by proponents of string theory. Anyone who questions string theory very quickly finds himself wihtout a job.


    Then I would take his words with an extremely large pince of salt if I were you. String theory is a relatively young and sparsely-evidenced theory, and does indeed have prominent opponents, including particle physicist David Gross, who would, I am sure, be surprised to hear themselves described as 'out of a job'.

    ReplyDelete
  12. But according to this biography:

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/gross-autobio.html

    he worked on string theory. Is it another David Gross? Or did he change his mind?

    ReplyDelete
  13. From what I can gather, it seems the latter.

    He's recently quoted as coming out with several remarks such as 'WE DON'T know what we are talking about,' and 'They were missing something absolutely fundamental... We are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then.'

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825293.700

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ritchie,

    I am afraid your reading of Gross's sympathies is wrong. He has been and remains a big fan of string theory. A couple of years back I attended his talk entitled The Coming Revolutions in Fundamental Physics. He has given it in a number of places. Here is an outline of his talk courtesy of Peter Woit.

    That said, Lee Smolin's account is an exaggeration. Lately, junior faculty jobs in particle theory have been going in the direction of phenomenologists, rather than string theorists. Here is again Peter Woit summarizing the latest numbers.

    It's not surprising that the pendulum has swung away from string theory to phenomenology. The LHC data are coming in and particle theory groups want to hire people who will dive into the new data. String theory will have to wait and a hiatus may be a good thing: the new experimental data may bring new important insights.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius,
    "These by are by no means comprehensive."
    I certainly hope not. If Kammerer's case didn't involve scientific fraud, it might be a good example. but fabricating data is the real scientific "3rd rail", not epigenetics.

    the 2nd quotation you provided isn't exactly rock solid evidence (or in fact evidence of any kind) of anyone's career being ruined because they studied epigenetics. Is that really all you've got in support of such dramatic claims? Because there are plenty of counter-examples, e.g. Eva Jablonka, of people's careers being furthered because they study epigenetics.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Dissenters are blacklisted so they never have a chance to raise objections."

    Well said Dr Hunter!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Doublee wrote:
    "As I continue to read the arguments of the defenders of Darwinian theory,…"

    What? How can we be defenders of Darwinian theory when we acknowledge and study non-Darwinian mechanisms too, Doublee? You are leading with a false premise.

    "I invariably ask myself this question: Are they sincerely arguing on behalf of what they are convinced is true, or are they propagandizing on behalf of a theory that they know can no longer be defended?"

    We are producing new data that, if current evolutionary theory was incorrect, would show that to be the case. Your side produces no data.

    "Of course, the same question can be directed at us skeptics of the theory."

    False. The question for you is, why do you not engage in any empirical science and produce some new data too? Even hypotheses that are falsified produce useful and interesting new data.

    "Both sides are convinced by their own arguments."

    False. We are not convinced by mere arguments. Our conclusions are provisional and based on the evidence. You avoid the evidence because you have so little faith in your position.

    "Is there a way out of this seemingly endless debate, or is it ultimately a war of attrition as some have suggested? That is nothing will change until the "old guard" dies away and the "new guard" takes over."

    How can your "new guard" take over if they can't be bothered to do anything empirical? Science is not high-school debate.

    ReplyDelete