Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Dawkins Versus Darwin

Jonathan Jones has found a new role for Richard Dawkins—as a foil against which to prop up Charles Darwin. Dawkins is strident and clever where Darwin was thoughtful and straightforward:

[Darwin’s] masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, is a modest book. It begins with evidence – and down-to-earth, homely evidence at that … Darwin is the finest fruit of English empiricism. His modest presentation of evidence contrasts, I am sorry to say, with the rhetorical stridency of Richard Dawkins.

Darwin was “the finest fruit of English empiricism”? His book “begins with evidence”? Well there is evidence to be sure, but evolutionary thought is about as far from English empiricism as possible. Strangely, evolutionists confuse empiricism with rationalism (which admittedly is something like confusing black with white). Which brings us to how Darwin begins his book. His first major theme leads to this powerful conclusion:

In genera having more than the average number of species in any country, the species of these genera have more than the average number of varieties. In large genera the species are apt to be closely, but unequally, allied together, forming little clusters round other species. Species very closely allied to other species apparently have restricted ranges. In all these respects the species of large genera present a strong analogy with varieties. And we can clearly understand these analogies, if species once existed as varieties, and thus originated; whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.

And from which empirical finding did Darwin learn how species would look if independently created? Unfortunately that was just the beginning of Darwin’s metaphysical mandates.

Evolutionary thought, as exemplified in Darwin’s writings, is a subtle intertwining of obscure observations interpreted according to religious dogma. Darwin and the evolutionists that followed present a seemingly never ending stream of non obvious and profound evidences reduced to simplistic interpretations.

Jones continues:

[Darwin] let his astonishing, earth-shattering theory emerge from common-sense observations of nature.

If common-sense observations of nature point to evolution, then why didn’t Darwin write about them? Darwin could not let his theory emerge from common-sense observations of nature because there are very few such observations amongst a plethora of contradictory observations.

Jones continues:

[Dawkins] offers no intellectual history of how Darwin's big idea was born from centuries of natural science, how the religious Victorians created an intellectual atmosphere in which such a leap in the dark could be contemplated.

What the Victorians created was only the latest in a series of religious traditions leading to evolution. Such religious traditions, going back centuries, did not merely allow for the contemplation of a naturalistic origins narrative, they demanded it. From the wide spectrum of religious traditions, these evolutionary traditions penetrated the sciences in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and went viral. The fact that some evolutionists, from T.H. Huxley to Dawkins, are more vociferous does nothing to justify the movement.

16 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Darwin was “the finest fruit of English empiricism”? His book “begins with evidence”? Well there is evidence to be sure, but evolutionary thought is about as far from English empiricism as possible. Strangely, evolutionists confuse empiricism with rationalism (which admittedly is something like confusing black with white)."
    "And from which empirical finding did Darwin learn how species would look if independently created? Unfortunately that was just the beginning of Darwin’s metaphysical mandates."
    =====

    Not long ago the HISTORY CHANNEL and NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC both did almost the same doctumentary coming to the same conclusions as to Darwin's motives for such a new religious dogma.

    On his earliest global voyages on the Beagle before finding Galapagos, Darwin was in Argentina, South America and while exploring the interior, his group encountered upon a tribe of what he discribed as warlike heathen savages. He made a profound metaphysical observation that an all powerful loving God would not make the same primitive savages and at the same time the higher forms of Eurpoean intellectual superior humans as himself.

    Rather than "English Impiricism" , the true hidden motivation was more of "English Impirialism" (justification) and their much superior human evolved right to dominate what he & the British leaders of those times considered lower sub-human species. It gave them a sort of perverted moral right to conquer as they saw fit.

    But as usual, it was his metaphysical thinking to understand what the mind of God (creator) would or would not have done. On a humorous note, the present day Darwinian shills fall continually into the same trap of metaphysical reasoning and publishing. I look forward to more examples of metaphysical comments here on this board.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The usual nonsense.

    "If common-sense observations of nature point to evolution, then why didn’t Darwin write about them? Darwin could not let his theory emerge from common-sense observations of nature because there are very few such observations amongst a plethora of contradictory observations. "

    Common sense observations of the fossil record point to evolution. Charles Darwin wasn't the first - not by a long shot - to propose that the diversity of life on earth had evolved. Among many others, his grandfather Erasmus had already written about evolution. Charles proposed a mechanism that explains evolution: natural selection of heritable variation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Strangely, evolutionists confuse empiricism with rationalism...

    Really? What is the warrant for that claim? Who are those confused evolutionists and what did they say?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius Hunter: His book “begins with evidence”?

    First line: WHEN we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us, is, that they generally differ much more from each other, than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature.

    An observation.

    Cornelius Hunter: And from which empirical finding did Darwin learn how species would look if independently created?

    From his peers, scientific and religious.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Comments are disappearing. Trying again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cornelius Hunter: Darwin was “the finest fruit of English empiricism”?

    Perhaps you forgot that Darwin made an historic voyage around the world collecting evidence nearly thirty years before he published Origin of Species. One of the greatest scientific adventures of all times! Then he spent years collecting and publishing additional evidence to support and develop his nascent theory, long before he was willing to put the theory before his peers. Darwin's incremental approach allowed him to build and refine his argument, on a solid evidentiary basis.

    Darwin's intensive, multi-year study of barnacles was sufficient to establish his reputation among scientists, while his study of earthworms was sufficient to establish his public reputation; and the sheer volume of his scientific studies, including observations of moths, orchids, bees, beetles, coral reefs, as well as related studies of geology, made him one of the most important scientists of his age even without including Origin of Species.

    Here is a list of Darwin's primary scientific output:

    * The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
    * Natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
    * The Breeding of Animals
    * The structure and distribution of coral reefs.
    * Fertilisation of British orchids by insect agency
    * On the agency of bees in the fertilisation of papilionaceous flowers

    As well as published observations on living and fossil Cirripedia, animal intelligence, insectivorous plants; cross breeding hybrid dianths; the effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom; the different forms of flowers on plants of the same species; the effect of seawater on seeds; mouse-coloured breed of ponies; bees and the fertilisation of kidney beans; cross-breeds of strawberries; flowers and their unbidden guests; the power of movement in plants; the formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms; nectar-secreting organs of plants, Rhea americana, Chiasognathus Grantii, Carabus, Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Cactornis and Certhidea, Sagitta, planaria; Lizard's eggs; observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili; the geology of the Falkland Islands; on certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations; on the connexion of certain volcanic phenomena, and on the formation of mountain-chains and volcanoes, as the effects of continental elevations; vincas, frogs, rates, geese, butterflies, teasel, ants, holly berries and their bees, primrose, black sheep, mosquitoes, cherry blossoms, gladioli, penguin ducks, fumariaceae, influence of pollen on the appearance of seed, etc.

    Without the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was one of the greatest empirical scientists of his age. With the Theory of Evolution, he revolutionized biology, a revolution which is still spawning entire new areas of research today. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has thus far been a sterile dead-end.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Removing the links seemed to resolve the issue.

    Here they are:

    earthworms

    Darwin's primary scientific output

    ReplyDelete
  8. Zachriel:

    Answering the question "And from which empirical finding did Darwin learn how species would look if independently created?", you say

    From his peers, scientific and religious.

    Are you serious? Your response suggests to me that the opinion of Darwin's peers is empirical data in and of itself. Surely that's not what you mean. Or is it? You have merely pushed the problem back one level.

    If that is what you mean how did Darwin's peers know what independently created species would look like?

    Did they gain their knowledge empirically? If so, what was the nature of their tests or observations?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Doublee, as my Irish grandmother would say,

    You are as thick as a post.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Doublee: If that is what you mean how did Darwin's peers know what independently created species would look like?

    That's exactly the point! Let's look at the context.

    Darwin: these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.

    Darwin: On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; that it has so pleased the Creator to construct each animal and plant.

    In other words "independent creation" is scientifically vacuous.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Zachriel,

    Actually no.

    For starters, God created bacteria before all other organisms so that bacteria could create a proto-atmosphere that would allow plants to take root.

    Second, insects were created next to till and condition the soil, also helping to lay the foundation that would support plant life.

    Now mammals were created last since they needed plants as the primary food source.

    In a nutshell, all subsequent layers of life are dependent upon the preceeding layers. There are without doubt exceptions, but that is to be expected. Nonetheless, the general rule stands.

    A timed, layered, creation of life is consistent with the fossil record, and is logical and necessary to sustain a complex biosphere.

    No need to hypothesize undirected, purposeless, change as a substitute to an already logical, step-wise, layered application of a design.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve said: "For starters, God created bacteria before all other organisms so that bacteria could create a proto-atmosphere that would allow plants to take root. "

    Steve, a few questions from a theological perspective. First, if God were going to create things like complex bacteria anyways, why didn't He just go ahead and create a proto-atmosphere as well? Was creating bacteria 'easier' for God since they are smaller? I mean, I don't genetically engineer monkeys and train them in plumbing every time my toilet gets clogged, I just go ahead and unclog it myself. Was there some reason He creates bacteria but not atmospheres? Is there something 'harder' about creating air mixtures than a creature with a fully-formed genetic code? Secondly, this is fascinating information; where are you acquiring it from? I know it's not from the primary scientific literature, and I'm also fairly certain it's not found in Genesis either. Is there some other line of scientific research, or divine revelation I'm just not aware of?

    "Second, insects were created next to till and condition the soil, also helping to lay the foundation that would support plant life."

    A reprise of my other two questions. If God could just 'create' insects and bacteria, and he had presumably already created the soil, why didn't he just make it ready for plants in the first place? Did the bugs just need some busy work? And again, where are you getting this fantastic information? Surely not the scientific literature, as land plants are known to predate insects in the fossil record by around 75 million years. (What would the bugs have eaten if they had been first?) But also, surely not scripture, because it tells us that insects were created either on day'/age 5 or 6. (I'm sorry for the presumption that you are basing your beliefs off of the Christian Bible if that is not the case) But, is there some other account that has the insects arriving before plants, or for that matter, doesn't have whales and other aquatic mammals created before all other land animals? An account that has such marvelous detail as to why bacteria and insects were created, and what their prehistoric jobs were? (scientific, divinely revealed, or otherwise?)

    Thanks in advance for clarifying your position for us.

    ReplyDelete
  13. derick,

    First, I stand corrected on my erroneous comment that insects came before plants.

    Second, on the question of God making things individually, that is a YEC position. But this shortchanges God's intellect.

    It seems to me the converse would be a better question: "Why would God HAVE TO create each organism individually?" Rather it seems
    God can accomplish alot more, alot faster using programs that unfold many functions. Does a software programmer create separate micro-programs for each and every function in a program? Also, would a programmer try to start an addi-in program before the host program was run?

    Since we are made in the image and likeness of God, we design like He does. It is the reason we can see the apparent and obvious design of nature.

    This is a more intellectually satisfying explanation than laying the origin and development of life at the feet of emergence.

    To be sure, God is a much better explanation than spontaneity/emergence. At least with God, there is the potential for an explanation. We can ask and answer why it was done this way and not that way; i.e. bacteria first to lay the foundation of the atmosphere, plants to complete the atmospheric cycle ,etc.

    With evolution, there is no purpose and no direction at the get-go, just an appeal to emergence.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve, thanks for the reply. I'm still not sure I you answered my second question though; I don't understand the source of your statements. Genesis isn't even close to being that specific. (and depending on whether or not you consider bacteria as sea creatures or 'things that creepeth', they were created on day/age 5 or 6, after plants. This would indicate to me that you don't take Genesis as any sort of historical account, not even the sequence of appearance, but instead defer to scientific consensus regarding the appearance of bacteria. But the scientific consensus is, and has been for over a century, that bacteria share a common ancestor with all other life on earth, and that natural selection acting on random variations is the primary driver of that evolutionary change. So I'm still not clear on where you're getting your information. Are you just picking and choosing the bits of scientific understanding that 'feel right' to you, or do you have access to other scientific research or divine revelation that the rest of us have overlooked? A few more questions:

    1. Can you explain how the view that God made things individually somehow shortchanges His intellect? I would think that would be rather impressive.

    2.Your position (which I'm guessing is OEC, forgive me if I'm wrong) seems to be that God makes some things individually, but lets other things arise 'naturally'. How do you tell the difference? Is the method of determining the difference between 'specifically created' and 'naturally arisen' based on science, scripture, or something else?

    "God can accomplish alot more, alot faster using programs that unfold many functions."

    3. Why would an eternal being be the least bit concerned with how 'fast' a process is?. What do 'fast' or 'slow' even mean to a being outside of time? Also, why would God be the least bit concerned with 'accomplishing a lot more' with a certain amount of effort; are some things 'easier' or 'harder' for an omnipotent being?

    "Does a software programmer create separate micro-programs for each and every function in a program?"

    Steve, a programmer working alone creating code himself does type every line of code. (though they're usually called something like 'subroutines' and not 'micro-programs')

    "Since we are made in the image and likeness of God, we design like He does. It is the reason we can see the apparent and obvious design of nature."

    4. Steve, by this reasoning we could say that since we are made in the image and likeness of God, we also reason like he does, love like he does, and forgive like he does. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume you probably don't believe that we reason, love, and forgive in the exact same way that God does. (correct me If I'm wrong) If that is the case, why should we think that we 'design' like He does?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve said: "To be sure, God is a much better explanation than spontaneity/emergence. At least with God, there is the potential for an explanation. /.../ With evolution, there is no purpose and no direction at the get-go, just an appeal to emergence."

    Steve, I don't think you understand what 'emergence' means in this context. Saying a property is 'emergent' is never used as an explanation ; it is an observation. Take an automobile for example. Self-propulsion is an emergent property of automobiles; none of the parts that make up the car like steering wheels, batteries, or gas tanks, have that property in and of themselves. Saying that self-propulsion is an emergent property of cars isn't trying to explain self-propulsion at all; it is just pointing out that some systems can have properties that aren't present in the components of the system. Examples of emergent properties are usually brought up to counter profoundly stupid statements like "Consciousness is not a property found in individual units of matter, even brain cells; therefore consciousness cannot be the result of brain cells being arranged in a certain order." That would be like saying "Self propulsion is not a property of individual car parts; therefore self propulsion cannot be the result of car parts put together in a certain order. So, emergence is never 'appealed to as an explanation', in anything, let alone just evolutionary theory. (At least, not by those who know what 'emergent' means)

    Your last statement seems to suggest that without purpose or direction, there is no 'explanation' to be found. This is assuredly not the case. Lots of causes have no intentional purposes or direction, but they still make fine explanations. (a fallen tree explains the hole in my roof, erosion explains the canyon in the park, etc.)

    Sorry if that was long, I'm just trying to understand your position better. I've never held it myself, although I have held the YEC position.

    ReplyDelete