Anarkhos

Thursday, October 02, 2008

The Religion of Evolution?

I've been reading Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial with a scientist's eye toward the practice of a sibling discipline. Johnson is a professor of law and as such, familiar with spotting and exposing argumentative fallacies. Numerous times he's already documented strong evidence that Darwinists are essentially assuming their conclusion in order to provide any criteria for interpreting various physical evidences that come along. In other words: classic circular reasoning.

He offers this biting summary of the state of paleontology and anthropology:

The story of human descent from apes is not merely a scientific hypothesis; it is the secular equivalent of the story of Adam and Eve, and a matter of immense cultural importance. Propagating the story requires illustrations, museum exhibits, and television reenactments. It also requires a priesthood, in the form of thousands of researchers, teachers, and artists who provide realistic and imaginative detail and carry the story out to the general public. The needs of the public and the profession ensure that confirming evidence will be found[.]

I'm only partway through the book, but already it seems clear that even the account presented in university-level courses massively understates the complexity of the issue. It may be that natural selection is at operation, but there is nothing like a mountain of fossil evidence showing a smooth record of gradual development of species throughout history.

That's not quite the dispassionate, skeptical, peer-reviewed society which my high school and university courses hailed as the conscience of science. I don't know why practicing biologists can't summon the professional pride just to say, "We don't know" when asked about a theory which is both theoretically plausible and richly physically documented, to explain the origin of humanity. There's no shame or defeat in that; it's just honest science. Shame would be allowing your personal desires to systematically distort the collection, interpretation, and presentation to the public of biological history with no disclaimer given.

6 Comments:

  • Wow, that sounds like a very interesting book. I have to add it to my list.

    And it is good to see you back to blogging.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 8:47 AM  

  • Thanks. After a long sojourn in the Valley of Dea^h^h^h Work, I'm glad to have lots of outside interests again to actually blog about.

    By Blogger Matt Hoosier, at 3:19 PM  

  • It is great to see you blogging again!

    In the spirit of discussion, this part caught my eye:

    Numerous times he's already documented strong evidence that Darwinists are essentially assuming their conclusion in order to provide any criteria for interpreting various physical evidences that come along.

    Perhaps this is mostly an artifact of summarization, but I found this statement both a definition of circular reasoning and also a definition for a very common form of proof.

    "Assume the hypothesis is true, then prove it or contradict it."

    Wouldn't it be that the hypothesis is that human evolved from apes because that's the the best and most consistent hypothesis science has to offer and, as such, each bit of new evidence is examined in that context... because that is the relevant scientific context?

    As far as I know--not that I read about this sort of thing often--evolution as the origin of the species is the only scientific theory for the origin of man? (Various creationist stories are untestable, and therefore not science, right?)

    By Blogger Unknown, at 4:18 PM  

  • Hi, Ash.

    I didn't really do justice to the presentation that Johnson made about the circular argument. He basically says that the normal statement of "natural selection" is a tautology: the most fit organisms are more successful at reproducing because we define "most fit" as precisely those organisms which reproduce most.

    With that framework, no fossil evidence can attack the proposition:

    * If the empirical record shows rapid evolution, then this is because adaptive mutations are piling up producing more fit organisms.

    * If the empirical record shows stasis for millions of years, then natural selection has annointed those organisms which didn't pile up harmful mutations and damage their chances at reproduction.

    Regarding your second point, I think it's fine for science to pursue the best-fit theory. It should be acknowledged as having only whatever degree or certainty the evidence bears out, though. The disappointing thing to me is that this is taught as bedrock fact rather than a working (questionable) hypothesis.

    --Matt

    By Blogger Matt Hoosier, at 10:22 PM  

  • Maybe fossil evidence can't act as a counterpoint to natural selection because natural selection is fact?

    I agree that it's tautologically true. "Natural selection" really isn't a "debatable point", it's just a statement of vocabulary, right? "Natural selection is the way that nature selects phenotypes." Add to that "success/fitness is still existing" and that seems like a pretty reasonable bedrock fact.

    "However it happened is the way that it happens, and if you are still around you are fit." I guess it's only a problem if for some reason you're wanting to disprove "how things happened"?

    I think it's silly to consider natural selection such a "questionable" hypothesis. It's the same amount of observational data we have for relativity, and we don't need footnotes all over the place declaring that 'relativity might turn out to be incorrect!'

    Unless of course you mean "questionable" as in "not written by God." ;)

    By Blogger Unknown, at 2:05 PM  

  • I researched more about this book, and I'm curious about any follow ups that you make on the topic.

    It appears that a lot of "transitional" fossil records have shown up between 1993 and today. It'd be neat to see if you still like this lawyer's view of biology in light of current evidence.

    (To be fair, I'm sort of selfishly hoping you'll find out if this book is still relevant in the light of current research so I can tell if it's worth cramming into my busy reading schedule. :D

    By Blogger Unknown, at 12:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home