Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?

Yes. I agree. It is a valid example of natural selection in action. Yes.And it is also probable that, in testing how likely light and dark moths were to be eaten, he placed moths on the sides of tree trunks, a place where they rarely perch in nature.It is also probable that it has become clear that birds see ultraviolet much better than we do, and therefore what seems well-camoflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird.In addition, it is also probable that neither Kettlewell nor those who checked his work were able to compensate for the degree to which migration of moths from surrounding areas might have affected the actual numbers of light and dark moths he counted in various regions of the countryside.As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the carbonaria form, we need: Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete. Yes. But we already know that natural selection is a fact of life.What we have not established with 100% certainty is that the factors, such as camoflage for example, are the primary reasons for this case of natural selection to have happeneded in the first place. And in 2) you said, "Thus it is evidence for evolution in that it establishes that one of the mechanisms proposed works in the wild."Yes, but some would argue that the true argument lies in the distinction between the mechanism and the statistical trend of natural selection.Page not found – College of Arts and SciencesIf I'm to derive some basic formula for the theory of evolution like one can do for power (as noted above), are the two factors of evolution considered solely mutation and natural selection so that we could express it this way? Or, would it be expressed oppositely as follows? In other words, what is the basic mathematical formlua for evolution?Furthermore, how would we test it to make predictions that could accurately be compared to the the fossil record?I've been reading thorugh the information provided by crashfrog, but I haven't yet noticed any predictive nature to it in regards to the evolution of life as displayed within the fossil record.Admittedly, I'm still reading through it and I may have overlooked the relevant information. But it seems to be more likely applied to our modern knowledge of population and not not being specifically applied to the fossil record. At least, I haven't noticed any predicitons as to how our missing gaps of knowledge sould be filled in the event that new knowledge is acquired. Yes, however, there has been some misrepresentation within some circles.I've already noted the imcomplete nature of the peppered moth experiment.However, there are worse examples. As Johnson also notes, a standard textbook example of natural selection involves a species of finches in the Galapagos, whose beaks have been measured over many years.In 1977 a drought killed most of the finches, and the survivors had beaks slightly larger than before. The probable explanation was that larger-beaked birds had an advantage in eating the last tough seeds that remained.A few years later, however, there was a flood, and after that the beak size went back to normal. Nothing new had appeared, and there was no directional change of any kind.Nonetheless, that is considered one of the most impressive examples of natural selection at work that researchers have been able to find after nearly a century and a half of searching.To make the story look better, the National Academy of Sciences removed some facts in its 1998 booklet on "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science."This version omits the flood year return-to-normal and encourages teachers to speculate that a "new species of finch" might arise in 200 years if the initial trend towards increased beak size continued indefinitely.As Johnson notes, if the Academy meant to teach scientific investigation, rather than to inculcate a belief system, it would encourage students to think about why, if natural selection has been continuously active in creating, the observed examples involve very limited back-and-forth variation that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I thought he was just asking some honest questions -- honest questions biased in favor of Intelligent Design. Fair enough, if we remove the simplistic "gravitational assist" model I used before, and replace it with our knowledge of "population genetics", what could be determine from the fossil record alone?Or, to restate the other questions I noted before -- but applying them to "predictions" of population genetics as displayed within the fossil record -- how would the following questions be answered? Note: I admit that, just like meteorology only predicts effectively maybe a week into the future, evolution cannot be used to precisely predict what will happen in the future. This isn't what I'm talking about though.For example, as noted in EvoWiki, there are many predictions that can be extrapolated from the theory of evolution even if they are not explicitly stated by Darwin. Here are some examples of predictions that one could argue would be extrapolated from the theory of evolution. Now, looking through the fossil record, can things like this be displayed? If so, do they display any consistent mathematical pattern?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-30-2005 11:52 AM

You are correct. None of it manages to dispute the fact that the pepperred moth case is evidence for natural selection and therefore for evolution.It manages to distinguish between the fact that the observed pepperred moth case being considered evidence for natural selection is not also considered a fact for evidence for the grander claims of evolution, such as common ancestry from primordial organmisms.Fact: That natural selection was observed in the peppered moth case is certainly a fact.Theory: That the natural selection observed in the peppered moth case contributes significantly to the overall case for the common ancestry of all species from priordial cells is not a fact -- and is still quite within the realm of the theoretical. ok. He was making some honest statements.As Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D. notes, primarily through his study of evolution, Johnson learned that the academic community's primary intellectual commitment is to the philosophy of naturalism. If the "facts" contradict materialistic conclusions, then the "facts" are either explained away, ignored, or just plain wrong.Therefore, evolutionists like Richard Dawkins can say things like "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," and actually say it with a straight face. The appearance of design is an illusion, you see, because we "know" that organisms evolved and the primary reason we "know" this is because naturalistic philosophy demands it.Johnson's primary task seems to be continually provoking the scientific community into facing the reality of its naturalistic presuppositions. In earlier years, the scientific establishment was able to dismiss creationists and not officially respond. But when a tenured law professor from Berkeley starts messing with your head, people start answering back.Incidently, what Johnson seems to have noticed was that both the rules of debate about the issue as well as the word evolution itself were defined in such a way as to rule out objections from the start.Science is only about discovering naturalistic causes of phenomena, therefore arguing against the sufficiency of natural causes is not science.Also the "fact of evolution" is determined not by the usual definition of fact such as collected data or something like space travel which has been done, but as something arrived by majority vote.Steven J. Gould said, "In science, fact can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"

Do you believe that the fact that the observed pepperred moth case being considered evidence for natural selection is also considered a fact for evidence for the grander claims of evolution, such as common ancestry from primordial organmisms?If you do, then I don't think Johnson is wrong in making this distinction. Where's the honesty when someone simply avoids answering the following questions? There are also plenty of Christians who support young-earth creationism -- and that certainly wouldn't make it true either.My point in quoting Bohlin was to more accurately portray Johnson's position from another intelligent design theoriest's perspective. On the other hand, my quoting Miller was to validate that the peppered moth case was not wrong, but rather incomplete.Why are you lumping my references to Bohlin and Miller into one theory when I quoted them for two distinct reasons -- or is this how proponents of evolutionary theories usually perceive data? I "know" this because whenever people like Dawkin's or Gould make the claims that appearance of design is an "illusion", they are revealing a naturalistic bias. This naturalstic bias is even more true whenever someone basically says that they "know" this is so because thier naturalistic philosophy demands it.This isn't to say that naturalistic causes cannot explain everything -- because they may in fact might be able to do so. However, if one perceives something akin to design, they may in fact be actually observing design -- and not being victims of a illusional Rorshach pattern in life. And maybe your perception is simply an illusion based on your own mental constructs.See what I'm saying?I don't really care what your "impressions" are.I'm also not interested in trying to engage in philosophy for philosophy's sake.When I engage in epistimological questions concerning knowledge, I'm doing it with the precise point of discerning between what it factually known and what is perceived to be known so that further experimental methods can be engaged which will bring what is perceived to be known within the sphere of knowledge that is factually known.I'm really trying to get past the "perception" or design either by deity or nature and simply construct a valid experimental method (or precise mathematical formula which can be compared to the fossil record) which concretely displays evolution as being proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then why do researchers who engage in the scientific method sometimes conclude that God doesn't exist or wasn't involved via their own scientific observations?For example, Gould did (and Dawkins still does) engage in research into dysteleology -- the doctrine of purposelessness in nature. In fact, both have gone on record saying that, based on the evidence of "purposelessness" in natural structures (as supposedly manifested by the existence of vestigial or nonfunctional organs or parts), that God is either evil, stupid, or simply non-existent.I thought that God was outside the scope of scientific inquiry? I think this is more because they've never been able to present a valid definition of "intelligent design" that is acceptable by science. In other words, they're only still in the planning stage as far as I'm concerned.Valid criticisms levelled against IDers will most likely enable ID theorists to redefine their intial premise of "intelligent design' more clearly before it can even get to an adequate stage of scientific inquiry. And yet, Darwin's method is not generally experimental, for singular and complex events are not so explained by any historical science. The theory of evolution relies heavily upon inference and "not on steel balls rolling down inclined planes in a laboratory." Well, I think he knew a lot more about evolution that I do.That's why I noted him before when he said the theory of evolution relies heavily upon inference and "not on steel balls rolling down inclined planes in a laboratory."Likewise, in stating that, "...Darwin's method is not generally experimental, for singular and complex events are not so explained by any historical science," Gould tacitly admitted that Darwinism is outside of the Baconian concept of natural science.Notwithstanding this, Gould still claimed that Darwinism is "science" because of the methodology Darwin used in arriving at his conclusions. And I've never said that Gould said that Darwinism is not science for that matter.What are you getting at?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-01-2005 03:07 AM

oops...double post.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-02-2005 05:16 PM

I would just like to take the time to thank crashfrog and PaulK for their in-depth responses. They've certainly given me much to ponder over the next few months as I read more about this topic as related to evolution.I would also like to thank NosyNed, mick, and paisano for their contributions as well. Edit: Sylas and holmes and loudmouth's input are welcomed as well. (I hope I'm not forgetting anyone).Thanks to this thread, I've come across a few articles by Pope Benedict XVI which I'll be reading further to get a better idea of the Catholic concept of evolution, and I thank others for the links to the concepts of Population Genetics in relation to evolutionary theories.I still have some misgivings to the merging of the Scriptural account of creation with the theory of evolution -- but this is solely based on my personal understnading of the Scriptures.Having said that, I think I understand it a bit better now (and in more of a positive light) than I did before.To that end, I thank everyone here.I'll be back sometime with questions regarding the nature of the Scriptures and how one can reconcile evolutionary thinking with it to the point that original sin is not compromised by it.I realize that others have suggested ways of thinking of this, such as applying solely to spiritual death, but I haven't been able to accept them yet. I don't think it's impossible, but I admit I just haven't heard it expressed in a good enough word formula yet.Not yet anyway.Take care guys.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-02-2005 05:16 PM

PaulK, although I've deeply appreciated many of the responses in this thread (and I appreciate the insights given by all including yourself), I thought I would reply to your post here just for clarification's sake. Actually, Issaac Asimov's New Guide to Science cited the peppered moth example as being sufficient to prove the whole theory.Likewise, Mark Ridley asserted that "All that is needed to prove evolution is observed microevolution added to the philosophical doctrine of uniformitarianism which (in the form that is needed here) underlies all science."I guess it comes down to what one means by the term "biological evolution." According to one college text book Life; The Science of Biology*, "biological evolution is a change over time in the genetic composition of members of a population. Changes that take effect over a small number of generations constitute microevolution. Changes that take centuries, millennia, or longer to be completed are called macroevolution."*This is a textbook that many used for their Biology major at the University of California, Los Angeles. Yes. But I had said before that my quoting of Johnson was to highlight that there is indeed a materialist mindset to it's development.What seems to have started off this convolution of responses back and forth was the following paraphrase: I've bolded the key word in conjunction with the definition which seems to have spurred this sub-thread: trick & treat it as proof of the complete evolutionary system.When Johnson stated this, he wasn't suggesting that there is some vast "conspiracy theory" to suppress creationism. He seems to be indicating that evolution itself (the logical explantion for relationships) remains a "fact", by which it implied that it is an "inescapable deduction" from the fact of relationship.Johnson noted Gould's article Evolution as Fact and Theory, which explained the distinction bt citing the fact and theory of gravity: In Johnson's opinion, this analogy is spurious. And to some extant I agree with him. The ape-like common ancestor is a hypothesis in a theory, which purports to explain how these greater and lesser similarities came about.The theory is certainly more than plausible, and (unlike Johnson) I'm much more willing to listen than most "creationists". In many ways, I'd probably be more like Behe than Johnson -- and Behe's adherence is only minimal to the point that most would consider him more of a theistic evolutionist than strict creationist.However, as Johnson correctly notes, it still remains possible that this hypothesis within the theory may nonetheless be false. The true explanation for natural relationships may be something much more mysterious.Because Gould appears to draw the line between fact and theory in the wrong place, his distinction is, to some extent virtually meaningless. I had tried to expand on this distinction earlier (and made an appeal for others to interject their thoughts) when I advanced the predictive values of the theory of gravitation in comparison to the theory of evolution earlier. But what about the "knowledgable people" who think that Christians are basically crazy for thinking that they can reconcile evolution with any kind of benevolent God-like creative force?I'm sure many are familiar with Gould's and Dawkin's thoughts on this matter. They apparently answer this in the negative sense. Dawkins himself has gone on record saying, "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from an agnostic position and towards atheism."I'm sure people are familar with the litany of statements often quoted by Gould and Dawkins in this regard. However, there are many more people established researchers within evolutionary fields who hold similar positions.For example, William Provine readilly concedes: When an attourney asked Provine whether there is "an intellectually honest Christian evolutionist position....or do we simply have to check our brains at the church house door," Provine's response was straightforward: Apparently, Provine thinks the term "Christian evolutionist" is an oxymoron.George Simpson Gaylord similarly noted, that "man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him mind."Gaylord goes on to say: Nancy Percy, who has written extensively on science and faith insists that "you can have God or natural selection, but not both." She even pointed out that Darwin himself recognized that the presense of an omnipotent deity would actually undermine his theory: Admittedly, these people do not speak for all people who hold to evolutionary theories for the speciation of life. However, it is my observation that the majority of the "heavy hitters" within the biological sciences seem to saying "nay" to the concept of merging evolution and God into some type of harmonious process theology.Young-earth creationists may be dead wrong about how they attempt to poke holes in theory of evolution, yet they consistently agree with the athiestic evolutionists who say that the two cannot be reconciled.Who is correct -- the atheistic evolutionists & hard-core creationists or the theistic evolutionists? Fair enough. Who said they didn't? I think everyone here knows that anti-evolutionits will use any excuse to make false attacks on opponents. Actually, just like the whole evolution/creation debate, I think it's demonstrating bias on both sides. In other words, just as Pope Benedict XVI thinks that our origins are based on both "evolution and creation", I also think that both evolutionists and creationists are biased in favor of their own paradigm.Furthermore, there are atheistic evolutionists that admit that there is a bias in favor of philosophical materialism when the theory of evolution is concerned. This doesn't mean that they're giving up the theory of evolution any time soon -- but they are willing to admit that philosophical materialism plays a part in evolutionary thinking.For example, Michael Ruse has noted the following: Similarly, Richard Lewontin proposed the following: But PaulK, I've already given my own "impressions" and noted that they were worthless too.These were those impressions: I'm not trying to single you out. I don't care what Johnson's, Behe's, Dawkin's, or Gould's "impressions" are either.In other words, I want to get past "impressions" and really try to envision some type of experiment that would prove conclusively that man could be descended "with modification" from another species of primate. There are no peer reviewed papers published within formal scientific literature which deals with dysteleology?If so, I have to confess that I am very surprised by this. As I noted above, because Gould appears to draw the line between fact and theory in the wrong place, his distinction is, to some extent virtually meaningless.I'm not saying that Gould doesn't know about evolution. I do, however, think that he could have more clearly marked of his definition of a "fact" more accurately before he passed away. As I said before, I had tried to expand on this distinction earlier (and made an appeal for others to interject their thoughts) when I advanced the predictive values of the theory of gravitation in comparison to the theory of evolution earlier.Unfortunately, no one seems to want to approach it. It's either considered virtually useless, somewhat inadequate, an improper analogy, or something to that effect -- and, just like everything else I've been trying to explain in this thread, no one seems very interested in helping me to refine the ideas better.Everyone seems to be gung ho to ignore the theoretical things I'm been trying to talk about and instead jump right to all the excellent scientific reasons why evolution is the best materialist theory regarding the speciation of life on earth -- which is pointless for me since I already agree that with all the excellent scientific reasons why evolution is the best materialist theory regarding the speciation of life on earth.

Thank you, NosyNed, and no problem about the "Ex" -- it seems as though others might disagree with the idea that my post was well constructed though. Don't worry about it. Actually, the points you make below clarify many things. Hmmm...this was an interesting distinction that I was not aware of. That's basically how I see the theory of evolution too. Based on solely materialisitc causes, it is certainly overwhelmingly likely to be the true idea behind the speciation of all life on earth.My only concern with this is that if God actually was directly involved in the speciation of life on earth in a physical and tangible way, a reliance on solely materialistic causalities would tend to miss whatever evidence might actually be left behind to indicate this (if any).In other words, it does seem possible to me that employing a methodological naturalism may still set up a filter in the mind of the researcher which could result in them missing potentially valuable data.In order to overcome this, my hope was to try to present some kind of experiment that would move the theory past the "overwhelmingly likely to be the true idea" and into the "observable fact" stage -- an experiment that lead to directly observing a human being that is descended with modification from another species of primate.I admit that it was unethical, but I still thought it would've been interesting to discuss. ok...I'm a bit awed by this. I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I never noticed this distinction before. Hmmm....thank you. That clarifies many things -- or at least opens a new distinction that I've never noticed before. And it's explained much more clearly than many messages I've read so far.

Thank you. I will.

My apologies Percy. It's basically how I write.

randman, thanks for the feedback and compliment. That's a thought that I had too: what if science is actially peering into the realm of the "spiritual" and not even realizing it yet?I suspect in the end that all things considered supernatural will one day be understood to be quite natural -- but that our access to it is specifically limited to certain points of contact where the things which were formerly believed to be "supernatural" actually are found to merge with that which we commonly refer to today as "natural".In other words, what we call supernatural acts of God "now" will probably one day be considered a pseudo-science because God will be found to be quite "naturally" present in the universe all along -- even if we couldn't see him. Exactly. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-03-2005 06:21 PM

PaulK, here's a few extra clarificiations No. I think it's ok to make mistakes if he is mistaken on his points, just like it's ok to for researchers to make mistakes when interpreting the data from their hypothesis.You are making claims that Johnson is lying and making false accusations against people who disagree with him.I'm just saying that if he is wrong, it's because he's not properly understanding the theory.The issue of him being a liar and flinging false accusations is actually more akin to a conspiracy theory in itself. *sigh* PaulK, would you care to bring this discussion of evolution, science & pseudo-science to the formal debate area?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-03-2005 07:08 PM

While I wouldn't ask for every single major discovery, it would be interested in hearing a few examples of how QM alters some of the assumptions underlying the fundamental nature of existence.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-04-2005 04:55 PM

Maybe we could expect to find the Sabbath week imprinted into the biological rhythms of all life -- some kind of seven day cycle that defies a "natural" explanation. No. I just think that we simply don't know "how" God did it yet.As far as I can tell, Intelligent Design is basically a continuation of the Thomastic arguments for God's existence, which were originally already conceived within many ways in Aristotle's metaphysics.Currently, ID seems to be simply pointing out the limits of human knowledge and inferring God from the lack of evidence thereof -- an argument from ignorance. However, at some point, in redefining their arguments more clearly, they may be able to achieve their desired goal.When ID can present a natural theology for God's existence without recourse to Scripture by presenting experimental data that indicates an intelligent designer, then it will have achieved credibility on a scientific level.In other words, if one can discern a signature of Deity based on the scientific evidence in so far that one arrives at the same conclusion that the Scriptures do in regards to its statements about Creation (without actually interpreting the data based on the Scriptures themselves), then one will start to actually have an authentic theory of ID which can likewise be subject to falsification. Maybe they have started already.Examples of theoretical evidence for such a theory would have to display a pattern of scientific evidence which demonstrates unique qualities within creation which are markedly "set apart" from mechanisms of the best natural explantions for our existence available to science.I do think this can be done to some extent within astrophysics. For example, big bang theory seems to point toward an extra-natural causaulity for our universe's creation. Penzias saw the philosophical significance in his discovery. However, it does not necessarilly imply a creator by virtue of its own evidence. To this extent, ID has thus far not succeeded at its goal. I tend to think it's a proto-science at this stage. Like randman has said in other threads:

Thanks randman. Unfortunatly I'm actualy not that smart. I just really take the time to express my ideas as clearly as possible. I've gone over and read through a large portion of it. I think it's an intersting debate. Unfortuantely my knowledge of the topic is very limited. I'd like to read more about it before I make any definite assertions.On the whole, however, I think you've presented an interesting potential dichotomy there. It's something that I'll be looking into further. If, as I read through it further, I feel that I have something worthwhile to contribute, I'll add my two cents worth.The only thing that I can say, loosely speaking, is that the molecular clock put to effective usage by Allan Wilson and Vincent Sariach has apparently had an enomourmous impact upon some of the accepted notions of human descent.For example, anthroplogists relying upon fossil evidence had estimated that the ape and human lineage had split at least 15 million years ago -- but the molecular calculations supported a period between 5 and 10 million years ago.Apparently a date of around 7 million years has come to be widely accepted, in large part because of the molecular data.More recently, however, Wilson and others have studied decent within the human species by analyzing mitochondrial DNA -- which is passed from the female, from mother to daughter. Their conclusion is that all contemporary humans are descendents of a woman who lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago.Some anthropologists do not aceept this conclusion, however. Part of the reason for not accepting it is because it implies that all the Homo Erectus fossils found outside of Africa that are older than 200,000 years could not be in the line of descent leading to modern humans.In this area, at least according to IDers such as Johnson, conflict is developing between fossil experts and molecular biologists over which discipline has the authority to settle disputes over the course of human evolution. While I'm not sure about Johnson's thoughts on the matter, I think it is correct to say that there is some issues of ambiguity between these two disciplines which may be related to your thoughts on "convergent evolution". I don't think it's as cut and dry as some see it.If you're looking for more information on this, do a search for "neutral evolution" (I think that's what it's called?). I might be wrong but I think the "neutralists" may have some answers to the refutations that are being presented against your thoughts.

Yes. I already said that I thought that the current state of ID was mostly an appeal to ignorance -- simply pointing to the limits of our understanding and saying God might be beyond there.What weren't you grasping when I said this earlier? The hypothesis is that an intelligent designer created all things -- which is a valid hypothesis. This has not been formulated to the level that I would consider it testable yet. At its current state it cannot be adequately falsified. The prediction is that an intelligent designer created all things -- which is a valid prediction. This has not been formulated to the level that I would consider it testable yet. At its current state it cannot be adequately falsified. Mankind has always been aware of rhythms -- they surround us. We live with daily rhythms of tides, light and darkness, monthly rhythms of the moon, seasonal rhythms of birth, growth, harvest, hot and cold, and annual cycles of the sun, migrations, floods and drought.We have also observed cycles in our bodies which interact with those around us such as our daily sleep rhythms, daily temperature and blood pressure fluctuations, and the menstrual cycle which follows the lunar cycle precisely averaging 29.5 days.However, until recently science has been aware of only the more obvious rhythms. Now the new science of chronobiology has begun to roll back frontiers revealing a universe replete with rhythms. The relatively new science of chronobiology has uncovered some totally unexpected facts about living things, as Susan Perry and Jim Dawson report in their book The Secrets Our Body Clock Reveal.Although I don't agree with all things stated in this link, you can find more information on this subject here...Bible Study - You Have Questions. The Bible Has Answers!To my knowledge, no one predicted the extreme regularity of molecular relationships that we now call the molecular clock, but this phenomenon became "just what evolutionary theory would predict" -- after the theory was substantially modified to accommodate the new evidence. Even then, the circaseptan rhythm still appears to have no natural parallel within nature to tune itself to.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-08-2005 11:19 PM