Oh Good Grief...

Posted by Paul Decelles November 18, 2009 at 10:09 a.m.

Apparently a creationist group is passing out copies of Darwin's Origin of Species with an introduction chock full of creationist misinterpretations of evolution at the top 100 universities . They were at Washburn yesterday so let's see if KU makes the cut.

By the way here is a link from the National Center for Science Education about this creationist effort. http://www.dontdissdarwin.com/index.php

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

Irish (Leslie Swearingen) says…

If someone wanted to read Darwin's books to see for themselves what he wrote they are free online;

* The Voyage of the Beagle
* The Origin of Species
* The Origin of Species - 6th Edition
* The Descent of Man
http://www.literature.org/authors/dar...

As a Catholic I believe that God created the multiverses and used the method of evolution to do so.
There are other scientists, Alfred Russel Wallace among them, who have thoughts on this subject. There is not one worldview in the scientific community, yet Darwin continues to get all the press.
Why do you think this is so?
November 18, 2009 at 10:33 a.m.
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…

where's whathisname who always signs off "darwin bless you"? he should know about this dangit!
November 18, 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Good Question. I think it is in part because people confuse the apparent goalessness of the evolutionary process with the sort of why (in a theological sense) questions religion deals with.

Plus Darwin is dead so he is a convenient punching bag for people on the left and the right who are uncomfortable with what they see as the materialist implications of science. So they rail against things like Darwinism (sounds really scary) as if biologists haven't gone beyond Darwin in how we view evolution.
November 18, 2009 at 11:47 a.m.
readit (anonymous) says…

My daughter said there were some pushy people on the KU campus a couple of weeks ago handing out some type of religious material. Not sure what it was, though. She had no problem with the free speech aspect, just that they were obnoxious.
November 18, 2009 at 12:21 p.m.
remember_username (anonymous) says…

Irish - "There are other scientists, Alfred Russel Wallace among them, who have thoughts on this subject. There is not one worldview in the scientific community, yet Darwin continues to get all the press."

For that reason right there. You said Darwin not Charles Robert Darwin and the masses know who you're speaking of. If you'd have said Wallace the masses would have said "What? You mean that Scottish warrior with the blue face paint?".
November 18, 2009 at 12:23 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

As for Wallace, biologists know who he is, but Darwin sticks in the popular mind in part because Darwin wrote much more extensively than Wallace. Wallace contributed to what we call biogeography and to our understanding of how species isolating mechanisms develop, but he was not nearly as prolific a writer as Darwin.

Also I wonder if he is not so well known because he got off on some tangents-such as spiritualism.
November 18, 2009 at 1:38 p.m.
Irish (Leslie Swearingen) says…

Mel, that would be barrypenders.

I know about Wallace because I subscribe to National Geographic and I have friends who like to talk about things like that.

Paul, it is my understanding that Wallace had written Darwin from the South Pacific, can't remember exactly where, and shared some of his ideas about what he was observing.
Darwin then rushed to get his then unfinished book into publication to be the first one out.
He cheated Wallace.
True or false?
November 18, 2009 at 2:15 p.m.
Cappy (anonymous) says…

Wallace wasn't cheated. They were pretty amicable and Wallace agreed that the elder Darwin had the idea first.

As to the books on campus, you're probably talking about Ray "the Banana Man" Comfort. Since the Origin of Species is in the public domain, Comfort printed the book with an introduction he wrote that claims that Darwin was racist, misogynistic, and used by Hitler to justify his deeds. Of course, the same introduction could be written for the Bible. Whatever.
November 18, 2009 at 2:29 p.m.
autie (anonymous) says…

Oh, I hope they happen into my daughter if they hit campus. I'm sure she would be up for some lively debate about such a topic. She loves to argue religion and such. Or lack thereof.

Do people ever get the notion that evolution occurs in response to selective pressures that in no way are inclined to take any certain direction other than the perpetuation of that particular gene pool? Or, Paul, is evolution purposeful in transitioning to more complex systems? I tend to look at this in a fairly simplistic manner. With no pressure, no reason to change. Sharks and crocs may be a good example of this. Complexity only increases as it benefits survival.
November 18, 2009 at 3:14 p.m.
Cappy (anonymous) says…

I got my copy! It will be good for a novelty piece. Ray Comfort doesn't understand how evolution works and he wants people to be as ignorant as he is.
November 18, 2009 at 5:44 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Cappy is right as far as I know. Darwin and Wallace were working more of less independently and as I recall the initial paper was a joint paper to the Royal Society. Like lots of scientific ideas evolution was already being seriously discussed, and there were even some anticipations of the natural selection idea.

Cappy, I looked at Comfort's web site and one can down load a pdf of his "introduction" to Origin of Species.

Auty, natural selection is not purposeful, Darwin understood this quite clearly.
November 18, 2009 at 6:36 p.m.
parrothead8 (anonymous) says…

They were on campus at KU today. Just walking from the Union to Bailey I had four people ask me if I wanted "a free book." I told each and every one of them, "Seriously? You don't think I have enough books to read already? No thanks."
November 18, 2009 at 6:36 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Parrot,

So KU is one of the top 100 universities just like Washburn...would not want to think I went to a second rate school!

I should snag one for my collection of creationist literature. Maybe they will come to JCCC.
November 18, 2009 at 6:42 p.m.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…

where are you barry penders?
darwin bless you this evening.
and every evening.
November 18, 2009 at 6:51 p.m.
Olympics (anonymous) says…

Here's a nice breakdown of their activities...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3J...
November 18, 2009 at 7:15 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

My story is better than your story.
Is not.
Is to.
Is not.
Is too.
November 19, 2009 at 6:32 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Devo,

Of course that is exactly what creationists want you to believe. But one story is based on empirical evidence and testing strong inference from the patterns we can observe in the natural world and one is meant strictly as metaphor with out any explanatory power as far as science.

Obviously I think your view of science is quite constricted and would preclude most astronomy. After all from your way of thinking, the points of light in the sky might be huge bodies where various sorts of thermonuclear reactions are going on (one story) or they might merely be holes in the black fabric of the sky so we can sleep at night (another story).

Seems your problem is the outdated notion that everything can be reduced to physics as you have stated before-an idea that Daniel Dennett has called greedy reductionism. I suggest you check his arguments out. They might just cure your constricted view of science.
November 19, 2009 at 9:59 a.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Dennett is a "brights".
From wiki: "The Brights movement is a social movement that aims to promote public understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview."

Yet, as I read more about him and his views regarding Darwin and evolution, etc. I find a strong element of humanism as well. Now this is a dangerous combination because Dennett rejects the quality of things while embacing the humanity of them. Ala his definition of consciousness.

Thus, the arbitrary is wide open. He rejects god, as if he knows. He embraces the human mind and its cognitive powers while emphasizing randomness. Therefore he elevated man to the only determiner of consequence.

As a result, he accepts all reasoned explanations based upon evidence as at least the best we have.

I don't. I think that we should say we don't know when we don't know. This is true for the existence of god, and the origin of apelike creatures.

Furthermore, it is true that the things that we don't know, but still insist that we do know, are also the things that are fruitless.

Descending from apelike ancestors, astronomy, all the things of time and space that are limited by are meager perceptions are simply that about which we pontificate. And it this extrapolation and extension into things that cannot be tested that I challenge you and all those who claim to have scientific knowledge about things that cannot really be tested.

Yet I live in a world that is increasingly trusting in computer models (the ultimate in mathematics).
So long as the model prediction can be implemented, (like a SPICE run on an electronic circuit), I like computers. But people are way past that now. Models (computer or otherwise) are believed as if they are the truth. The requirement that they be properly tested is fading into the distance.

Science is paying the price of this lack of rigor. Drink coffee, no don't. Red wine, good for you. No it isn't. You know the routine. Endless press releases about endless things that are this way or that. All B.S., but it is the best that we have!

No it isn't. The best that we have is : "I don't know". Humans aren't very good at understanding things. I don't care how big Dennett's brain is. How don't know squat.

I'm guessing that within 20 years of so, there will be a break from science. The inclusion of non-testable utterances will become so dominant that old style science will reemerge as it was. This new way of reasoning will be given a new name. It will dominate as a powerful cultural and political way of determining the truth. People will be manipulated, coerced, bullied, or discarded as irrelevant if they don't believe the "truth". Step back and watch the rise of the "experts" who wield computers and proclaim knowledge. I am fearful of the sloppy and powerful, Paul. You should be too. This is just what the catholic church became.
November 19, 2009 at 3:18 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Recent examples of how science is being used as a cover for political agendas are listed below. By the way, does the general public know the difference between research, studies and science?

My guess is that the distinction is lost to reporters, politicians, moms, salespeople, etc. Its all science, they'll say. Some better than others. Then they will choose the ones they like.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/17/g...
November 19, 2009 at 3:58 p.m.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…

I guess I might be one of those pesky creationist if Im reading the definition correctly, anyway, I think that it was a little bit of both, and so do alot of scientist including Issiac Newton. There is NO way to "scientifically" tell if there was creation of evolution, because in order to "test" that theory, there has to be a "controlled" testing environment, in other words, scientists have to be able to do the same thing over and over again before it becomes a "theory" Darwin was not able to accomplish this.
Was it creationism or evolution? I think it was probably a little of both, but because I cant test that theory, Im not about to call people names and degrade them, that might be what seperates those who are "created" and those who just "evolved" Just a thought, Im just not willing to shut my mind off to one or another.
November 19, 2009 at 4:19 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Paul, this is what I think of cosmology:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy...

70% of the universe is made up of a substance whose properties are unknown except to explain the acceleration of the universe.
About 25% of the universe is apparently made up of dark matter.

We're left with 5% of the universe made of stuff that we know about.

In other words, we know very little about cosmology. And that's fine so long as cosmologists admit that we don't know very much.
---------

ksdivakat, I doubt that you are exactly right, but your a darn sight better than grand narratives that tell a story as if they really know. Good for you.
Look at how the debate over who is right continues, though. It looks like a peeing contest between boys. Right vs. left. God vs. naturalist. My side vs. your side. Liberal vs. conservative. Philosophy vs. philosophy. And who wins or looses?

Nobody. Babies are born in the usual way regardless of belief in god or selection. We live our lives based upon tradition that is based upon what works.
We don't really need a philosophy for much at all do we. No religion, whether it is spiritual or naturalist.

It is the obfuscators who conjure stories in order to elevate their importance in society. I might offer that whether it is an evolutionist or a creationist, they both might be conjurers whose aim is social significance. They use the moniker of scientist as a shield from those who suspect a rat.

Never mind the man behind the curtain.
November 19, 2009 at 5:41 p.m.
Cappy (anonymous) says…

First of all, we have to let Darwin get some rest.
The Origin of Species was written 150 years ago. You don't go to Galileo for the latest word on gravity. You don't even go to Newton. So much research in a variety of fields has gone toward confirming Evolution in the intervening years that Darwin is almost irrelevant. Admire his accomplishment (which was remarkable considering he knew nothing of genetics, modern geology, biochemistry and all the other disciplines that rely on Evolution to make sense), but let his good name rest. If you want to know more about the Science of Evolution, look to Dawkins, Coyne, Shubin, and many more who are doing cutting edge work today.
November 19, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

Research to confirm, Cappy?
Where do you go for gravity? The LHC is making its first run tonight. It will be at low power, but it is estimated that by Feb. high energy testing will occur. Well, maybe.

I am an engineer, Cappy. I would love to use Dawkins, et.al. for something to invent. Use them for something to improve a machine, a technique, anything.

Story tellers all. Maybe we can use Shubin to build a new video game. Yep, that's it, since created reality is the order of the day, we'll use evolution. Shoot, might as well mix in some Ra the sun god while we're at it. We'll call it Wrath of Ra and include an evolution level.
November 20, 2009 at 6:51 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Devobrun,

There you go again as the Great Communicator might have said. You keep repeating the same sort of nonsense mixing scientific understanding with religiously based myth. Now you must know they are not the same thing so why keep repeating that stuff? It's kind of like you are stuck in a strange attractor and can't get out.

As for evolution and invention, Google evolutionary algorithms and you will find all sorts of applications of programs based on natural selection. Evolutionary principles are used in integrated pest management, medicine, fisheries and game management just to nae a few.

As for Dennet being a "Bright": Personally I think the "Brights" are pretty silly but that that does not add or detract from the soundness of his arguments.

As for philosophy-we all have a philosophy even you Devo, and that philosophy guides our life. The problem is that most people (and I am not excluding myself here) have difficulty critically examining their assumptions and beliefs.

Maybe they are scared I don't know...

Regards my friend,

Paul
November 20, 2009 at 10:46 a.m.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…

Anyone remember the movie 'Inherit the Wind'? When Spencer Tracy asks Fredric March how long a day was? Just sayin' ...

Personally, I've always believed that if there *IS* an all-powerful being that could have brought the universe into being from nothingness, he could have created fossils, too, if he (or she) had a particularly nasty sense of humor.
November 21, 2009 at 6:11 p.m.