Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Uncommon Knowledge: Mathematical Challenges To Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution
Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?
Has Darwinism really failed? I discuss it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).
Recorded on June 6, 2019 in Fiesole, Italy
Published in General
Thank you, Uncommon Knowledge!
A few of the pioneers and exemplars of courage in my own studies right there.
I would almost consider sharing my own non-neo Darwinian invention if Drs. Berlinksi, and Meyers would lead the project. Materialistic/Naturalistic theory never can discover and invent this, and, actually, that is a good thing for humanity. Perhaps, neo-Darwinian theory keeps the secular “sciences “too retarded to ever engineer things that humanity lacks humanity to judge if the world should have some technologies.
Peter,
It was a refreshing discussion. Gelertner was willing to support the power of Meyer’s basic argument from a purely scientific viewpoint. This means that a strict Darwinian point of view must be retired as far as modern science. This alone is worth a great deal. Biology can let go of Darwin and move forward to a more powerful point of view.
The confusion lies when they attempted to discuss the implications of ID itself as a point of view. They started to bounce around from science to information science to theology. Although this was a bit of a mishmash, it was also evident that this was a starting point for a fresh look at ideas in philosophy and even theology. I think to get both Marx and Darwin off your back and to take a fresh look at the world without feeling compelled to pay tribute to either one is an intellectual liberation.
Regards,
Jim
Btw, So impressed with Dr. Gerlernters article I saved it.
Just to play devil’s advocate (unusual for me, I know), there is quite a lot of disagreement on the definition of ‘species’.
Source: https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200
The 26 definitions: https://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/01/a-list-of-26-species-concepts
Not science. Barely even philosophy.
This is the problem of evil objection, usually unrecognized because it’s in an unfamiliar context, but as unimpressive as always.
Meyer nailed it. He recognized it and pointed out that all the problem of evil resources from Augustine on are available here.
Hence a huge problem with the Endangered Specie Act.
Aug,
Be still my heart. To put down the endless nightmare discussion generated by blind acceptance of Marx & Darwin and to be clumsily discussing the Problem of Evil, what a glorious bright sunny day it is. Clear the air, clear the decks, maybe we can get back in touch with our souls.
Darwin will still have the honor of the first few pages of every Biology textbook. This will be a short essay on the History of Biological Science. Mentions can be given of other early speculators about evolution too. Then the textbook can start fresh and plow right into the latest ideas without the intellectual baggage. Intelligent Design has produced a very well reasoned scientific critique of evolutionary speculation. It also can be included.
Time to get the show on the road.
Regards,
Jim
Very interesting interview. I have put Meyer and Gelerntner on my ever-expanding, never-to-be completed reading list. I won’t even try Berlinski as I think he is above my paygrade. Thanks to all and to @saintaugustine, @jamesgawron, et al for their interesting comments.
I find myself quite unimpressed with the whole deal. This is pure G-d of the gaps stuff.
G-d-of-the-gaps is precisely what this is not.
G-d-of-the-gaps arguments are arguments from ignorance: We have no explanation for X, so G-d must have done it. Intelligent design arguments have a completely different argument structure.
Objections to dominant varieties of evolutionary theory are just objections. Logically, they are distinct from both ID and G-d-of-the-gaps arguments. They could accompany either of those positions (ID in the case of Meyer), or no position (Gelertner and Berlinski, apparently), or other positions.
There are of course huge gaps in the fossil record and we aren’t s smart as we need to be about genetics to understand how it all works. But Darwinian evolution is a pretty good explanation for what happens.
So you don’t like the arguments, or the objections. Fine and dandy. Not any kind of objection to my own remarks.
Futurama is pretty cool.
The arguments presented were not new nor were they that compelling.
1) How will we know when we have all fossils possible? Is it even possible? Haven’t millions of tons of fossils been turned into crude oil and natural gas (isn’t happening now right now)? Arguing that there is a lack of inductive evidence does not show much, especially when
2) There is literal evidence of Darwinian evolution occurring right now. Richard Lenski of Michigan State University has been conducting a 30 odd year long experiment where 12 specimens of E Coli were cultured repeatedly in the same environment, with specimens frozen from each generation. One strain evolved to consume citrate, which E Coli didn’t do before, and other changes have been noted. (50,000 generations have been cultured so far).
3) One issue with calculating mutation rates is that they differ between sexual and asexual species. Sexual species have a far higher chance to pass on and combine different mutations because offspring are unique combinations and not clones.
4) One massive missing discussion from the video was environmental factors, which is a major point of Darwinian evolution. Earth’s environment has experienced drastic changes, from ice ages to meteorites hitting the Earth, and those environmental changes can create considerable incentives for speciation, which would go toward explaining burst periods.
5) It was quite interesting that the mathematicians stuck to the arguments of chance and high unlikeliness. But unlikely things happen every day. So how does the fact that something is unlikely disprove it occurring? It doesn’t.
What do you mean? That arguing for a lack of inductive evidence fails as an argument? Or that we don’t really need inductive evidence?
This objection is not new–as old as it gets, in fact–nor is it compelling.
If they have produced entirely new species of E. Coli–then you have an interesting objection.
I have no comment whatsoever!
That only effects selection, which is operative only after mutations or other sources of genetic variation occur. This objection simply fails to engage a critique of evolutionary theory which is focused on mutations.
You ever seen anything with those kinds of improbability numbers happen without divine intervention? Ever even heard of it? I haven’t.
Perhaps more importantly: I think you’re missing the logic of the objection, and indeed the logic of evolutionary theory itself. Why should anyone believe in evolutionary theory? The only reason is if there is some sort of good inductive evidence. But if the theory is against all probability, then there is no good inductive evidence.
Were they referring to evolution or were they referring to how the first bacterium was created. I’ve read (casually) that the first bacterium being created was next to impossible mathematically. Evolution takes a long time but and we aren’t totally sure how it works but I’ve found the arguments that a human eye is too complicated for random evolution quite specious.
With regard to Saint Augustines, “What do you mean? That arguing for a lack of inductive evidence fails as an argument? Or that we don’t really need inductive evidence?” I would say that because evolution is super complicated we don’t fully understand it but that isn’t a great argument that evolution doesn’t exist. In a similar fashion, we aren’t totally sure how gravity works because the universe is accelerating it’s rate of expansion and nobody is quite sure why. Gravity does exist but the details aren’t worked out yet. Actually, humans are aware of many things existing but we don’t have all the details because the world is very hard to understand. The evidence we have thus far indicates evolution though.
Possibly it indicates intelligent design but it’s very difficult to answer a question that big.
What do you mean? That we have evidence for macroevolution taking place as a historical matter? That we have that plus a very satisfying explanation in evolutionary theory? Or something else?
Respectfully, ID theory is used effectively every day by homicide detective without any theological requirements. It just goes by names used in modern criminology. The principles and practical applications are identical with or without a cosmic creator being the suspect. It can have broader implications but they are not required to use the theory. Unlike Darwinian theory: it works and doesn’t keep having to change its premises due to continually unreplicable results in their peer-review system.
Et,
Quite so. When satellite technology is used to look for military assets the massive amount of photographic data can’t be inspected by humans in its raw form. Thus statistical formulas (very much like you are mentioning in criminology) are used in computer algorithms to identify objects that appear to be of intelligent design v natural origin. This works very well. This is the same principle.
Kant gave us a concept in his Critique of Judgement over two centuries ago that I think is useful. He called it purposiveness. He specifically defined this as an object that looks like a purposeful intelligence created it. One can not assume that just because it looks like something purposeful that an actual intelligence did create it. This is a very productive first step that Kant says often leads to improved scientific inquiry. Trying to fit the data into a preconceived naturalist explanation that doesn’t fit is counterproductive to science itself.
Regards,
Jim
A necessary curative to ID flapdoodle.
“Philosophical failures” indeed.
Sure, science does that good stuff sometimes, and is supposed to do it all the time, and religion does some of that bad stuff sometimes. But that is not the essence of religion.
Religion also recognizes our basic psychological weaknesses and takes active measures to expunge them from our thinking. Ever heard of Augustine? Or Aquinas?
Recognition of human fallibility is, in fact, as good a candidate as any for the essence of religion. Religions that do talk about infallibility are, by definition, not talking about a human quality and, without exception, thinking infallibility matters precisely because we humans are so fallible.
Whoever made this video has no idea at all what Plantinga’s epistemology is about. Not that I blame them for that; even good philosophers commonly misunderstand Plantinga. But this video is a blissful embrace of ignorance of Plantinga, a blatant departure from the context and clear intent of his remarks. Plantinga is talking about basic beliefs, and always admits to the relevance of logic to changing our minds–even for basic beliefs.
Shawn,
I would point out that the ID that I am aware of doesn’t have anything to do with Christian apologetics. It is a purely statistical analysis of already existing evolutionary arguments. ID only demonstrates the incredible improbability of these evolutionary arguments by standard statistical methods. Responding to religious apologetic arguments, Christian or otherwise, and then claiming them to be ID is a strawman.
Regards,
Jim
It is this very thing – the fallibility of human beings – that makes me so deeply skeptical of the one thing which Christians hang their hats on when it comes to demonstrating the truth of their claims. Are you telling me that same religion which touts the nature of humans as being fallible simultaneously instructs us that those fallible humans produced a set of documents (the Gospels and the Bible) which is infallible and error-free?
Something isn’t washing, here. This is what such people claim:
That’s a really strong claim, and one which is obviously false on its face.
Another straw man for the pyre, then.
The entire argument is an exercise in question-begging: We observe a phenomenon which science cannot in full currently explain; because it cannot be fully explained and we are bothered by a lack of epistemic closure we propose a further untestable hypothesis to close the gap; i.e., that there is a quality to some things which we call “design.” What this characteristic consists of is never defined; there are not tests by which it can be falsified and if you scratch it too much you find theism underneath its surface every time.
I don’t take these people to be disinterested observers – I take them as advocates for a position. They’re simply being coy and evasive because they understand that they’re not being honest brokers in this debate.
Yes. But not by themselves! And the humans did not contribute the infallibility part!
You might as well wonder that I say that a stone, itself lacking direction or intention, flew straight and true to Goliath’s head.
Perhaps we should start with the basics. Are you aware that we actually are interested in demonstration? And how on earth do you think we try to go about it? What pattern of reasoning do you think we use?
If you insist on classifying all ID arguments as having the designer-of-the-gaps argument pattern–a version of the argument from ignorance pattern–you will never understand.
And to be clear: when I say “they’re not being honest brokers” I literally mean that the responsibility of these intellectuals is not merely to take a hammer to preexisting theories with all their might and hope that a blow knocks out a chunk.
They have a responsibility to lay their own cards on the table and produce a viable alternate theory which has predictive power that is either equally strong or stronger than the existing theories. Ludicrously, the organization calling itself “The Discovery Institute” hasn’t ever really discovered much of anything.
Their task – and I won’t dispute that this is a heavy lift – would be to do all these things. Their silence on that topic is absolutely confounding.
Show me your evidence.
You frequently cite the Bible, which as we’ve discussed is not a reliable instrument, despite its protestations to the contrary.
There is no independent, contemporaneous corroboration for its claims. Why should we take it more seriously than the Koran or the Bhagavad Ghita? The answer is: we can’t – and by any normal, sane set of rules which we were applying to other sorts of claims, we wouldn’t. But these claims are privileged by those who believe them, even as they dismiss the claims made by others about different sources and different claims.
There’s nothing much to understand. This is the essence of the ID argument – the level of biological complexity is too great to have arisen in an undirected manner, ergo it must have been designed.
What else is there, precisely?
What you (imperfectly) describe is merely an argument against undirected evolution. An argument for ID is usually much more than that.
Neither argument is, strictly speaking, an argument from ignorance, but if one simply leaps from no-undirected-evolution to ID, then I would expect that to be an argument from ignorance. No doubt some people do make this inference.
What else? An inference from X to design, of course–where X is some sort of (allegedly) relevant evidence for design.
What exactly is X, and why should we take it as evidence for design, and where do we see X in nature?
Those are the big questions. But the idea of relevant evidence for design is reasonable enough, and we all accept it in some situations. Say you show me some strings of letters and ask me whether they came from a random letter generator or from a human author. The first string: AWEORIJALKJASDFLJAOPGIUASDGLKJDAGPOIWERASDLKJASLDJAWOEITU. The second: THREERINGSFORTHEELVENKINGSUNDERTHESKYSEVENFORTHEDWARFLORDSINTHEIRHALLSOFSTONE. Something present in the second string is lacking in the first.
Well, as I understand it, one of the major lines of evidence–not by any means the only- is inductive and historical (and, of course, fallible).
Roughly, it goes . . .
–from the historical evidence centered around the Gospel testimony
–to the historical claims of the Gospel (death, burial, Resurrection, witnesses),
–from that to the authority of Yeshua Messiah,
–and from that to whatever else he should see fit to teach us.
Whether there be any historical support for claims in the Bhagavad-Gita I know not, but I do know a little of the historical support for the Gospel testimony, and of that for Socrates.
The Resurrection has way better evidence than Socrates. The whole point is to apply the same rules. My dear Sir, everything I ever said around here–or any proper apologist I’ve ever read–has been about applying the same rules and privileging nothing.
I presume you, like me, know of no good evidence for any history behind the Bhagavad-Gita, but do know of Socrates. Can you tell me what the Gospel claims lack that Socrates-claims have?
Continued:
The answer I keep getting on Ricochet is that the Gospel claims are, unlike Socrates-claims, extraordinary.
Indeed.
And that calls for extraordinary evidence. As it happens I know no historical event in ancient times (if in any time) that has such extraordinary historical evidence as the Resurrection of the Messiah.
The runner-up answer is probably the one about how “You’re talking about eternal consequences for belief in your Messiah, but no one says anything like that about Socrates!”
My perennial answer–perennially ignored by Ricochet’s atheists–is that I happen to think William James is right that the practical consequences of belief affect the standards of evidence, and that they serve to lower rather than raise them.