Ed Note: This is a guest column written by Sean Starcher and JA Pourtless. You can read the original version of this column on Sean’s blog.
Casey Luskin of the IDEA Center has really had it piled on lately. We don’t want it to seem like we’re picking on him (there are certainly a healthy number of creationist websites out there that are in serious need of a reality check!), but his primer on “Problems with Evolutionary Explanations of the Fossil Record” contains some serious errors that are in immediate need of correcting.
That there are “some” errors is a bit of an understatement, but for the time being we’re going to focus in on two of his major criticisms. He says:
But what did Archaeopteryx come from? Given the similarities to therapod [sic] dinosaurs, it is usually claimed to be a nice clean relative of the therapods [sic]. The catch? These therapods [sic] are only known from one locality—the Yixian formation in China, and according to the radiometric dates, the Therapods [sic] are “at least 20 Myr younger than Archaopteryx” [sic]. To give an analogy, that’s sort of like saying that the first apes came from modern humans (which appeared out of no where 25 million years ago and then disappeared).
This passage is confused on a number of different counts. Firstly, that bird-like theropods are limited to a single locality, the Yixian, is just flat-out wrong. Dromaeosaurids are known from North America (e.g. Bambiraptor, from the Two Medicine Formation of Montana, Dromaeosaurs and Saurornitholestes from the Judith River Formation of Alberta Canada, Deinonychus from the Cloverly Formation of Wyoming), Europe (teeth, mostly undescribed, from the UK and Portugal), Mongolia (Velociraptor from the Djadoctha Formation, Adasaurus from Nemegtskaya Svita), and Africa (undescribed teeth). Oviraptorosaurs are known from North America, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Therizinosaurs have been found in Mongolia and the United States. Alvarezsaurids are known from Mongolia and the US. This is by no means an exhaustive list.
That there exists some intractable temporal paradox involved with the theropod hypothesis of avian ancestry is also far from accurate. The earliest unquestionable coelurosaur is represented by an incomplete braincase from the Early Jurassic La Boca Formation of Mexico which displays a distinct caudal tympanic recess, strongly suggesting its status as a coelurosaurian theropod (Clark et al. 1994, Munter 1999, Clark et al. 2002). Witmer (2002) and Clark et al. (2002) suggested that “Protoavis texensis” Chatterjee’s dubious Triassic “bird” (which is discussed elsewhere) might in fact represent a coelurosaur. An alleged ornithomimid, also recovered from the Dockum Formation, Shuvosaurus inexpectatus, if valid would push the origin of at least one major coelurosaur clade to the Late Triassic. An isolated troodontid tooth has been recovered from the Morrison Formation of Upper Jurassic age (Chure 1994, Clark et al. 2002) and teeth referable to Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae are reported from two separate medial Jurassic sites in Great Britain, among other places (Evans & Milner 1994, Metcalf & Walker 1994, Clark et al. 2002). A dentary recovered from the Early Jurassic Lower Lufeng Formation of China displays multiple characters diagnostic of Therizinosauridae (Xu et al. 2001).
In order to successfully argue that these fossils do not indicate a Jurassic or even terminal Triassic adaptive radiation of Coelurosauria, as some have suggested, the characters present in the indicated material must either be shown to be misinterpreted, or greater similarity must be demonstrated to more primitive groupings. To date this has not been done.
It is interesting to document the stratigraphic position of more complete finds as well. Way back in 1994, Feduccia and others subscribing to his heterodox views of avian evolution were telling us that Archaeopteryx’s closest non-avian relations “lived 80 to 100 million years later” (Feduccia 1994, p.g. 32). In 1996 (p.g. vii), it had become “75 million or more years,” and in 1999 (p.g. 4740), “30 to 80 million years after the appearance of the earliest known bird.” The same year this last statement was published, the primitive dromaeosaurid Sinornithosaurus, dated at 125 MYA, pushed back the “gap” in more complete material to 20 million years (Xu et al. 1999), and just recently, another basal dromaeosaurid from the lowest section of the Yixian formation, Graciliraptor, has made it 17 MY (Xu & Wang 2004). The troodontid Sinovenator, a basal member of the group most commonly hypothesized to be the sister to Dromoaeosauridae, is known of the same age (Xu et al. 2002), which was as least tentatively admitted to by Feduccia (2002). Whittled down to next to nothing, how long do Mr. Luskin and the individuals he cites plan on continuing with this sham argument?
Next, Luskin decides to mix it up and have a try at Longisquama:
“To throw a final bone into the problems with reptile-bird evolution, an ancient reptile called Longisquama, found in Krygyztan, Russia in the 1970’s, has recently been re-analyzed and posed as a challenge to the traditional dinosaur-to-bird theories of evolution25. The fossil basically looks like a lizard with feathers, and like Protoavis, was found in strata of about the same geological period as the first dinosaurs. It is interesting because it had feathers which are extremely similar to birds in many fashions…”
Despite Mr. Luskin’s uncritical recitation of the conclusions of Jones et al. (2000), there is little suggesting Longisquama’s dorsal appendages have anything to do with feathers.
According to Senter (2003), the structures are divided into three membranous “lobes”, of which the posterior narrows and disappears as one moves distally. The periodic ridges that Jones et al. interpret as featherlike barbs fused to a rachis are instead pleats on the two larger lobes (Reisz & Sues 2000, Prum 2001, Unwin & Benton 2001, Senter 2003). Proximally, troughs between these ridges on the middle lobe are interpreted as the “air spaces” on the interior of the “rachis” by Jones et al. (2000). Additionally, Prum (2001) observes that “many portions of the membranous “vanes” of the Longisquama appendages lack any such structures,” which is in sharp contrast to the condition in feathers, whereby the vein is composed entirely of barbs. Furthermore, while a “pennaceous feather vane is created by interlocking barbules…the Longisquama “pinnae” lack them.” Perhaps most damaging, the “rachis” is not a continuous element proximodistally (Senter 2003).
Although Jones et al. (2001) and Feduccia (2002) derided Prum’s examination of the fossil material as perfunctory, his observations are consistent with nearly two decades of comments by Feduccia himself. In 1985 (p. 76) he wrote that:
“Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found in such forms as Longisquama…as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. In 1982 I examined the specimen of Longisquama in Moscow and could see no indication that the elongated scales were particularly feather-like. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated scales, and are not incipient feathers.”
Although they were to become “featherlike scales” in 1999, he still maintained that “the scales of Longisquama were not transmuted into feathers.” (p.g. 133) To quote Prum (2003: p. 557), “somehow he made a complete and rapid conversion from thinking that Longisquama was “a bizarre and unique solution to the problem of gliding” (Feduccia 1999b: 95) to thinking that Longisquama is the closest known relative of birds (Jones et al. 2000).”
Why did the “featherlike nature” of these structures, “observable facts” (Jones et al. 2001) apparently previously invisible to Feduccia, Sharov (Longisquama’s original describer; Regal 1975), and a host of others, come to light when they did? If forced to speculate, we’d guess it had something to do with the authors, all of whom are outspoken critics of the theropod hypothesis, trying to mount some sort of counteroffensive after the discovery of a host of unambiguously feathered non-avian dinosaurs prior to the paper’s publication. This sort of flim-flam is nothing new, of course.
Back in 1998, Martin et al. argued that the avian hypocleideum was a separate ossification that they identified with an interclavicle. Because interclavicles are unknown in dinosaurs, the wishbones of both groups must be non-homologous. The very same year, Feduccia & Martin (1998), in response to a 1997 paper by Norell et al. in Nature, suggested that the Velociraptor furcula could not be homologous with the avian furcula because now, it was composed of an interclavicle! Now, because Martin has contradicted decades of his own pronouncements and adopted what he calls the “Paulian” (after paleontologist and dino-artist Greg Paul) view of Manirapotra, whereby these dinosaurs are actually flightless birds (pers. comm.), he would now apparently believe they are the same structures. In each case, contradictory statements are interpreted as conclusion proof of pseudo-homology. The first time because dinosaurs don’t have interclavicles, the second because they do, the third because, ostensibly belonging to birds, these wishbones in no way supply evidence for the theropod origin of birds. When the going gets tough, the “thecodont origins” camp seem remarkably skilled at reinterpreting the evidence, but always in a way that supposedly casts doubt on the consensus view.
Mr. Luskin continues by positing what he calls “two bad options”: either “Longisquama is a direct ancestor of the birds (including Archaeopteryx),” in which case “the feathers on Longisquama are ancestral to the feathers on birds,” or, “claim that birds still came from dinosaurs, but then Longisquama is in now way an ancestor of birds.” This second option is unacceptable, he says, because “the evolutionist has to wake up each morning trying to understand how feathers could evolve twice independently.”
Ignoring the preceding discussion and fact that modern systematists cannot and do not posit taxa as ancestral to others, these are not our only options. As Prum & Brush (2002) point out, if Longisquama’s appendages were indeed feathers, it is possible that they were primitive for archosaurs but lost repeatedly in divergent lineages. Like Prum & Brush (2002), we find this an unacceptable conclusion for a number of reasons, and like Luskin, agree that his first option is nearly impossible to defend. What we do not agree with is the need to invoke his second option, for the reasons described above. Hypothetically though, what would truly strain credulity is not the convergence of dinosaur feathers on Longisquama — a single, albeit complex structure — but any supposed Longisquama-bird group on dinosaurs, which at various levels of inclusiveness are united by literally hundreds of derived similarities (Padian & Chiappe 1998, Paul 2002). The number of ad hoc assumptions required to make dinosaurs and birds phony look-alikes simply boggles the mind.
Lastly, we find his suggestion that we “kill two birds with one stone,” throw out evolution altogether and adopt “the hypothesis” that birds are the result of intelligent design, totally unacceptable. We are unaware of any “intelligent design” theory of bird origins that makes testable, falsifiable predictions, or more precisely, are unaware of any scientific ID theory of birds.
References
Chure, D.J. 1994. Koparion douglassi, a new dinosaur from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Dinosaur National Monument; the oldest troodontid (Theropoda: Maniraptora). Brigham Young University Studies in Geology 40: 11-15.
Clark, J.M. et al. 1994. An Early or Middle Jurassic tetrapod assemblage from the La Boca Formation, northeastern Mexico. In: In the Shadow of Dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic Tetrapods, N. Fraser & H-D. Sues, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 295-302
Clark, J.M. et al. 2002. Cladistic approaches to the relationships of birds to other theropod dinosaurs. In: Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs, L. Chiappe & L. Witmer, Eds. University of California Press, Berkeley: 31-61.
Evans, S.E. & Milner, A.R. 1994. Middle Jurassic microvertebrate assemblages from the British Isles. In: In the Shadow of Dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic Tetrapods, N. Fraser & H-D. Sues, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 303-321.
Feduccia, A. 1985. On why the dinosaurs lacked feathers. In: The Beginnings of Birds: Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx Conference, Eichstatt, 1984, M.K. Hecht et al., Eds. Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt, Eichstatt: 75-79.
Feduccia, A. 1994. The great dinosaur debate. Living Bird 13: 29-33.
Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds, First Edition. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Feduccia, A. 1999. 1,2,3=2,3,4: Accommodating the cladogram. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96: 4740-4742.
Feduccia, A. 2002. Birds are dinosaurs: simple answer to a complex problem. The Auk 119: 1187-1201.
Feduccia, A. & Martin, L.D. 1998. Theropod-bird link reconsidered. Nature 391: 754.
Jones, T.D. et al. 2000. Nonavian feathers in a Late Triassic archosaur. Science 288: 2202-2208.
Jones, T.D. et al. 2001. Longisquama fossil and feather morphology: Response. Science 291: 1990-1902.
Martin, L.D. et al. 1998. The furcula in early birds. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 18 (suppl. 3): 60A-61A.
Metcalf, S.J. & Walker, R.J. 1994. A New Bathonian microvertebrate locality in the English Midlands. In: In the Shadow of the Dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic Tetrapods, N. Fraser & H-D. Sues, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 322-332.
Munter, R. 1999. Two new theropod dinosaurs from Huizachal Canyon, Mexico. Masters thesis, George Washington Univeristy, Washingtion, D. C.
Norell, M.A. et al. 1997. A Velociraptor wishbone. Nature 389: 447.
Padian, K. & Chiappe, L.M. 1998. The origin and evolution of birds. Biological Reviews 73: 1-42.
Paul, G.S. 2002. Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Prum, R. 2001. Longisquama fossil and feather morphology. Science 291: 1899-1900.
Prum, R. 2003. Are current critiques of the theropod origin of birds science? reply to Feduccia (2002). The Auk 120: 550-561.
Prum, R. & Brush A.H. 2002. The evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers. The Quarterly Review of Biology 77: 261-295.
Regal, P.J. 1975. The evolutionary origin of feathers. The Quarterly Review of Biology 50: 35-66.
Reisz, R.R. & Sues, H.-D. 2000. The “feathers” of Longisquama. Nature 408: 428.
Senter, P. 2003. Taxon sampling artifacts and the phylogenetic position of Aves. PhD dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Il.
Unwin, D.M. & Benton, M.J. 2001. Longisquama fossil and feather morphology. Science 291: 1900-1901.
Witmer, L.M. The debate on avian ancestry: phylogeny, function and fossils. In: Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs, L. Chiappe & L. Witmer, Eds. University of California Press, Berkeley: 3-30.
Xu, X. & Wang,X.-L. 2004. A new dromaeosaur (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Early Cretaceous Yixian Formation of western Liaoning, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 42: 111-119.
Xu, X. et al. 1999. A dromaeosaurid dinosaur with a filamentous integument from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 401: 262-266.
Xu, X. et al. 2001. A new therizinosaur from the Lower Jurassic lower Lufeng Formation of Yunnan, China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21: 477-483.
Xu, X. et al. 2002. A basal troodontid from the Early Cretaceous of China. Nature 415: 780-784.
78 Comments
Les Lane · 25 June 2004
Creationist - someone who's interested in evolution being wrong, but has distorted or absent scientific curiosity
Les Lane · 25 June 2004
Creationist - someone who's interested in evolution being wrong, but has distorted or absent scientific curiosity
Les Lane · 25 June 2004
Creationist - someone who's interested in evolution being wrong, but has distorted or absent scientific curiosity
T. Russ · 25 June 2004
Don't be silly.
A creationist is someone who thinks that the natural world we live in is the product of a creative act (whether creation ex nihilo, by a gradual process, by a divinely inspired unfolding plan, so on and so on) of a being (whether it be God of the Bible, some other God, a demiurge, beings, force, other non-supernatural entity, and so on and on) who existed before the existence of the natural world.
Really Les, Rhetoric and "strawman lumping" is wholly deleterious to real discussion.
Ian Menzies · 25 June 2004
M-M-M-M-MULTIPOST!
Andrew · 25 June 2004
There's no such thing as a "real discussion" with a creationist. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
steve · 25 June 2004
T. Russ · 25 June 2004
Andrew said: "There's no such thing as a "real discussion" with a creationist."
There was this one time, when the non-creationist JBS Haldane had a real discussion with the creationist RA Fisher.
Again, I'm only attempting to straightin out this silly (what I call "lump straw-manning") rhetoric that so many of you pandasthumb regulars use when refering to people as "creationists." The definition provided in Les Lanes muti-post is entirely worthless. Historically, philosophically, and rhetorically inadequate.
And Steven, you do not seem to be aware that many great thinkers in the history of both philosophy and science have grounded rationality (their epistemologies) enitrely in some form of a creationistic episteme. See Bacon, Descartes, Kepler, Newton, Einstein,...
Bob Maurus · 25 June 2004
T. Russ,
So, tell me/us, what would be your idea of a real, honest discussion between evolutionists and creationists? As an aside, I'm doing away with quotation marks, across the board, for convenience's sake.
Forget about Les's fun definitions and give me yours. And when you've done that, explain and defend your "lump straw-manning" claim.
Casey Luskin and I are tiptoeing through a quite civil dialogue; one of my best friends is a born-again Christian IDer. We used to debate it, but don't anymore at his insistence.
C'mon, let's be upfront here and try to find a common ground for discourse. It can only help all concerned.
Paul King · 26 June 2004
Perhaps Mr Russ would like to enlarge on his claim that Fisher was a creationist. Since Fisher, like Haldane is remembered as one of the founders of the neo-Darwinian "New Synthesis" it seems unlikely that he remained a creationist even if he was when at the time of the discussion referenced above.
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 June 2004
There are so many bird like theropods and or theropod like bird fossils now known that there is no use debating whether birds descended from theropods unless you have startling new evidence. At least that's the consensus of the experts. Madagascar is another place where such fossils have been found.
Somehow this has become a discussion of what's a creationist. Can we agree to narrow this down as follows? The creationists that we are talking about are anti evolution, so people from centuries ago don't count. They do not merely believe in 'a creative act'. They insist that the origin of species was done by God (aka the Designer, Rael, ...) and was done is a way that means that evolution did not do it, as opposed to evolution being God's method. Indeed they insist that evolution simply could not account for the diversity of life, and never tire of presenting arguments to that effect. Note that the Designer might have created species from scratch or may have made vertebrates as we know them possible by, say creating the vertebrate immune system, blood clotting system etc. in an existing lineage. We are not talking about your neighbor or your uncle who just doesn't know any better, but about a few top creationists from whom the nonsense flows, and their internet avatars. There are young earth creationists (YEC) and old earth creationists (OEC) and intelligent design creationists (IDC) who profess agnosticism about whether the earth is more than a few thousand years old.
darwinfinch · 26 June 2004
Any "creationist" who actually has an honest sense of curiosity about Life and its origins can, of course, be engaged in a serious discussion. I believe that was the case when the early theories were proposed, and certainly the case when Darwin's "Origins" was published.
The problem in this, and pretty much every debate in my layman's world, is whether one's curiosity is strong enough to allow one's pre-conceptions and comfortable assumptions to be challenged.
Oh, and whether one has the basic courage to admit a degree of ignorance or idiocy.
The religious type who has made a single book's infallacy the cornerstone of their knowledge is unlikely to admit the latter quality, while having spent years crushing the former.
T. Russ · 26 June 2004
Paul, Concerning my claim on RA Fisher as a creationist (even though Pete Dunkelburg has said that it is invalid to bring up creationists from the past . . . ):
RA Fisher, statistician and co-founder of the genetical theory of natural selection, retained his Christian faith throughout his career. Fisher adopted the Darwinian perspective at an early stage in his career, but was determined throughout it to show that Darwinian selection was compatible with his modernist Anglicanism. He was one of a small number of serious Christians who welcomed Darwin's mechanism because it made evolution historically contingent and because its harshness fitted their vision of a world based on suffering. (a central belief of Christianity) Fisher was interested in Darwinism because he saw that with it, free will could then be ushered back into the natural world for human beings. He was very anxious to defend the traditional view that human beings have free will. The element of choice was important for Fisher because it allowed him to argue that we ourselves can contribute to the good of the world, and combat evil in it, by our actions. This in turn allowed us to participate in and extend the evolutionary process, by taking control of selective breeding in the human population through a eugenics program. He thus presented natural selection as the mechanism that God had chosen (designed) to use for the creation of humanity. All of this, in order to supply human beings with free will as well as a clever theodicy.
Fisher was convinced that his religion played an important role in sustaining the worldview that made his work possible. For Fisher God had instituted a much less direct method of creation based on adaptation to the local environment by natural selection. His work on the genetical theory, far from deserving its old image as a key plank in the case for a mechanistic universe, undermined determinism and was thus a plausible means by which a creator sought to encourage the development of higher forms of life with a degree of freedom of choice.
Fisher was a creationist in the actual sense of the word. Specifically he was a Christian Creationist. "Creationist" doesn't in itself carry any specification on timescale, mechanism, and so forth. All that one must think in order to be a creationist is that a creator played the role of creating the natural world. Really! that is all the title can imply. That is why we have all these other subcategories of creationists. (YEC, OEC, IDC,) As for being a YECer, OECer, IDCer, or any of the other current day creationist types, Fisher might possibly be eligible for the title of IDCer. Because it appears that he saw the laws which governed nature as intelligently designed for a purpose. (namely to bring about human free will and humanities progress.)*
Darwinfinch: When you say . . .
"Any "creationist" who actually has an honest sense of curiosity about Life and its origins can, of course, be engaged in a serious discussion."
I agree with you fully.
"I believe that was the case when the early theories were proposed, and certainly the case when Darwin's "Origins" was published"
And if this was the case in the past, then it certainly is theoretically possible that this is the case today. Of course, some of us have such strong biases and our minds are so thoroughly made up on the subject that if anyone did want to have an honest discussion about origins we would lump them with the craziest YECer we could find (see the blog on pandasthumb initiated by Creationist Timmy. See for a case in point Comment #4208 by Ian Menzies) and laugh at them before we seriously gave em any chance at all.
* This information is taken from "Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain (Science and Its Conceptual Foundations) by Peter J. Bowler as well as some good articles by James Moore. There is much more information on Fishers Christianity and its relationship with his science in these brilliant histories.
Adam Marczyk · 26 June 2004
In response to Mr. Luskin's comment about the theropods supposedly being younger than Archaeopteryx, their presumed descendant, it is important to point out (as he evidently does not) that the first fossil of a particular group we find usually does not represent the earliest member of that group. In short, just because theropod fossils are found from date X onward does not mean that theropods first appeared at date X. Glenn Morton discusses this concept in this talk.origins Post of the Month:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar04.html#hon2
RBH · 26 June 2004
steve · 26 June 2004
Theistic evolution fits my framework above. Someone would adopt this position because he is willing to go only so far against the evidence to keep his religious beliefs. A belief in theistic evolution is a modification of the set of christian religious beliefs to make the beliefs more compatible with the evidence. Such people have much less blind faith than some other creationists; it is a more rational position.
Glad you commented, RBH. By improperly vague usage of creationist, the guy above called Einstein a creationist. It's a sneaky way of implying something which isn't true, without really saying it.
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 June 2004
T. Russ · 26 June 2004
"Creationist" is a broad defintion.
Thats why we need YEC OEC IDC ID etc
Francis J. Beckwith · 27 June 2004
Pim van Meurs · 27 June 2004
Bob Maurus · 27 June 2004
Strictly speaking, theistic evolution involves Creation, but as the term CreationISM is generally used, I would be inclined to place theistic evolution in a "neutral ground" place between evolution on the one side and YEC,OEC,ID and the other CreationISMs on the other.
We can probably never know whether or not a supernatural God exists, short of Him parting the clouds, peering imperiously down, flinging a few thunderbolts around, pointing a mighty finger and saying, "Listen up y'all - I'm only going to say this once!"
Short of that, Big Bang and Divine Creation are equally possible, and equally impossible.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 June 2004
Discussion of "creationism":
http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/essays/ea.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Pete Dunkelberg · 27 June 2004
Ed Brayton · 27 June 2004
RBH · 27 June 2004
Russell · 27 June 2004
Pete Dunkelberg · 27 June 2004
Beckwith and the Fellows say God gave E. coli its flagellum (the better to make us sick, they might add). That's creationism. A combined scientific & religious statement, and dumb both ways. It is not fundamentalism and not evangelicalism, before anyone starts abusing those groups. The ID crusade's biggest argument is with the churches. And if they can use public schools to convert the next generation, they win.
FL · 27 June 2004
T. Russ · 27 June 2004
Well, I think that I should provide some more info on why I would speculate on whether RA Fisher might be considered an ID theorist. But before that, let me just say that the only reason I brought up Fisher was to illustrate how broad the term "creationist" is. For he certainly was a creationist. I speculated on whether he could be considered an IDer because it seems to me that ID is also a rather broad category. If Fisher believed that the natural world was designed and worked out in the mind of the creator so as to progress by evolution by random variation and natural selection, then it seems to me that this might be "intelligent design" of some kind. I understand this is nothing like what the modern ID guys argue for but nonetheless, intelligent design is invoked. Admittedly, Fisher is hard to place. His religious ideas are very complex and he only began writing about them toward the end of his life.
To add another interesting historical character in our considering theistic evolution, (because that is apparently what this blog has become about) what was Asa Gray? (Harvard Botanist, early american supporter of Darwinism, debated Agassiz...) The quick answer is that he was a theistic evolutionist. However, he thought that God reached in an instigated beneficial variations. (God-guided evolution as opposed to natural selection guided.) This to me seems like gradualism by constant creationism. And thus a form of both creationism and intellligent design. Where do we classify a thinker like this. It my experience, it seems that this sort of divinely guided (as opposed to divinely instigated) theistic evolution is actually the prevalent belief of most americans. (at least this is what the theistic evolutionists I know believe)
But I digress...
Basically, it seems to me that at ID's theoretical foundation all that is claimed is that there are many things in the natural world which result from the agent causation of some intelligent being. On top of this, modern ID has added that that activity or design is detectible. I'm not quite sure yet whether Dembski's explanatory filter is wholly viable as a design detector, but I do know one thing about it, It certainly seems worthy of honest discussion. However, honest discussions can't get off the ground because of all the religious motivation in this debate. And I mean on both sides.
Dr. Beckwith I look forward to getting a hold of your book. I read your article in the Notre Dame Journal and thought it was quite reasonable and clearly argued. Actually, I think your dead on. (But, I have no religiously motivated reason to argue with you.)
steve · 27 June 2004
God creates via evolution. God gave e. coli the flagellum. The Easter Bunny puts a Pizza Hut on the dark side of the moon when you aren't looking. Equally stupid ideas, equally unscientific. 100 books by philosophers, or by anonymous shepherds, will not change that; it will just waste our time and their potential.
Creationist Timmy · 27 June 2004
T. Russ · 27 June 2004
If you are capable of learning anything, I can explain for you why Einstein and the conceptual developments that went into his scientific thinking might just fit the design paradigm. (he cannot be called a part of the modern ID movement, i admit, but his science certainly had a bit of ID in it) But steve and creationist timmy don't seem interested in any kind of rational discourse. The friend who recommended me to pandasthumb didn't tell me how silly people were here.
Steve, your a genious! God creates via evolution. (as i have said, RA Fisher held something like this) God gave e. coli the flagellum. (I think that the claim is that an intelligent designer designed the flagella) The Easter Bunny puts a Pizza Hut on the dark side of the moon when you aren't looking. (only person i've ever heard say this is some straw-manner named steve on pandasthumb)
Sorry for being a little harsh in these past few emails.
Russell · 27 June 2004
steve · 27 June 2004
Good story about issues around brain enhancement.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0617/p14s01-stct.html
Great White Wonder · 28 June 2004
Creationist Timmy · 28 June 2004
It shouldn't take any convincing, GWW. Do you believe that something as complex as a human could just randomly assemble itself from atoms?
when you 'scientists' have proof that humans can spontaneously assemble from atoms, in the lab, and it's documented irrefutably, then your 'evolution' will be proven. But I think we know, that won't happen.
Casey is probably just tiptoeing because he knows scientists are very committed to their Darwinist religion, and he wants to break it to them gently.
Bob Maurus · 28 June 2004
GWW,
The short answer is, hardly. In my last email I indicated that the exchange with Charlie Wagner had given me the opportunity to sort through the evidence and realize that the Design Inference proves that living organisms with CSI were probably created by human beings.
The long answer revolves around an interest in civil conversation, which is difficult in a public forum when the gulf between viewpoints is as wide as it is here.
I expect we'll pick up again now that the conference is over. I'll let him know he'd better revisit the issue of the fossil record of bird evolution, based on information posted in that thread here.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 28 June 2004
Francis J. Beckwith · 28 June 2004
Francis J. Beckwith · 28 June 2004
Russell · 28 June 2004
Ed Brayton · 28 June 2004
Dave S · 28 June 2004
Steve Reuland · 28 June 2004
I've had an email discussion with Frank in the past about the overly broad way in which he chooses to define "evolution ", and the problems it creates for the conclusions he tries to draw.
What it comes down to IMO is that Frank chose his sources carefully rather than doing a survey, which allowed him to draw out the definition he wanted (though it's still a hell of a reach) rather than the one that's most representative of how scientists and educators use the term. As someone who is both a scientist-in-training and a relatively recent graduate of public schools, I find Frank's definition totally unwarranted. When we say "evolution", we only mean change in biological species and their components over time. Most of my colleagues (and former teachers) would laugh if you tried to shoe-horn the Big Bang or the origin of the planet into that definition. So for both Establishment Clause purposes as well as general discussion, the correct definition is the more restrictive one.
Frank responded (I'm going by memory here, so forgive me if I miss something) that the definition he chose was based upon the ID movement's numerous modes of argumentation. Aside from the fact that these arguments are mostly unrelated to one another (many are in fact mutually exclusive), it's hardly sensible to define "evolution" simply as the antithesis of what the ID movement promotes. If they started promoting being nice to puppies, then "evolution" would suddenly have to include the belief that puppies should be kicked.
Furthermore, Frank stated that he is most interested in anthropic type stuff about the design of the universe -- in other words, his choice of definition was informed in part by his personal preference. That's all well and good for discussion over a few beers, but I don't think that cuts it for serious philosophical or legal discourse. The definition used needs to be as universal as possible and determined through objective critieria, not based upon what some stakeholder in the outcome prefers.
Steve Reuland · 28 June 2004
T. Russ · 28 June 2004
Wes, I've checked out the papers you recommended me. However, I haven't yet given them the time they deserve. But I will shortly.
I have read Ratzch's book and believe that he provides a compelling argument. (I'm waiting to here Dembski's reply, if anyone has seen one please hook me up with a link) I'm sure that some time soon we will be able to discuss Dembski once more.
Thanks
T. Russ · 28 June 2004
Wes, I've checked out the papers you recommended me. However, I haven't yet given them the time they deserve. But I will shortly.
I have read Ratzch's book and believe that he provides a compelling argument. (I'm still waiting to here Dembski's reply. If anyone has seen one please hook me up with a link) I'm sure that some time soon we will be able to discuss Dembski once more.
Thanks
steve · 28 June 2004
Navy Davy, and others on this site, my friend Jeff in SC, and people I've seen on tv, make me wonder why lawyers seem uniquely drawn to discredited creationist ideas.
Are they drawn to other fringe science claims? Or just this one because they're way more religious than scientists? Or are other people equally drawn?
steve · 28 June 2004
That probably belongs more on The Bathroom Wall. Like most of the posts in this thread, it's pretty off-topic.
RBH · 28 June 2004
Steve · 28 June 2004
I hereby copy my post above to the Bathroom Wall.
Francis Beckwith · 28 June 2004
I don't have the Strickberger book in front of me either. The copy I used for my book (which is a revised version of my MJS dissertation at Washington University, St. Louis) was a library copy I checked out at Wash. U. As I recall, Strickberger begins the book--which is an undergrad biology text--with an overview of the nature of science and the beginning of the universe and from there to the origin of galaxies, stars, planets, and life. I wish I had the book in front of me. I will see if we have it in our library at Baylor.
As far as my broad definition of "evolution," I think it is justified for a variety of reasons, most important of which is that biological evolution is a late arrival in the unfolding of a universe that began billions of years ago. This beginning and its unfolding is frequently referred to as "evolution." For example, see NASA's site here. See also here, here, and here. In fact, the National Center for Science Education (NSCE) recommends to its visitors a work that refers to the evolution of the universe. You can find it here. But, more importantly, on a page called Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools, the NCSE publishes statements by scholarly organizations that refer to the evolution of the universe and not merely to biological evolution. These statements are consistent with what I say in my book. You can find them here, here, here, and here .
I can understand why someone would disagree with the definition of evolution I offer in my book. But given the above, it is clearly not a "personal preference" or something idosyncratic to my work.
Francis Beckwith · 28 June 2004
A response to Ed Brayton. You're absolutely right in saying there is no single "theory" of evolution that envelops cosmology, chemistry, biology, et. al. I do not claim that there is. This is why I employ the term "evolutionary paradigm" rather than "theory of evolution" in my work. The phrase "theory of evolution" appears in my book, but only in quotes or in conjunction with claims by others.
T. Russ · 28 June 2004
Dr. Beckwith,
Concerning whether the broad definition of "evolution" that you employ is in fact reflective of many others; (including the staunchest of anti-IDists) the links you posted are quite convincing. A case in point. I also agree with your designation "evolutionary paradigm." I will be using it in future work. Thanks
Ian Musgrave · 28 June 2004
Francis Beckwith · 29 June 2004
Ian Musgrave · 29 June 2004
Ed Brayton · 29 June 2004
T. Russ · 29 June 2004
Ed, to my knowledge ID never mentions angels as an explanans for anything. Intelligence is the explanans. That sort of comment comes real close to a Straw-man.
Dr. Beckwith,
Perhaps the "Evolutionary Paradigm" could be called the "Evolutionary Episteme?" M. Foucault's word is a little more rigid and can't be dismissed by siting how many different ways he used it.
Russell · 29 June 2004
After much sophistry and lawyerly redefinition of terms, it seems to me it comes down to this: Beckwith and his fellow Fellows say God is properly part in the domain of science (and vice versa). Dembski, (in those odd moments when he's being honest about it) is more straightforward: "...any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."
A lot of us contend that - interesting though it may be to know what Aristotle, Augustine, or Newton might have thought about gods and creation- that's really not what science is now, and to teach otherwise is to teach poorly. History of science, sure; biology and physics, no.
Further, a lot of us (in the U.S.A) contend that if the constitutional prohibition of state-religion entanglement can be bent to accommodate the preferences of Beckwith's fellow Fellows in this regard, it's meaningless.
Just thought a little summing up might be helpful for thus of us easily distracted.
Francis J. Beckwith · 29 June 2004
It seems to me that Ed is making the case that Phil Johnson makes in his works: naturalistic evolution (as a comprehensive worldview) must be the case because (1) the universe is here; (2) science is methodologically naturalistic; and (3) any claim that conflicts with "science" is de facto wrong or at best "religious" (which is just a nice way to say wrong).
But this is too easy. I think what you want to say is that all the non-naturalistic accounts of phenomena fail because they lack explanatory power, not because they are "not science." For you don't want to make your position look like it wins based on mere stipulation of a few unquestioned axioms. For one can imagine a non-naturalistic account that does have better explanatory power than a naturalist account--e.g., non-material moral properties better account for human virtue than sociobiology, or the universe's beginning is more likely than not the result of a powerful agent given evidence X, Y, and Z, and so on. I don't think you want to say that the naturalistic account is real science but nevertheless not the best account of the phenomenon.
Now, I can see the downside of conceding this ground from your perspective. Frankly, I don't think it should matter, for it should be about whether one's arguments work and not whether one's conclusions pass some metaphysical litmus test.
Ed Brayton · 29 June 2004
Wesley R. Elsberry · 29 June 2004
Malcom Mooney · 29 June 2004
T. Russ · 29 June 2004
Wes, my comment concerning Dembski's filter deserving honest discussion was in reference to the earlier posts in this blog in which people were speculating about, or claiming that non-evolutionists could not have honest discussions with evolutionists. I was only saying that although many people here disagree with Dembskis work, it is still worthy of honest discussion (which you yourself have participated in) and not dismissal by way of rhetoric or straw-man. (eg. pulling out some statement Dembski's made concerning his faith and then argueing from that that the filter is therefore ridiculous, whatever)
But, Sorry for the confusion. Your papers don't look dishonest to me.
T. Russ · 29 June 2004
Wes, my comment concerning Dembski's filter deserving honest discussion was in reference to the earlier posts in this blog in which people were speculating about, or claiming that non-evolutionists could not have honest discussions with evolutionists. I was only saying that although many people here disagree with Dembskis work, it is still worthy of honest discussion (which you yourself have participated in) and not dismissal by way of rhetoric or straw-man. (eg. pulling out some statement that Dembski's made concerning his faith, then arguing from there that the filter is therefore ridiculous)
But, Sorry for the confusion. Your papers don't look dishonest to me.
Ed Brayton · 29 June 2004
T. Russ · 29 June 2004
Wes, my comment concerning Dembski's filter deserving honest discussion was in reference to the earlier posts in this blog in which people were speculating about, or claiming that non-evolutionists could not have honest discussions with evolutionists. I was only saying that although many people here disagree with Dembskis work, it is still worthy of honest discussion (which you yourself have participated in) and not dismissal by way of rhetoric or straw-man. (eg. pulling out some statement that Dembski's made concerning his faith, then arguing from there that the filter is therefore ridiculous)
But, Sorry for the confusion. Your papers don't look dishonest to me.
Russell · 29 June 2004
Jim Harrison · 29 June 2004
Though it is seldom noticed, there is something peculiar about complaining about evolution as a grand materialist story. Modern versions of evolution reject the grand story of evolution, at least if that narrative implies that there is a mechanism that produces complicated life forms with some regularity. Complicated life forms have arisen, obviously, but only as an exceedingly rare side effect of processes that normally don't produce anything. Nature is not in the business of creating interesting animals. All we've learned is that it's laws don't absolutely rule 'em out and that the emergence of the super scarce exceptions can be understood without signing up with the Seventh Day Adventists.
Ian Musgrave · 30 June 2004
Ian Musgrave · 30 June 2004
Marty Perellis · 30 June 2004
T. Russ · 30 June 2004
Ian, when you say,
"Intelligence cannot be the explans. If it were, then there would be no harping by Paleyists on the supposed "naturalistic" or "materialistic" bias of science, because intelligence is firmly within the grasp of the methodologies of science."
You both concede to one of intelligent design theories most important theoretical claims and reveal that you really aren't all that aware of the basic argument for ID.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 30 June 2004
T. Russ.:
Before ID can have a "theoretical claim", it has to have a theory. So far, ID doesn't have a theory. ID advocates make plenty of assertions and put forward lots of conjectures, but so far, no theory. Someone could prove me wrong by giving a specific reference to a clear statement of such a theory that's in the peer-reviewed literature.
Ian has read Wilkins and Elsberry 2001 and therefore already knows that what we know about ordinary design doesn't underwrite the inference to rarefied design that ID advocates want people to make. I think that Ian is quite aware of the ID arguments; he just knows their failings already.
Which reminds me: it's just a few days until "Why Intelligent Design Fails" hits the bookstores. Be on the lookout for it.
steve · 1 July 2004
Pete Dunkelberg · 3 July 2004
Pete Dunkelberg · 3 July 2004