New news from Dover

"Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins," hasn't been updated since 1993, and other publications have moved to the forefront of the intelligent-design movement.

"If they would have contacted me, I would not have encouraged the people in Dover to use it because of other tools that are more up-to-date," he said. "The idea of intelligent design and the evidence that supports it has gotten extraordinarily more strong than when it was originally printed."

From the article
" In the chapter on "Biochemical Similarities," the book points out that biochemical analysis of the bullfrog and the horse show that they are the same distance on the evolutionary ladder from the carp.
The book says this shows a flaw in Darwinism because the bullfrog should be more closely related to the fish.
But Miller said that's an inaccurate interpretation of Darwinism.
"Are these guys intentionally distorting this to mislead readers?" he said. "Or do they just not get it?""

Good question. That's really bizarre.
This sort of stuff really bugs me. There's a religious radio station here that has a "Creation Moment" providing outdated, wildly inaccurate attacks on evolution. Same kind of nonsense. For me, it represents either ignorance or a complete lack of respect for both truth and their audience. Bad policy, too - what happens if someone who believed you finds out what kind of shoddy arguments you've used? And what does it say when you have to buttress your belief with bs? Although I think ignorance (unwilling or willing) is usually the more accurate explanation. I almost respect the AiG page (is that who has it) listing arguments NOT to use - except it really is just arguments not to use - strategic moves. Geez.

Michael Behe was also quoted.  The fact that Behe wrote part of the 1993 Pandas --- several years before Darwin's Black Box was published --- may be news to some people:

— Nic

In the chapter on "Biochemical Similarities," the book points out that biochemical analysis of the bullfrog and the horse show that they are the same distance on the evolutionary ladder from the carp. The book says this shows a flaw in Darwinism because the bullfrog should be more closely related to the fish. But Miller said that's an inaccurate interpretation of Darwinism.

— Dan S.

The York Daily Record really is doing a fine job. If anyone wants to read the judge's order in this, I have it here. I'll warn that it's mostly dense legalese. I'm struck by the thoroughness of the judge - he was probably a bit more thorough than necessary in dismissing both motions. Which is a good thing, because the law is on the plaintiffs' side not only as to the above motions, but the merits of the case.

I'll guess that the parents who attempted to intervene will appeal this court's decision, because the point of the attempted intervention, in my opinion, was to weigh down the ACLU with both cost and time. Remember that the DI was not thrilled with the timing of this case - ideally, it would arrive at a 'friendlier' Supreme Court than the present one. Federal cases move through the system much more deliberately too than in state court (read: slower) - so delay could be part of the overall strategy here. Even under optimal conditions, any contentious federal case would take at the bare minimum one year to reach the Supremes.

I don't know what the defendants will do as to the motion to dismiss (wrt an appeal), but I don't think they even thought that it had a chance of succeeding.

What am I missing here? First of all . . . .there is no ladder, and since the bullfrog and horse would share a common ancestor, and that ancient common ancestor would then have a common ancestor with the carp . . . .would not the horse and bullfrog be expected to be equa-distant from the carp according to Common Descent? Help me out here . . .

— Ken Shackleton

Re "there is no ladder, and since the bullfrog and horse would share a common ancestor, and that ancient common ancestor would then have a common ancestor with the carp....would not the horse and bullfrog be expected to be equa-distant from the carp according to Common Descent?"

That agrees with my take as well. The argument was simply fishy. (Pun fully intended.)

Henry

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought DBB was published in 1996. That would make 1993 edition of Pandas three years before DBB.

Has anyone commented on these yet:

http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apologia_7/
http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apologia_7_followups/

It really sounds like they are assuming evolution says:

mammal
^
reptile
^
frog
^
fish
^
worm (or something)
^
blobby thing

and therefore froggies should be closer to fishies then horsies.

If we just wait long enough, creationists will start attacking *modern* evolutionary theory. That is, if we don't die of old age first . . .

You know, if they win, it's like we got attacked by tiny helpless babies and lost. Of course,that would be tiny helpless babies with a very good grasp of pr and instant support because lots of people *want* to believe in tiny helpless babies . . . plus they can cry really loud.

"Has anyone commented on these yet:

http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apolog . . .
http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apolog . . . "

Oy vey. So far, same old same old. Just read one that said - evolution says might makes right!Nazis!reproduction instead of marriage!!God is good!!I don't understand either evolutionary theory or the idea that it's a scientific theory, not a moral primer (let alone the concept that because I don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong!!!!!)

Sigh.

Bad policy, too - what happens if someone who believed you finds out what kind of shoddy arguments you've used?

— Dan S.

Has anyone commented on these yet: http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apolog . . . http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apolog . . .

Wait a minute, something funny happened, if you click on the link within the quote from my comment, it takes you somewhere different than clicking on the same link on cutornix's comment. Sorry, I don't know what happened, but please click on the first link in cutornix's original comment to get to the page.

Wait a minute, something funny happened, if you click on the link within the quote from my comment, it takes you somewhere different than clicking on the same link on cutornix's comment. Sorry, I don't know what happened.

http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apologia_7/
should be right

Does anyone know a good grade school level book that explains the basics of evolution? Great schools where I live but they do side step evolution so I teach it to my kids myself. renae

That's what I said, I think . . .

— Nic

While you're learning about education in the York area you should also check out entertainment -

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/Stories/0,1413,138~10023~2753171,00.html

And what does it say when you have to buttress your belief with bs?

— Dan S

Note that one of the newly-appointed Dover school bored members is one of those parents who tried to enter the lawsuit on the side of the school board. I forget if he is one that used to home-school his kids.

Although the article mentioned Buckingham's "stand up for Jesus" quote, it did not mention his convenient amnesia regarding that quote when he gave deposition. The article did mention him saying he wanted to balance the normal (mentioning evolution) text with a creationist text.

DaveScot, do you allege there is some problem with the peppered moth as an example of natural selection in action, in real time, in our time?

That's the problem with with creationists, a problem I had hoped you wouldn't fall for. Simply calling something a problem doesn't make it a problem. Calling something a hoax doesn't make it a hoax.

There is no scientist working with moths, or especially with peppered moths, who disagrees that peppered moths are a fine example of natural selection in action. There are those who wonder about exactly what the selecting agent is (Kettlewell did his field experiments where titmice were the chief predators, but apparently the moth is not the principal prey of any titmouse).

Interstingly, there is also not a single scientist working on that problem who is not misquoted by Jonathan Wells. Judith Hooper wrote in Of Moths and Men that some creationist, bent on distorting the truth, would no doubt claim her book questions evolution, though it does not in any way (see pages 308 through 312). True to form, within weeks, Jonathan Wells had edited his diatribe against Kettlewell to cite Hooper as a scientist who claims the moths don't show natural selection.

So is that your claim, that Kettlewell was wrong? By all deities, such repeated excremental argument is maddening.

Interstingly, there is also not a single scientist working on that problem who is not misquoted by Jonathan Wells. Judith Hooper wrote in Of Moths and Men that some creationist, bent on distorting the truth, would no doubt claim her book questions evolution, though it does not in any way (see pages 308 through 312). True to form, within weeks, Jonathan Wells had edited his diatribe against Kettlewell to cite Hooper as a scientist who claims the moths don't show natural selection.

Summary of moth situation (From Nature)-

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/biston.html

This question is somewhat off topic, and I apologize for that. The relevant topic could appear tomorrow or never, so better (for me) to briefly hijack a thread in the same neighborhood.

As far as I can tell, the evidence (i.e., confirmed predictions) for common descent all concern one type of structural similarity or other, e.g., similarity in cell structure, organ structure, body structure, etc.

Suppose a creationist were to claim that structural similarities are logically implied (predicted) by creation, i.e., the products of a single hand (so to speak) are expected to be similar to each other.

A reasonable reply would be that any biological fact, similarity or no, could follow from creation (i.e., the creator "works in mysterious ways"), and therefore, structural similarity is not an implication of creation any more than dissimilarity. I grant that this argument would have to be countered, and I'm not sure it can.

Nevertheless, assuming that similarity is a prediction of creationism, are there any predictions that follow from common descent that do not also follow from creationism?

B B B A A A A A A B B B A A A A A A B B B A A A A A A B B B A A A A A A B B B A A A A A A B B B

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A A A B B A A A A A B B B A A A A B B B B A A A B B B B B A A B B B B B B A B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B

A A A A B B D H A A A A B B D I A A A A B B E J A A A A B B E K A A A A C C F L A A A A C C F M A A A A C C G N A A A A C C G O

Nevertheless, assuming that similarity is a prediction of creationism, are there any predictions that follow from common descent that do not also follow from creationism?

— Michael Finley

To Michael Finley and Bayesian Bouffant:

You both have fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the anti-evolution book. That is, inferring two different meanings from an anti-evolutionist weasel word ("creation," aka "special creation," "common design" etc.). A fence-sitter might interpret your disagreement as another weakness of "Darwinism."

Fact is that, designer or not, the alternative to common descent (CD) of any two species is independent abiogenesis (IA) of them. Until anti-evolutionists clear up what they mean, and propose even a sketchy mechanism for it (I'd love to see their proposed mechanism for abiogenesis of a multicellualar eukaryote), there is nothing that can falsify it. As it stands, we cannot even rule out that they still mean common descent but won't dare call it that. Note that they rarely challenge CD directly, but rather "macroevolution." It's all a scam to play on common public misconceptions and confusion of terms (they have a field day with "theory").

Granted, most of what follows from CD, given the theory we have , would not necessarily follow from IA - or even from saltation, which would still be CD. But the onus is on anti-evolutionists to come up with something positive rather than the same stale old arguments from incredulity.

The hope was we would get a nice smooth transition going from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal as somewhat illustrated (however imperfectly) by the toy polymers above.

— Salvador

Nevertheless, assuming that similarity is a prediction of creationism, are there any predictions that follow from common descent that do not also follow from creationism?

— Michale Finely

Salvador writes:
"The discussion of the bio-chemical transitional comes out of Michael Denton's chapter "Biochemical Echo of Typology"."

All of my colleagues with whom I've discussed this believe Denton totally missed the boat on that issue. I can't imagine why people are still parading that corpse of an argument around.

"Douglas Theobald and Edward Max touts such "evidence" as proof of Darwinism, when actually such an architecture is suggestive of common design."

It's not an either/or argument. Common descent *is* a particular case of common design (specifically, common descent is modification of "designs" over time). What's the beef with that?

Comment #20010 Posted by renae on March 14, 2005 09:21 AM Does anyone know a good grade school level book that explains the basics of evolution? Great schools where I live but they do side step evolution so I teach it to my kids myself. renae

A strong piece of evidence for common design is that the nested hierarchies of similarity are found even when looking at neutral markers (DNA sites that do not affect the phenotype of an organism). In the absence of common descent, there would be no reason for these neutral markers to not be completely random.

Frank J, you make a very good point about the mushiness of the language of ID/Creationism, but we need to understand that this is deliberate on their part. If someone like Behe or Dembski were to formulate an "Intelligent Design View of the History of Life on Earth" with any kind of specifics, they'd be sunk. If it suggested that the world were any older than 6000 years, or incorporated any type of common descent, the YECists who make up the grassroots of the ID political movement (and without whom nobody would be talking about ID) would toss them overboard in a second. On the other hand, if they didn't include these things, it would just be the same old creationism that the Supreme Court has already ruled to be unconstitutional. For this movement, not including any specifics is a tactic, not a weakness.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't constantly point out that they haven't come up with anything positive, or press them for specifics, we just shouldn't be surprised when they don't, indeed their strategy is not to.

In that vein:

Salvador, when do you think these various cytochrome oxidase designs you propose were implemented? Were they implemented in newly created species, or were they added to already existing species? How many different cytochrome oxidase designs do you think there are?

If ID was science, someone would be trying to answer questions like these.

There is a story behind that book, and my posting it on PT (costing me my lurker status), that may amuse blog regulars, but I will put it on the Bathroom wall rather than further contaminate this threadline.
Sincerely, Paul

Oy vey.  So far, same old same old.  Just read one that said - evolution says might makes right!Nazis!reproduction instead of marriage!!God is good!!I don't understand either evolutionary theory or the idea that it's a scientific theory, not a moral primer (let alone the concept that because I don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong!!!!!)

— Dan S.

Let me put it another way. If this life I am living is all there is, then why should I care about the future of the species? Why should I care about what other people in the future think of me? Why should I care if my actions destroy the planet after I'm gone? Why should I care who I hurt as long as they can't hurt me? The theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans exist only by mere chance. If there is no reason why humans exist, there the answer to those questions is simply, "There is no reason why."

Ed "What the" Heckman wrote: It sounds like you might have read my entry. You are correct when you state that the theory of evolution isn't a moral primer. That was my point. If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a "gold standard" of morality. There is only what we can get away with.

Many Christians believe that the basic rules of morality are or should be evident to unaided human reason so it would be unjust to blame the entire religion for the irrational voluntarism of some of the Fundamentalists. Still, it makes me very nervous to think that there are lots of folks for whom murder and lying are only wrong because of the Will of God.

Theology is full of baroque notions that are vague and ambiguous when they aren't just science fiction. Morality, on the other hand, is mostly commonsensical. Basing your behavior on religion is like building the foundations of a house out of balsa wood.

Let me put it another way. If this life I am living is all there is, then why should I care about the future of the species? Why should I care about what other people in the future think of me? Why should I care if my actions destroy the planet after I'm gone? Why should I care who I hurt as long as they can't hurt me? The theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans exist only by mere chance. If there is no reason why humans exist, there the answer to those questions is simply, "There is no reason why."

You should care about the future of the species if you care about your children, and if they care about their children.

— Flint

I certainly DO care what those who know me think of me. And I try not to hurt anyone because doing so DOES hurt me, often deeply.

— Flint

Evolution only explains HOW we got here, not why.

— Flint

Hey, I'm childless and I STILL care about our children.

— Flint

The discussion of the bio-chemical transitional comes out of Michael Denton's chapter "Biochemical Echo of Typology".

Still, it makes me very nervous to think that there are lots of folks for whom murder and lying are only wrong because of the Will of God.

Frank J, you make a very good point about the mushiness of the language of ID/Creationism, but we need to understand that this is deliberate on their part.

— D. Stump

If someone like Behe or Dembski were to formulate an "Intelligent Design View of the History of Life on Earth" with any kind of specifics, they'd be sunk.

— D. Stump

If it suggested that the world were any older than 6000 years, or incorporated any type of common descent, the YECists who make up the grassroots of the ID political movement (and without whom nobody would be talking about ID) would toss them overboard in a second.

— D. Stump

Fact is that, designer or not, the alternative to common descent (CD) of any two species is independent abiogenesis (IA) of them. Until anti-evolutionists clear up what they mean, and propose even a sketchy mechanism for it (I'd love to see their proposed mechanism for abiogenesis of a multicellualar eukaryote), there is nothing that can falsify it.

— Frank J

But what logical reason is there to care about your children beyond the fact that they will probably have some power over you before you die? Or why even have children in the first place? Having and raising children demands a sacrifice. (I should know. I have three of them.) What is there in evolution which makes such a sacrifice worthwhile to the individual making that sacrifice?

— What the Heck

What logical reason in evolution prevents you from causing harm when you can get away with it?

Steve asked: Salvador, what on Earth gives you this idea?

This new era of comparative biology illustrates just how erroneous is the assumption that advances in biological knowledge are continually confirming the traditional evolutionary story. There is no avoiding the serious nature of the challenge to the whole evolutionary framework implicit in these findings. For if the ancient representatives of groups such as amphibia, lungfish, cyclostomes and reptiles manufacured proteins similar to those manufactured by their living relatives today, and, and if, therefore, the isolation of the main divisions of nature was just the same in the past as it is today, if for example ancient lungfish and ancient amphhibia were as separate from each other as their present day descendants are, then the whole concept of evolution collapses.

- Ray-finned fishes Also evolved in the Devonian - include the modern trout, bass, herring, tuna.

Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organisms probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of the ancient organisms. In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as cockroach, horseshoe crab, the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago.

The only way to save evoluton in the face of these discoveries is to make the ad hoc assumption that the degree of biochemical isolation of the major groups was far less in the past, that ancient lungfish, for example, were far closer biochemically to ancient amphibia than to their present day descendants. There is, however, absolutely no objective evidence that this assumption is correct. The only justification for such an assumption would be if evolution is true, but this is precisely the question at issue! ... Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution [mediated by the molecular clock] is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists. Here is, perhaps, the most dramatic example of the principle that wherever we find significant empirical discontinuities in nature we invariably face great, if not insurmountable, conceptual problems in envisaging how the gaps could have been bridged in terms of gradual random processes. What has been revealed as a result of the sequential comparisons of homologous proteins is an order as emphatic as that of the periodic table. Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies.

You are correct when you state that the theory of evolution isn't a moral primer. That was my point. If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a "gold standard" of morality.

— What the Heck

Let me put it another way. If this life I am living is all there is, then ...why should I care who I hurt as long as they can't hurt me?

That's a problem because fish are about as distant from plants (41%-44%) as mammals are from plants (39%-42%).Did the living fossils  magically arise with the same amount of distance from plants that mammals would have hundreds of millions of years later?

— Salvador

BTW, regarding that Zuckerland quote: It doesn't surprise me that you had to go all the way back to 1963 to find someone (besides the hapless Michael Denton) who had this impression. My suspicion is that Zuckerland was being influenced by a "pan-selectionist" point of view (although I don't think the term had been coined yet). It was generally assumed prior to sequencing and mutagenesis technology that the entire length of a protein (or gene) would be selectively active. That being the case, we would expect very little sequence divergence from organisms that hadn't changed much phenotypically. Natural selection would have greatly constrained the sequences.

However, as things turned out, a large fraction of amino acids can be changed without affecting function, and large stretches of DNA are selectively neutral. This being the case, there is lots of room for molecular divergence even in the absence of any changes in phenotype. When we're constructing phylogenies based on sequence divergence in homologous proteins, it's basically the neutral changes that we get our data from. Natural selection constrains some residues, but certainly not all. In fact, if there is positive selection within some lineages, that can mess up your phylogeny.

Morality and ethics have always been human constructs.  It doesn't require a religion to come up with the "golden rule."

— Scott Davidson

Nor does a godless existeence dosen't remove purpose.  It just means that we need to find our own way.

— Scott Davidson

Besides which, has there ever been a gold standard of morality anyway?

— Scott Davidson

*WARNING: OFF TOPIC*

"It sounds like you might have read my entry"
Please forgive me, somewhat for my tone - I was feeling pretty sick, and took out my aggravation online (since I was coughing too much to complain all that loudly in the real world. Sorry. I also wish you had used more original and accurate arguments. You know how it feels when people argue religion is stupid because the whole idea of a big old guy with a long white beard in the sky is silly? Yeah.

"If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a "gold standard" of morality. There is only what we can get away with."
While this is straying wildly off topic (*WARNING*), the view you express is one that I deeply dislike. It may be an accurate description of your beliefs, or even your situation. Objectively, it's poppycock. Balderdash. Bunkum.

" If this life I am living is all there is, then why should I care about the future of the species? Why should I care about what other people in the future think of me? Why should I care if my actions destroy the planet after I'm gone? Why should I care who I hurt as long as they can't hurt me?"

Where do I start?

1 )General confusion: I think one of the problems (for many people expressing this view, at least I dunno 'bout you) is that, imagining science to be opposed to religion, they assume it's a mirror -image opposition. Religion provides people with morality, therefore science must do the same. If it doesn't, then "There is only what we can get away with." No. No one uses science as a source of morality (at best, it provides information that can aid in some moral decisions). People who believe evolution is true have *other* sources of morality, *including* for many, belief in God. (For many people the two are entirely consistent. Silly Ed!)

2) Individual experience: I believe in evolution. Many of the people posting on this site believe in evolution! There are people all around you that believe in evolution!!! Nevertheless, I've never thought the things you imagine to logically follow from this belief. I doubt most of them have either. Nor do I act in this fashion. In fact I deeply care about all these things, and try to act accordingly, as do many other evolutionists. Your claims do not match reality.

3) History, etc.: You seem to say that belief in evolution -> disbelief in God and Meaning ->without a Higher Purpose (and afterlife w/rewards&punishment?) people will have no morals, and we will all revert to a savage and lawless 'every person for themselves and only the strong survive!' existence. Building on 2, over time and across cultures, people have had a bewildering variety of beliefs regarding these issues. Nevertheless, while conditions have varied, there's no record of this as the normal state of things anywhere. You find something like this only under the most extreme conditions. Indeed, watching History Channel last night about cannibalism, it's amazing how well people hold up sometimes . . . Regardless of the answer to that old question - are people naturally good or bad or what? - I don't know, but we mostly seem to be wired/raised to function within a moral system involving others. Complete exceptions are quite rare. Unfortunately, large scale atrocities are not unique to modern, secular times, and often involve an Us/Them distinction that religion cannot reliably overcome, and sometimes fosters. Overall, belief in more than mere chance has not been proven to be a foolproof moral safeguard.

Positive (ok, sentimental and ranty) argument: As an atheist, I don't believe in God or Higher Purposes, etc. But this *is* the only life I have! Why wouldn't I want to make the best of it? Expecting memory to vanish after death (along with consciousness) such selfish pleasures are merely fleeting; my only hope for 'survival' (of a sort) after death is in the good I've done, and in the memories of friends and loved ones. (Additionally, my understanding of the astonishing process every individual of every species is a result of, the amazing weight of contingency, the marks of ancient kinship, supports my desire to preserve the environment and value individual living things, including my fellow people. C.S. Lewis has written, awesomely, of the sheer wonder of living in a world (as he believed) where our friends, lovers, co-workers, folks we pass in the street, are all immortals with unbelieveable potential for good or evil. For me, this is a world where all life is an not-so-distant relative and co-traveler through the darkness, marvelously existing against hope or chance in the face of Entropy) Me and my ilk are not amoral monsters in a savage world, but people raised in a web of relationships, expectations and values (many of which do derive from religiously-influenced morality, of course). There are things with value in themselves (at least as experienced): sunrises and kittens and sloths and asters and friends and love and and and . . . Why on earth do you think I would think such things? Pardon me, my friend, but you have a lot of nerve!

Frankly, it has always seemed to me a rather joyless and despairing view that can't even imagine any sufficient positive value to such things as truth/beauty/goodness in and of themselves

Lot more to say, but I've swerved far enough off topic, I think. It is relevent to the e/c debate though, at least tangentially, in that many people seem to think this is an argument against evolution, at least in a certain pragmatic sense. Also, while I really should have refrained from replying, I see it as both a personal attack, however unintended, and a kind of anti-atheistism (since we are all soulless monsters, no?) Now returning this thread to its regularly scheduled broadcasting (um - is there a difference . . .?)
. .

Re "and therefore froggies should be closer to fishies then horsies."

I suppose if we were able to compare descendant DNA to the latest common ancestral DNA of each group it would be. Do they think fish stopped evolving after amphibians appeared? That would be an easy mistake to make for somebody who hadn't done much studying of the subject.

Henry

Many Christians believe that the basic rules of morality are or should be evident to unaided human reason so it would be unjust to blame the entire religion for the irrational voluntarism of some of the Fundamentalists. Still, it makes me very nervous to think that there are lots of folks for whom murder and lying are only wrong because of the Will of God.

— Jim Harrison

Morality, on the other hand, is mostly commonsensical.

— Jim Harrison

Basing your behavior on religion is like building the foundations of a house out of balsa wood.

— Jim Harrison

Ed "What the" Heckman wrote: If this is the case, how can any one human or group of humans tell any other human or group that they're doing something wrong? If there is no right and wrong, then there are no absolute ideals to govern human interactions.

There is only the exercise of power.

If there is a God --- and I am convinced there is --- then He defines that gold standard

If a "golden rule" is merely a human construct, then there is nothing to enforce it

I should have just waited a few minutes instead of spewing, realizing that a bunch of great responses would quickly appear. Oh well. And now I'm going to keep talking. Sorry.

"But what logical reason is there to care about your children beyond the fact that they will probably have some power over you before you die? "

Seriously, *have* you ever heard of kin selection? But regardless of whether or not our feelings are the result of such a process, it doesn't matter. People. care. about. their. children. Granted, not perfectly; sometimes they even do horrible things to them. A woman down in South Philly just killed her two youngest children and then herself - Heck, since you presumably have faith in such things, could you pray for them, especially the surviving older child? I have to find out if there will be some way to donate to a fund of some sort . . . But mostly they love and care for them, as best they can. What more do you need? It's not logical at all. We don't work that way. [Insert more evolutionary psych fun here.]

Was reading somewhere (Dispatches from the Culture Wars? Pharyngula?) about the claim that religious folks, left or right, really don't get entirely secular folks *at all.* This is an example, although a limited one; lots of also-religious folk think differently. I think athies/agies generally have some advantage here, either from upbringing or general culture . . . Ed, do you really think our lives are so empty? Man . . .

I'm starting to get very worried. What happens if *we* do convince Ed that evolution is true and he goes on a crazed killing spree? Um . . . Ed? We were just kidding. Honest! We just made it all up!

Crap, I included a local reference in my post! He knows where I live! I gotta hide!!! Help!!!! Help!!! Blessed Darwin, protect me!!

. . .. sorry, Ed. It's the cold medicine speaking, Either that, or there is simply no right or wrong.

"If a "golden rule" is merely a human construct, then there is nothing to enforce it. Nothing prevents any particular human from ignoring it when it gets in the way."

That's it. I'm going off to watch "Law and Order." Of course, I don't know what those cops and legal people think they're doing. Or why I might pay attention when people criticize or praise me based on my behavior. Or what my frontal lobes are for . . ..

I would write something informative and insightful about moral development theory (Kohlberg, etc), theology, and evolutionary psych, but now that you mention it, going out and randomly beating on people sounds like more fun, so, toodles!

Comment #20086 Posted by Ed "What the" Heckman on March 14, 2005 05:14 PM But what logical reason is there to care about your children beyond the fact that they will probably have some power over you before you die? Or why even have children in the first place? Having and raising children demands a sacrifice. (I should know. I have three of them.) What is there in evolution which makes such a sacrifice worthwhile to the individual making that sacrifice? Why should you care about what others think of you beyond the impact of how their views affect your life? If you can appear as a choir boy to those who can hurt you while running a slavery operation on the side, what is there in evolution to prevent you from doing so? What logical reason in evolution prevents you from causing harm when you can get away with it? If evolution is actually true, is any answer to the question of why other than "Pure Chance" even possible?

Ed, I'm relatively new and a lurker here so I'm sure this has been brought up on PT somewhere at some point, but Plato addressed this question somewhere along these lines (and perhaps someone could point out the particular dialogue): Is something good because god says it is good, or does god say it is good because it IS good in and of itself?
If the former, then that leaves us with dilemma that, since we cannot know god's ways, we cannot know if he ever changes his mind: rape is now good, murder is now good, covet thy neighbor's wife by all means. In light of the fact that the biblical god is terribly inconsistent and capricious and denies us free will to choose between good and bad, (e.g. hardening pharaoh's heart against letting the children of Israel go, then decimating ALL of Egypt precisely because they did not let his people go. See Exodus 7, 1-4) And since many such examples abound, I cannot feel comfortable in submitting to that notion. Especially since I feel that particular episode is enough to convince me that god cannot even maintain a baseline morality that most sane humans, even we atheists, would never violate.
If the latter, then that means that ALL of us are equally capable of finding the same "good" that many people feel is specifically the bailiwick of their own particular god and/or set of beliefs. And that includes those of us who hold NO god belief.
I acknowledge that the "there's no god therefore no good or bad, so let's just run around killing each other" arguement is hypothetically concievable but since there are so many factors and variables, individual and social, that steer us to the moral path that I think it is practically irrational to fear it.
Observe all the permutations of the Golden Rule that were around WEEELLL before Jesus made the scene: http://www.cyberdespot.com/home.html?thoughts/golden-rule.html&frames/left.html&frames/top.html
One of them was even formulated by that eminently moral atheist Confucius. So the bottom line is: believe what you want or need to believe, we'll still always get along fine (for the most part). And never fear evolution. If many of us don't need god to give us morals, you certainly needn't fear evolution taking them away.
Hope that helps a bit, Gary

According to evolutionary theory, sacrificing yourself for the sake of your children is exactly what you should be doing.  Some species go so far as to let their children eat them.

— Steve Reuland

Evolutionary theory is not prescriptive --- it cannot tell you what you should and shouldn't do.

— Steve Reuland

If you actually need some sort of compelling reason not to hurt others, as opposed to simply accepting it as common sense, please don't come near me.

— Steve Reuland

You are correct when you state that the theory of evolution isn't a moral primer. That was my point. If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a "gold standard" of morality.

— Ed

This simply doesn't follow.  The fact that evolution isn't a moral primer does not preculde the existence of moral primers.

— Steve Reuland

So if someone proved to you tomorrow that evolution was true, would you go on a rampage and start hurting people?  Why or why not?

— Steve Reuland

Comment #20111 Posted by Ed "What the" Heckman on March 14, 2005 06:36 PM If a "golden rule" is merely a human construct, then there is nothing to enforce it. Nothing prevents any particular human from ignoring it when it gets in the way. In other words, a godless existence means there is no single "right way," we are free to go whichever way seems right to us. If this is the case, how can any one human or group of humans tell any other human or group that they're doing something wrong? If there is no right and wrong, then there are no absolute ideals to govern human interactions. There is only the exercise of power.

As a self-aware being, we are all able to choose our actions. Why should we choose self-sacrifice, especially if we never benefit from it?

— What the Heck

Who would you rather have near you? An evolutionist who believes there is no absolute standard of right and wrong? Or a christian who believes that God has given us an absolute standard of right and wrong (based on the golden rule), who sees what we do in secret, and who we will have to answer to?

It is a basic tenant of evolution that we are nothing more than a coincidental arrangement of inert, amoral matter.

You have stated that there are moral primers. Can you point to any which apply to all persons equally?

I probably wouldn't go on a rampage, because it's likely that I would be directly opposed and even killed. On the other hand, there would no longer be any reason to behave honorably when I would not be caught. All kinds of behaviors would become acceptable, such as theft (ID theft and other computer theft seems to be particularly easy to get away with), sleeping around, lying to everyone, cheating, and, well, just about anything else I thought I could get away with.

post #20129 Ed "What the" Heckman wrote: Who would you rather have near you? An evolutionist who believes there is no absolute standard of right and wrong? Or a christian who believes that God has given us an absolute standard of right and wrong (based on the golden rule), who sees what we do in secret, and who we will have to answer to?

For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. Exodus 20:5 Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished. Isaiah 13:9, 13:15 Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women..." Ezekiel 9:5 Samar'ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. Hosea 13:16

A recurrent theme in this thread is the notion that morality has to be enforced in this world or the next in order to be valid.

I guess I'm naive. I wasn't aware that people would generally go in for violence and fraud without the threat of sanctions in this world or the next. Which is not to say that some people really do need to be herded with real or imaginary cattle prods.

Well, you religous folks know your own black hearts. Maybe irrationalist religion has a special appeal for dangerous characters.

Heckman wrote: It sounds like you might have read my entry. You are correct when you state that the theory of evolution isn't a moral primer. That was my point. If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a "gold standard" of morality. There is only what we can get away with. [...] The theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans exist only by mere chance. If there is no reason why humans exist, there the answer to those questions is simply, "There is no reason why."

Why should we choose self-sacrifice, especially if we never benefit from it?

Heckman wrote: According to the Bible, literally everything that exists does so because of the will of God. In a sense, that means that God is more real than matter itself

Heckman wrote: Who would you rather have near you? An evolutionist who believes there is no absolute standard of right and wrong? Or a christian who believes that God has given us an absolute standard of right and wrong (based on the golden rule), who sees what we do in secret, and who we will have to answer to?

Heckman wrote:

"Who would you rather have near you? An evolutionist who believes there is no absolute standard of right and wrong? Or a christian who believes that God has given us an absolute standard of right and wrong (based on the golden rule), who sees what we do in secret, and who we will have to answer to?"

It seems to me that many theists claim that right and wrong are defined by God. That is, if God says some action is right then that action is right by definition.

There are in the Bible a number of actions that I would consider immoral such as:

"Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women . . . "
Ezekiel 9:5

This and similar examples from the Bible are argued to be morally right since God, the source of all morals, says these actions are right.

So the question that comes up in my mind is: If a Christian was told by God to kill me and this Christian was 100% certain that God was the source of this instruction, should I run as fast as I can?

So the question that comes up in my mind is: If a Christian was told by God to kill me and this Christian was 100% certain that God was the source of this instruction, should I run as fast as I can?

Ed - we all agree that evolution is not a moral primer, in my clumsy wording. Could you please admit that evolutionists can have other sources of morality, that God or 'Darwin' aren't the only choices (and remember, you can believe in evolution and also in God, albeit a God with a seemingly incomprehensible fondness for beetles).

Of course, who hasn't been so in love that it's unbelievable that the whole world doesn't recognize the beauty of their beloved, in contrast to their own inferior choices? However, it's really bad form to go around telling people this.

And of course, the downside - the desperate fear: if they leave me, I will never love again, but live the rest of my life alone and miserable . . . Rarely true, in love at least - I dunno about theology. But be of good cheer . ..

Dan S,

You have a beautiful way of expressing yourself. I enjoyed your comments defending atheism.

Atheists and non-atheists are equally exposed to evil temptations and irrational behavior toward fellow human beings. It is possible to defend both evil actions and good ones with both religion and science. It is possible to rationalize almost anything.

Therefore, the argument that either the theory of evolution, or Christianity are an underlaying cause for bad behavior falls flat. There are simply too many variables in human beings, their environments, and their traits and experiences, to make such an argument.

Katarina:

In my humble opinion, it's apples and oranges here. No scientific theory is meant to determine your ethical choices, whereas most religions are meant to do precisely that.

So, saying "you can use both science and Christianity for defending both evil and good actions" is a terrible indictment of Christianity. Science is morally neutral, and never pretends otherwise; but that a religion, allegedly superior because it "keeps people moral", can be used to do just the opposite implies that this claim is completely unfounded.

That's very kind of you to say, Katarina! I'm glad you enjoyed reading it.

I have to agree - there doesn't seem to be any system of thought or belief that can't be used to rationalize evil actions. It is rather depressing . . .

Now if I agreed with Ed, I would have a serious problem on my hands. I don't know what I would do, in the end - go around trying to convince the masses that evolution was false in order to promote better morality, or insist that the truth was more important. Very Leo Straussian.

People believing in the incompatability of evolution and morality, of course, have a worse problem on their hands. That would mean evolutionists are always a potential - and serious -risk to innocent bystanders and society as a whole. Carrying this through to its logical end would suggest the need for a second Inquisition (at best) - I can see it now, people going to the authorities in order to report that the neighbor who tends his pea plants so carefully and keeps, of all things, *fruit flies* ("to keep an old man company . . .") is clearly a crypto-Darwinist . . .

Of course, this is silliness, but the overall idea does explain one reason why atheists are several steps behind Black Jewish cross-dressing lesbian unwed mothers in terms of "what group would you vote for" polls .. . . : (

Emanuele, (a lovely name)

Whether or not I say that one can use both science and Christianity for defending both good and evil, people have done just that. To bring up the most glaring example, Adolf Hitler, who did use both Protestant Christianity (Martin Luther's anti-semitism) and a general acceptance of evolution, in some twisted sense, to defend his view of Jews as sub-human. PT covered this topic in earlier posts.

My comment was about the variability of each person, and not about the nature of the concepts. Given the variability and complexity of each person, and the number of people in the world, each unique, it is nearly impossible to say that concepts of religion or science is truly, honestly what influenced a certain action. Even for a single individual, influences on actions are difficult to pinpoint, let alone for a group of individuals sharing one belief, which may be interpreted and applied in many different ways.

Katarina:

I agree with you, except for a small fact: religions (most religions, at least) insist that they (and they alone!) make people "good". Science makes no such claim.

Of course, I'm sure that not many devout Christians would accept your opinion that their actions are not influenced by their professed beliefs; but that's their problem, certainly not mine.

Thanks for the compliment, but just like my chromosomes, my name was given to me by my parents. ;-)

Emanuele,

Sorry to drag this argument out, but I did not say actions are not influenced by professed beliefs. My own belief in Christ inspires me to search for kindness, humility, and generosity within myself and to try to act on it whenever I recognise an opportunity. But even before my conversion to Christianity, I believed in the fruition of good actions. This is what attracted me to Christ's bold words in the New Testament.

I am not making any grand claims here, I only say that one cannot make the grand claim that either religion or science lead to bad behavior, because one cannot be a perfect psychologist, and what people profess to blieve is not always what they practice. Many influences are at work on our every action, and human beings are unpredictable. That is why the science of psychology is not an exact science. I will leave it at that.

Katarina:

fair enough. I was not countering any claim of yours; only the absurd pretense of religion - any religion - of promoting good behaviour. Ultimately, it is my opinion that what "promotes good behaviour" is one's decision to behave well, and nothing else. In your case, this might come as a consequence of how you interpret Christianity; in my case, it has nothing to do with that.

Steve Reuland,

Thank you for responding to my post. I do regret we're on opposide sides of the issues here, as I feel you're a decent guy, and disagreement with you does not come easily. I have the same feeling toward Jason Rosenhouse and Richard B. Hoppe, etc.

At issue in this thread is the out of date material in Pandas and People. It is arepackaging of what was written in 1985 by Denton and others, almost 20 years ago.

Long before 1985, the Linnaean hierarchical view was somewhat considered the antithesis of the idea that a smooth transitional line could be established between fish->amphibian->reptile->mammal in terms of morphology and in the proteins. Denton was attacking a viewpoint that has been long forgotten!!!!. That's why the biochemical section of Pandas and People doesn't make sense to most readers. Darwinists no longer argue against hierarchies, they promote them! Witness the writings of Douglas Theobald and the "twin nested hierarchies". That was actually not quite the case, and the older viewpoints are so obscure now as to have been mostly forgotten.

With respect to the constantly evolving fish, that is why I highlighted the Tuna from the Devonian era and provided the formula:

k = 2 mu t

We should see substantial intra species (the misnomer word used is "interspecific") divergence in the Tuna in the neutrally selectable sites, and we do not. There were also the other issues I highlighted. It is worth more exploration, which this thread is not the place.

I will oddly enough, (gasp) agree with Nick Matzke that Pandas and People needs an update. But the changes are not as serious as what I see even at the university level in Darwinian biology.

I went to a Darwin Day lecture at James Madison University recently and heard the equivalent of the old "ontogeny recapitualtes phylogeny" argument from one of the bio professors. They still teach that there as well as Urey-Miller, etc. The IDEA members there are in general disbelief that they see these icons still in their textbooks.....

So in sum, I'd like to see Pandas and People updated. It should be noted, Perceval Davis, a respected writer of college level bio text books was black listed (kind of like Sternberg) after he wrote Pandas and People. Real tragedy for someone who spoke his scientific conscience.

Salvador

Emanuele,

Just one more note. Christ added the new commandment to love one another, and to love our enemies. He instructed that in this way, we would show we are His disciples.

Given his new commandment, it is difficult to understand how Christians can justify doing violence, and by this I mean waging wars, both just and unjust, in the name of punishing "evildoers." In order to justify violence, Christians turn to some Old Testament events, and that is how they are able to ease their conscience. As the Dems say to the Republicans, instead of supposing that God is on your side, ask whether you are on God's side.

So, while everything is subject to interpretation, it remains very difficult to see how "love one another," and "love your enemies," somehow translated to, "make war." For this reason, Christianity still makes sense to me and is applicable.

Sorry so political.

Katarina:

nothing to be sorry about. I would like to see far more Christians taking your stance about interpreting Christianity and sternly rejecting the kind of "Christianity" that believes Leviticus supercedes the Gospels.

My personal opinion of the whole "Bible-as-handbook-of-morality" misunderstanding has nothing to do with the fact that smart, educated Christians are a fun crowd to hang out with.

Did Wells really cite Hooper (who is a journalist) as a scientist? Do you have a reference?

Regarding the whole "Evolution = amorality" issue:

I figured out a long time ago that I'd rather be surrounded by people who have come to their morality through logical thought (ie: "I'm not going to commit murder because it is wasteful and ineffective in the long run") than those who have come to their morality through conditioning and/or fear (ie: "I'm not going to commit murder because God will punish me if I do") because fear, like all emotions, is transitory. If one's morality is based on fear of punishment, then one's morality can ebb with said fear (similar to the way in which fear of incarceration or execution is singularly ineffective at preventing people from commiting the crimes that get them incarcerated or executed). If, however, one's morality is based on good, logical thought, then that morality isn't going to wane with the tides of emotion. Sure, people reasses their thoughts, but only if they weren't good and logical in the first place.

It seems that the people who are most worried about the amorality "inherent" in evolutionary theory are the ones whose morality is based on fear rather than thought. Perhaps they fear what the absence of fear will unleash in them; but then, that's exactly why I prefer the folks whose morality isn't emotion-based.

With respect to the constantly evolving fish, that is why I highlighted the Tuna from the Devonian era and provided the formula: k = 2 mu t We should see substantial intra species (the misnomer word used is "interspecific") divergence in the Tuna in the neutrally selectable sites, and we do not.

— Salvador

I think the main idea here is misunderstandings - whether of actual moral principles, or of basic evolutionary theory in Pandas and People. With some exceptions, the overall picture is of anti-evolutionists who simply don't understand what they're criticizing. This may be an important point to stress - fairness is a great virtue, and teaching the controversy, and all, but these folks just don't know what they're talking about, and don't bother to find out. It's not exciting revolutionary stuff being squashed by hidebound defenders of Darwinist orthodoxy - it's low quality hackwork that they're trying to dump on our kids.

Ed - so why *shouldn't* evolutionists be rounded up and deported?

neo-anti-luddite,
Re "I figured out a long time ago that I'd rather be surrounded by people who have come to their morality through logical thought (ie: "I'm not going to commit murder because it is wasteful and ineffective in the long run") than those who have come to their morality through conditioning and/or fear (ie: "I'm not going to commit murder because God will punish me if I do") "
Personally, I'd rather be with people who don't have to consciously think about why they're not murdering somebody. If you see what I mean. ;)

Henry

With some exceptions, the overall picture is of anti-evolutionists who simply don't understand what they're criticizing.

While this is straying wildly off topic (*WARNING*), the view you express is one that I deeply dislike.  It may be an accurate description of your beliefs, or even your situation.  Objectively, it's poppycock.  Balderdash. Bunkum.

— Dan S.