Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 08-24-2004, 09:18 AM

A friend sent me the following article (he seems to think it is of some significance):

Fact, Fable, and Darwin by Rodney Stark.

My initial reply to him started out with "That article is chock full of, to put it politely, misinformation, misconceptions, blatant quote mines, and just plain falsehoods." I then proceeded to point out a couple just for effect (providing more complete versions of the Julian Huxley and SJ Gould quote mines).

He replied with a long rant.

My reply to his rant:

Quote:

The "theory of the origin of species" is evolutionary theory.

The essential elements of Darwin's original theory are still in place.

Variation and natural selection are the essential mechanisms for the origin of species. PE addresses the rate at which speciation occurs. It does not call into question the basic mechanisms of evolution; it merely provides an alternative to gradualism.

I may, if I find time, reply in full to your reply, and may even fully deconstruct that first article if you really want me to. But I don't really see the point. That article is, well, just bad, and says absolutely nothing new or really of interest. Its initial premises are wrong, and it goes downhill from there. It's just the same old typical rhetoric we've seen from the Intelligent Design folks, the same stuff I've already gone over with you in our conversations about the Discovery Institute. The author claims in the first sentence to not be writing as a creationist or a Darwinist. But it's clear to me (esp. from the last paragraph) that he's writing as an Intelligent Design Creationist.

You want some falsehoods/misrepresentations from the article? Well, here's one, right out of the gate:

There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species!

There is, and the author does nothing at all to establish that there is not.

Here's another:

For many decades every competent evolutionary biologist has known that he did not.

Any "competent" evolutionary biologist would tell you that Darwin's original theory was a very good outline of how we still understand evolution to work. He was right on the essentials. Since Darwin, we've mainly been busy filling in the gaps, answering the questions that Darwin left unanswered.

Here's a third:

The battle over evolution is not an example of how heroic scientists have withstood the relentless persecution of religious fanatics. Rather, from the very start it primarily has been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science.

This is total bullshit, and quite ironic to boot considering the intent of the article.

The author provides a few quotes from a few of the more "radical", if you were, and outspoken proponents of evolution who happened to extend evolutionary science into philosophy, such as Dawkins. But this (attacking religion) has never been the "primary" goal or purpose of the science and theory of evolution, or of the majority of its proponents, except from the viewpoint of some religious "fanatics". Many theists accept evolution and see it as no threat at all to their religious beliefs (which the author, though a sociologist, fails to note). Most people that understand and accept evolution, theists and atheists alike, understand quite well that evolutionary theory does not, can not, and should not threaten belief in the existence of "God". One (evolution) is a scientific question, which by definition does not address "supernatural" questions; the other (theism) is philosophy/religion/metaphysics, and should not be assumed in answering scientific questions. Magic has no place in science.

Evolution and evolutionary theory does not threaten or address belief in the existence of "God" for anyone with a firm grasp of science and philosophy. All it does is demonstrate to us something which many actually already understood, and which all should understand anyway: that stories of creation and the "origin of species" (e.g. Gen. 1-3) provided to us by various religions are myths and not science. That's it. It leaves the question of the existence of God unanswered.

The author of that article, and others like the DI "Fellows", totally miss this, and are pitifully trying to insert God into evolution as an explanation in any way they can. It's sad, really, to see their desparate attempts, their "God of the Gaps" arguments. Their arguments are simply unnecessary, IMO, and to me indicate that those making the arguments don't have a firm grip on their beliefs. They need the extra assurance that God is in there somewhere, in those gaps, tinkering with life.

So, bottom line, I think both sides of this supposed "battle over evolution", both those who say evolution disproves God or threatens belief in God (which it does not) and those who say things like "There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species" and that God must be in there tinkering around somewhere and should be considered by science, are wrong. Evolution is science; we should leave God out of it.

Comments?

Peez · 08-24-2004, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Variation and natural selection are the essential mechanisms for the origin of species. PE addresses the rate at which speciation occurs. It does not call into question the basic mechanisms of evolution; it merely provides an alternative to gradualism.

The use of the word "gradualism" can be confusing here. As Dawkins (I think) put it, what PE really contradicts is "constant speedism." PE is still gradualist in the sense that you have the gradual accumulation of small changes (even if this grade occurs in a relatively short time).

Peez

Mageth · 08-24-2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peez

The use of the word "gradualism" can be confusing here. As Dawkins (I think) put it, what PE really contradicts is "constant speedism." PE is still gradualist in the sense that you have the gradual accumulation of small changes (even if this grade occurs in a relatively short time).

Peez

Good point...thanks.

I think some people wrongly see this as an either/or problem; change/speciation either happens really slow or really fast. In reality, change/speciation can happen at any rate over a range from relatively slow to relatively fast. The relative rarity of fossils at the species level showing slower rates of change, however, seem to indicate that more often than not, speciation takes place in a relatively short time.

Does that sound about right?

RBH · 08-24-2004, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

Good point...thanks.

I think some people wrongly see this as an either/or problem; change/speciation either happens really slow or really fast. In reality, change/speciation can happen at any rate over a range from relatively slow to relatively fast. The relative rarity of fossils at the species level showing slower rates of change, however, seem to indicate that more often than not, speciation takes place in a relatively short time.

Does that sound about right?

Peez is right: It was Dawkins who derided the conflation of gradualism with "constant speedism". Both PE and the slower (but variable rate) evolution envisioned by Darwin are incrementalist -- small step by small step. The rate of stepping varies, but they're still small increment. One can climb a stairway rapidly or slowly, but one still climbs it (in evolutionary theory, at any rate) one step at a time. (Let's all recognize that's an over-simplified illustration, btw, not the Gospel according to Dawkins or Darwin.)

RBH

Peez · 08-24-2004, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Mageth:
I think some people wrongly see this as an either/or problem; change/speciation either happens really slow or really fast. In reality, change/speciation can happen at any rate over a range from relatively slow to relatively fast. The relative rarity of fossils at the species level showing slower rates of change, however, seem to indicate that more often than not, speciation takes place in a relatively short time.

Does that sound about right?

Well, pretty much. I would not want to make any general comments on the proportion of speciation events which have occurred at one rate or another, but the point of that post is good. RBH provides a good analogy as well.

Peez

JLK · 08-24-2004, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

the following article
Fact, Fable, and Darwin by Rodney Stark.
[snip reply to friend's rant]
Comments?

1. If this is really important to you, supply references. Stuff like:

Quote:

There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species!
There is, and the author does nothing at all to establish that there is not.

...is just "is not... is too!"
Libraries, Google, Amazon beat naked assertions.

2. Rodney Stark is a nitwit.

Mageth · 08-25-2004, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLK

1. If this is really important to you, supply references.

Well, note that near the top I told the guy "I may, if I find time, reply in full to your reply, and may even fully deconstruct that first article if you really want me to. But I don't really see the point." And note that there is quite a history behind this one exchange.

This was but one reply to one email msg from this guy. There have also been several previous email exchanges, in which I've provided the guy with a shitload of references supporting my arguments and refuting various articles and comments he's sent me (my references including, but not limited to, a number of articles from TalkOrigins) to the point where he complained to another co-worker that I was flooding him with too much information, and commented to me about how thorough I was! (In addition, the other co-worker has a similar, even longer history of converstation with this guy).

So there was quite a bit of history behind this reply and that one line. The recepient knew to what I was referring, and had already been supplied with more than enough references for every point I made. I refer to this in my reply when I say that this is "the same stuff I've already gone over with you in our conversations about the Discovery Institute." So my assertions are not as naked as they seem.

European Hedgehog · 08-25-2004, 02:59 PM

Quote:

The use of the word "gradualism" can be confusing here. As Dawkins (I think) put it, what PE really contradicts is "constant speedism." PE is still gradualist in the sense that you have the gradual accumulation of small changes (even if this grade occurs in a relatively short time).

I would not say that I necessarily disagree but do you feel,as I do,that semantics has a considerable part in this debate?

In his book (Blind Watchmaker),the ethologist Dawkins starts with a description of what he later refers to as a strawman version of gradualism (strict,constant change).
Yet,the textbook descriptions have it (and I can hand out direct quotes if asked) that gradualism is basically that.Slow,constant accumulation of changes.

So,one can argue that it is gradual in that it does not violate darwinism,the other theories,as a whole.OK,there´s stasis out there and speedy speciation correlated with speedy morphological change.But it´s not the "hopeful monster" fancy relived that creationists claimed it to be (a couple of decades ago,by now).It´s gradual in that nobody claims that higher taxa or so-called evolutionary novelty pops up out of the blue.No,no,branching trees are formed as diverging evolution goes by (Darwin´s speciation theory),no historical mutationism here.

Subsequently,it is not gradual if we´re to stick to the textbook definition cited above,and keeping the debate separate from those other theories of Darwin (as described by Mayr).

The latter seems to me the most consistent,while to adopt the former is to stick to a paradigm awfully flexible IMHO (assuming that Gould,Eldredge,the fellows are not as confused,or handing out statements as horribly vague as some claim.)

JLK · 08-25-2004, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

The recepient knew to what I was referring, and had already been supplied with more than enough references for every point I made. I refer to this in my reply when I say that this is "the same stuff I've already gone over with you in our conversations about the Discovery Institute."

Wwwwell ...If you explained speciation to him with links and he then wrote "there is no theory of speciation!" he's either seriously cognitively deficient or he did not understand you. As long as he isn't a candidate for school board or appointment as a White House science advisor, that's OK...

You know those cartoons with both a woman/man/dog/cat captioned
"What You Say, What They Hear"?

Somebody just showed me the current issue of Christianity Today which might be on-line. Their Books and Culture editor has a long article on ID. Ed Larsen then reviews Woodward's flattering book on ID's history. Both articles are just hopeless, but that's the sort of stuff your friend is reading. He's in a different world. Your concluding "We should leave God out of it" and talking about DI slipperyness are not going impress him. He is looking for a licence to declare you are driven by "leaving God out of it". He reads all your talk of TheoEvo "compromise" as a con you are offering. Accusations about the Discovery Institute go in one ear and out his other.

By disputing his "no theory of speciation" in a sentence, you sort of confirmed his schtik that it is God and the DI that is more important to you than talking speciation. Your post would be great as a letter to the editor, but not as a way to convince him.

After these naked assertions of mine, here would be my blurb, to someone saying "THERE"S NO THEORY OF SPECIATION!"

Biology is complicated. The only possible single "theory of speciation" for sexual species is that two populations eventually vary enough so that they cannot interbreed. Concrete cases/examples:

Speciation of fruit flies has been observed in the lab. In wild flies, the exact gene which caused a speciation is known - a homeobox gene Odysseus which controls male sexual function in flys. Odysseus, in the two related species of fruit fly, Drosophila simulans and Drosophila mauritania, varies extremely, evolving at a highly accelerated rate, changing up to 1,000 times faster than any other homeobox gene yet studied. It became this variable in these flies after speciation about 0.5 million yrs ago, after being stable for ~700 million. (see Pubmed for Chung-I Wu, University of Chicago.) Rapid changes in such genes might be favored because they now happen give a male the edge in the struggle to fertilise females.

Homeobox genes mostly are involved in shaping the embryo and controlling development of its cells, and usually are among the slowest-evolving of all genes. They rarely differ by more than a few base pairs, even when compared in humans and invertebrates, but when they vary, interesting outcomes result. Evolution into not only non-interbreeding populations but more complex forms of life does not principally depend on the generation of new genes, but on new combinations of protein domains or novel interactions in regulatory genes like these.

Willie Swanson and Victor Vacquier from Scripps Institution of Oceanography showed that in the abalone - a mollusc - the sperm produce a protein, lysin, which creates a hole in the egg envelope to enable fertilisation to occur. Lysin has to lock on to a receptor on the egg for this to occur, and the gene for that receptor can change rapidly, just like Odysseus. This would lead to different populations incapable of interbreeding.

For more see:
http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocour.../ch17spec.html
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/Notes-...peciation.html
http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/Bi...peciation.html
http://www.lter.alaska.edu/~jirons/e.../chapter16.htm
http://www.intranet.csupomona.edu/~j...grantrefs.html
http://mercy.georgian.edu/~wootton/biogeog7.htm
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm
http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~thompso...se/Speciation/
http://lycoris.s.chiba-u.ac.jp/lycor...nd/island.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/...peciation.html
http://www.bcu.ubc.ca/~whitlock/QGPG...n/Lecture.html
http://www.otago.ac.nz/Zoology/genetics/weta.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.html
http://www.aloha.net/~releaf/species.html
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view...h_evolve010118
http://www.bluefish.org/adaptabl.htm
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0118014.htm
http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/Bi...peciation.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/...olyploidy.html
http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm

See the many refs -- like from the last, citing this about mosquito speciation:
K. Byrne, R.A. Nichols. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity , January 1999 ( Pt 1): 7-15.

All your friend's hooha about "atheistic scientists" would be demonstrably irrelevant and ignorable. You climbed on his ID treadmill. In our eyes you sprinted with Olympian form. In his eyes you ran like a confident hamster and finished up exactly in the place Phil Johnson designed for you..

Perhaps your best option was to just say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

"I may, if I find time, reply in full to your reply, and may even fully deconstruct that first article if you really want me to. But I don't really see the point."
...because you have refused to address or understand my voluminous references. Anyone's perfectly free to try making a God part of science.

Toto · 08-25-2004, 08:15 PM

Rodney Stark is a sociologist of religion who has made a name for himself as a defender of religion against sociologists who think it is a form of delusion, and as a cult apologist. He started out studying the Moonies and taking money from them, and has now moved on to flattering Christians and taking their money (he was recently hired at Baylor). The articles I read last year described him as agnostic, but he now appears to have conveniently got religion.

See my references in this thread:

review of Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-25-2004, 08:15 PM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Rodney Stark is a sociologist of religion who has made a name for himself as a defender of religion against sociologists who think it is a form of delusion, and as a cult apologist. He started out studying the Moonies and taking money from them, and has now moved on to flattering Christians and taking their money (he was recently hired at Baylor). The articles I read last year described him as agnostic, but he now appears to have conveniently got religion. See my references in this thread: review of Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.