Slashdot Mirror
The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw
Ruse is particularly good on the personalities of those involved. They were indeed a colourful bunch. They included William Whewell, Adam Sedgwick, Baden Powell (father of the founder of the Scout movement), John FW Herschel (son of the famous astronomer William Herschel), Charles Lyell, Richard Owen, and Charles Babbage, better known for his invention of the calculating engine, as well as Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley. Many of these, especially those belonging to the older generation, were clergymen; it was impossible to be a Fellow of a college at Oxford or Cambridge at the time unless one was in Holy Orders. This inevitably coloured their views on evolution, though not always in the way one might expect.
Popular accounts of the debate about evolutionary thought in the nineteenth century often convey the impression of a straightforward conflict between secularism and religion, in which scientific secularism emerged triumphant. As Ruse makes clear, this is a considerable over-simplification: the relation between religion and science was in fact very complex, and in some ways religion actually helped the cause of science. Other factors, philosophical and social, were also involved, and Ruse's claim is that all of these elements have to be given due weight if the development of evolutionism is to be understood.
That profound changes in intellectual attitudes occurred in the nineteenth century there can be no doubt. In 1844, when Robert Chambers published his "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation", in which he argued the case for organic evolution, hardly any serious scientists accepted its main message, but when Charles Darwin published "The Origin" in 1859 his main claim was quickly accepted by almost all scientists concerned with the origin of organisms. In part, this was a consequence of the difference in the scientific standing of the two authors, but there were other reasons as well and it is these that Ruse seeks to elucidate.
First, there were scientific reasons to accept evolution. It made sense of the geographical distribution of species, such as finches and tortoises on the Galapagos Islands, which Darwin described and which was hard to explain on any other assumption. Also, by the 1860s more was known about the fossil record than had been known in 1844, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to doubt that progression had occurred during geological time. Darwin was therefore able to draw on a more ample arsenal of scientific facts; indeed, he had made significant contributions to that arsenal himself.
Of course, Darwin was not merely advocating evolution as a process, he put forward a mechanism by which it could occur. Chambers had not provided a plausible cause for evolution, but Darwin did, with his mechanism of natural selection. However, this idea had its problems: estimates of the age of the earth seemed not to allow enough time for evolution, and many people doubted if natural selection could be powerful enough to produce new species as opposed to mere variations. Even T.H.Huxley, "Darwin's bulldog", was relatively uninterested in natural selection and tended to downplay its importance. But field naturalists such as Henry Walter Bates found it invaluable as an explanation for insect mimicry and his work was cited by Darwin in later issues of "The Origin".
The second area of change was in philosophy. Many of the older scientists were idealists, Platonists, who favoured the view that species were immutable Types. Huxley, on the other hand, was not a Platonist and criticized his older colleagues on that ground. This change was both a cause and a consequence of other changes, in religious thought and in society at large, that were occurring at this time. Ruse points to innovations in the educational system leading to a reduced emphasis on the Classics and a weakening in the influence of religion. Not surprisingly in view of his professional background, Ruse pays considerable attention to the philosophical principles espoused by the main participants in the debate. There was a prevailing assumption, to which Darwin himself largely subscribed, that physics, and especially astronomy, provided the explanatory model to which other sciences ought to aspire.
The third class of change affected religion. Chambers had been attacked on religious grounds: he was held to have threatened the special position of man and to have left no room for God's design. Similar criticisms were made of Darwin but less strongly. However, religion, Ruse believes, also helped Darwinism. The argument from design prepared people's minds for evolutionism, while thinkers such as Baden Powell thought of God as working through unbroken natural laws rather than through miracles.
In the 1830s and 1840s religion was a thorny problem for many people. Partly this was a reaction to science; Ruse thinks that the attempt to reconcile science and revelation was a particularly British preoccupation (as perhaps it still is). And conventional religion was also under threat from another source: German Biblical criticism. As a result, some prominent clergymen, including Lyell, had moved a long way towards Deism (natural as opposed to revealed religion).
Lyell is a particularly interesting figure in the present context. His "Principles of Geology" accompanied Darwin on his voyage in the Beagle and had a major influence on his thought. As a Deist, he was unhappy about introducing miracles to explain the origin of species; unlike Whewell, who thought it was compatible with science. Ruse sums this up neatly by saying that Lyell wanted a world left alone by God, in which organisms struggle for survival under the threat of extinction, whereas Whewell wanted to see God hovering protectively over his creation.
Fourthly, there were social and political influences. In the 1830s there was a real fear that revolution might spread to Britain from abroad; by 1860 this was no longer the case. And in the second half of the century it was possible for a man to become a professional scientist without private means and without taking Holy Orders: a change that helped to weaken the influence of religion.
It is difficult to describe all these developments without falling into circularity, because each type of cause influenced, and was influenced by, the others, but in a way this is precisely Ruse's point. He insists that there were many different threads intertwining among themselves and that it is misleading to oversimplify the argument by concentrating on what appear to be the "real" issues. I think he makes a convincing case for this claim. He finds no need to alter his views in this reissue of the book, as he explains in the Afterword, though I was glad to see that he softens his earlier criticism of Huxley, whom I have always rather liked. I was even more glad to read that he strongly dissociates himself from "social constructivism" in the history of science. He states emphatically that "Charles Darwin was telling us real truths about a real world". There is no question of organic evolution being a human-created fiction.
Ruse is, however, rather despondent about the present position of evolution studies as an academic discipline. He is concerned that evolution is often seen to be "popular science" and is usually linked with ecology, instead of being accorded the importance it deserves. There is indeed a paradox here, which Ruse perhaps fails to bring out fully. He mentions that in the USA today there are ten times as many departments of molecular biology as of evolution, but he does not point out that it is impossible to understand molecular biology adequately unless it is seen in an evolutionary context. The interesting question, therefore, is why this fact is not always recognized.
Much the same failure to take account of Darwinism exists within medicine. The origins of many diseases can only be understood from an evolutionary viewpoint (Charlton BG; Nesse RM, Williams GC). Immunology, which is basic to modern medicine, is an evolutionary science through and through (Tauber AI). And yet "Darwinian medicine" is hardly a dozen years old; even today, few doctors are familiar with the term. There is a sense in which the Darwinian revolution has still hardly begun.
You can purchase The Darwinian Revolution from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
I believe that Lamarck was the first to postulate Evolution in the sense that we are familiar with it now. Namely, that if a trait is beneficial to a species that it will be passed on from generation to the next.
I have been pwned because my
I just started my fall semester, and this guy is my history and philosophy of science teacher! Neat. He's funny as hell in person, by the way. If you ever get a chance to see him lecture, take it!
This story will no doubt generate some Creationism vs. evolution debates.
I have a question. Do creationists realise that their beliefs are really only a USA phenomenon? I've not seem much evidence of creationism anywhere else in the "first world". Just thought I'd ask because perhaps some American creationists think this is a hot issue all over the world. It's not.
Go away, troll. Go read Dennett's book 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. Don't come back until you are done.
Oh, and I suppose that the fact that none questions or discourses on the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 makes it no longer true any more?
And BTW, if 'Nobody seriously believes that stuff anymore', what is the replacement scientific theory that explains the diversity of life better?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
1) Um, not all creatures leave fossils. Absence of evidence is not proof of evidence.
2,3,4,5) Nothing to do with Evolution of life on Earth.
6) Perfection of scripture: hahahaha. No, *which* scripture??
Bhudist, Shinto, Hindu, Judaic or Moslem scripture?
Hoaxes: So how does that dispove anything except the hoax concerned?
6) Like this: You have a *very* long row to hoe here, and you could start with a proof not a charge, and start that be describing just what you think this 'modern Information Theory (IT)' is in your opinion. I've certainly never heared of it.
My face is not red, my feet aint shuffling, but you, old buddy, are a trolling, know-nothing zealot.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Is there actually any point in my addressing any of your questions? Is there any point in someone who believes in evolution discussing it with a Creationist at all?
;-)
You have blind faith. You can answer any question with "God did it!" You don't have to give any other reason. The rest of us however need to think about our beliefs, and we can't just fall back on blind faith.
Or actually, may be that's the best response. May be you could understand that. So here's my response to your questions:
I don't have to answer your questions because I have blind faith that evolution is true. I don't need any proof and I don't need to explain things, just my blind faith that it is true.
By an armchair philosopher who's probably never seen the inside of a biolab. You don't know much about the author, do you? Have you looked for other books in this field? Hint: slashdot has reviewed 2 this week.
Of course 1 + 1 = 2. Perhaps you could provide similarly simple and intuitive proof of evolution actually occurring in nature?
Naah, other have done that better, if you'd bother to educate yourself. See Dawkins and above references. It hasn't been disproved yet.
BTW, you don't have to believe in evolution: it believes in you. Disease bacteria aquire resistance to antibiotics, and closing your eyes won't make you well.
I've already mentioned what that prevailing theory is in biology: intelligent design. The complexity of life simply cannot be explained any other way.
Really. Would you mind giving me figures of how and by how much this theory prevails? For a start, what % of biological researchers believe it? And where they think the 'intelligent design comes from'?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
That's 5 percent who believe in a literal Biblical account of creation (Garden of Eden). The percentage of scientists who believe in a personal God (one who could answer prayers) is around 40% at last check, the percentage who believe in some kind of creator is higher than that.
Albert Einstein, for instance, was one of them.
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
I'd just like to point out the obvious, that the theory of Darwinian evolution, and the science of biology in general, have about as much to say about the Big Bang as they do about whether it will rain in Seattle on Labor Day. Biology asks the question, "OK, there's life on this planet, so how does it work?" How the planet got there in the first place is not a question relevant to biology.
When did you stop beating your wife?
hyacinthus.I got a call this morning from someone asking me to listen to "Focus on the Family" this morning because they were playing a tape of a debate held at Stanford between a creationist and evolutionist. I was immediately turned off because the creationist would make sweeping statements without support, like "evolution is based on bad and shaky evidence." Also, the evolutionist was assumed by the audience to be driven by an anti-God agenda, and gave no evidence to the contrary.
If the reason for holding these "debates" is to foster intellectual honesty in "both camps," then at least they should admit that there are a great number of reasonable people who hold neither of these publicized views. By limiting the debate to these two views they present the undecided with a false dichotomy, and by golly, with as effective as science is elsewhere, that must mean that there is no God!
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Perhaps it is because some molecular biologists (Behe) see a intellegent design in molecular biology and do not see it a strictly evolutionary context.
Comment section of this article:
...
/.! Enough with these articles already! /rant
Religious person: Evolution is wrong.
Everyone else: We can prove that creationism is stupid just search on Google!
Religious Person: but evolution is wrong to because bla bla
Everyone else: Well you're a stupid fool for believing that crap bla bla bla
There, its all there, nothing else has to be said you can go on to a different article now.
This wouldn't be such a big issue if people realized that the Bible was written by people who didn't understand science for people who didn't understand science, therefore its a metaphor, what's important to the creation story is WHO(God) and WHY (he wanted companions). Rather than HOW which for the most part is left to our imagination, if we scientifically prove evolution then great, that doesn't change WHO and WHY (but you can choose to believe that or not).
I agree this issue would also go away if more Christians themselves would realize that faithwise this is a non-issue, that they can believe whatever they want about where we came from but that Loving Thy Neighbor is far far far more important that flamewars over evolution!
That said how is evolution something that matters on a technology site anyway? I get the feeling that these articles are here just to start pointless flamewars over religion. Hey! There's enough fighting over religion in the world without adding it to
The Anti-Blog
Seriously, how many biology--and more importantly--anthropology classes have you taken? Because if you just allow yourself to be a self-directed reader, you will (inevitably) get a skewed view of reality. You need the rigorous, objective treatment of a good old-fashioned <jed clampet>U-nee-verse-it-ee</jed clampet> to get an understanding of the state of the science.
By the way, not to nitpick, but do you have any idea how complicated a proof of 1+1=2 is? Depending on the axiomatic system that the proof is given in, (IIRC) the proof ranges from several dozen to several hundred steps. The most commonly accepted axiomatic system (based on Peano's postulates) falls in the latter category. My point: nothing in Science or Mathematics is either simple or intuitive. If you try to understand either intuitively (unless you're a Ramanujan, which I doubt) you're doomed to fail.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
1) Satan forgot to place transitional fossils in ground while he placing other fossils in the ground to confound us and lead us away from Jehovah.
2) Hmm... How do you explain the presence of the three-week-old bottle of milk in my refrigerator in a solar system that is supposed to be "billions" of years old?
3) The Demiurge was eating Pop Rocks and drinking Coke at the same time, in spite of God's warnings.
4) Angels or Aliens with vacuum cleaners? The fact that the solar system is moving through a galaxy with varying debris densities? Dang! That's a tired out argument, already!!! (See this for more info.
5) How do you reconcile the hoaxes and embarrassments of religion (i.e. Inquisitions, Jihads, Caste systems, Sabbatai Svi, Heaven's Gate, ad nausem) to the perfection (well... maybe not) of Mathematics?
6) Huh?
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
We (The USA) are sorry.
In the future when Europe is on the verge of falling to a European dictator, we will leave Europe alone.
When Europe need to be rebuilt after that war, we will leave Europe alone.
When Europe need protection from forces from the East, we will leave Europe alone.
When Europe needs help in it's own backyard to bring down yet another dictator who is killing people just because of the ethnic background, we will leave Europe alone.
120 comments and still not a single one about one of the most important evolution of this year !!!
#include "coucou.h"
Similarly the US takes a kind of literalist view of its Constitution where many legal decisions are in fact textual analyses trying to extract the "original intention". It is interesting that the Magna Carta, for example, plays a far more important role in American history than it does in British history!
-- SIGFPE
However, the phrase "all of the transitional fossils" is usually used (dishonestly) by creationsts to claim that no such fossils exist. Of course, every time paleontologists find a transitional species between two other known species, this leaves two transitions to be filled instead of one... The fact that we have evidence of thousands and thousands of intermediate species, and that DNA evidence of living species backs up the morphological family tree to a degree which would be impossible save for common descent, is ironclad evidence that life on Earth evolved and continues to evolve.
Comets which orbit in the Kuiper belt or further out remain "young" as long as they stay there. Until some gravitational perturbation changes their orbit to come close to a planet which slings their paths into the inner solar system, they never get "old". So yes, some comets we see could be billions of years old and still making their first passes near the Sun; this is why astronomers study them for evidence of the conditions prevailing in the early Solar System (and these astronomers are not creationists). We don't know yet. Science is never ashamed to admit lack of an answer where evidence is not available. Creationists have a disorder known in other contexts as Male Answer Syndrome and are unable to humble themselves to that point. Dust is one thing, regolith is another. Solid rock on the Moon's surface is a rarity; most of it is material which has been bombarded and shattered dozens or thousands of times (look up "microbreccias" for an idea of what this produces). However, the surface of the Moon is in hard vacuum, and loose dust vacuum-welds together to form a more cohesive surface. It still has lots of open space and insulates extremely well, though; the Apollo heat-flow experiments had to sit for longer than their design lifetime for the heat of drilling to dissipate so that they could actually measure heat flow! Funny you should mention that. Genesis has two distinct and contradictory creation stories, which religion has done a very poor job of even admitting, much less criticizing and correcting. As previously mentioned, the errors and hoaxes of science were found and corrected by scientists. "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."There's a pretty good rebuttal of the IT claim in the Feb. 2001 post of the month. Or perhaps you should just walk your way through some of these Google search results; you might learn something if your mind is open to it.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
These are old objections, that have been answered many times. See, for example, the TalkOrigins Faq
Interesting how the face you're using for this story's icon was a God fearing man. Not to spark any religion vs. evolution debates, just an interesting choice for the mascot of this article ^__^
You need a FREE iPod Nano
What about the Islamic world? They are known for for their rather "traditional" beliefs.
Table-ized A.I.
Isn't it possible there are facts waiting to be found that prove the existence of a creator?
I guess you could say it is possible. And I expect if something was unearthed that proved the existance of a God, then you'd find a lot of people start to believe, even scientists. But the fact of the matter is that no such proof exists, nor is there ever likely to be such proof.
To some extent it covers the same territory as Peter Bowler's "Evolution: the history of an idea", but its focus is narrower in time while providing more in-depth discussion of the philosophical and religious ideas of Darwin's contemporaries."
There's something interesting in the way evolution continually focuses on itself. In defending itself against creationism, evolution touts itself as objective science, rational answers, the generally accepted truth of the scientific community. And yet, I don't see books with titles like "Continental Drift: The Evolution of an Idea" or "The Big Bang: Collecting the Evidence" getting written, let alone reviewed.
There's something about evolution, and the debate around it, that invites what I've come to think of as scientific elitism. If it were a SCIENTIFIC THEORY that COULDN'T BE ARGUED based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, then that would be that. The Big Bang and continental drift don't get all this attention, but evolution does. Is it because those theories are more rigid, that there's less debate over the nuances of how they happened, than genetic evolution? Or is it because scientific minds genuinely like to push fundamentalists' hot buttons?
Maybe this is just an American phenomenon; maybe other countries are more at ease with the scientific theory of evolution and the whens and hows of it all. I just find it odd that for a theory that claims to have so much science backing it up, it needs to keep reminding everyone of its validity. One begins to wonder if the scientists doth protest too much.
I know many Christian Arabs who use the word "Allah" to describe God as they see Him. That's just part of the arabic language. Depending on where he was when he said it, Einstein may have actually used the word "Gott" in that quote posted here and all around. Does that mean he was not referring to "God?"
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Contrast this balanced review of a fine and nuanced history of an idea with this screed. I can't bring myself to get excited about this retarded debate any longer. We should respond to the Creationist with some patronizing smiles. Treat the Cobb Cty School Board to an awkward, embarrassed silence.
It is not as though the alternative is a poison. If the young minds of Cobb Cty can't be moved from their faulty instruction and misapprehensions by subsequent study, their convictions can be classed as theological and impervious to reason. And politely ignored by reasonable society.
illegitimii non ingravare
The reason is just to ridicule the creationists for the benefit of the sector of the public that matters.
We hold no hope for the hard entrenched "card-carrying" anti-science ones, but there is a huge young audience whose upbringing may have favoured a distorted, supersticious, view of science. These can be saved from their ignorance and their children may have hope for a better education, away from the pathetic 6000 years old Earth crowd.
i've always felt it is better to go back to the ORIGINAL documents
than to read commentary ABOUT them. in addition to Darwin, there was
also Haeckel, Kant, and Steiner -- who were certainly some of darwin's
most significant fellow researchers in the area. here's a experpted chapter from
one of Darwins contemporaries circa 1886:
The TYPUS in Organic Nature
Above all, one has committed a serious error in this. One believed that the method of inorganic science should simply be taken over into the realm of organisms. One considered the method employed here to be altogether the only scientific one, and thought that for "organics" to be scientifically possible, it would have to be so in exactly the same sense in which physics is, for example. The possibility was forgotten, however, that perhaps the concept of what is scientific is much broader than "the explanation of the world according to the laws of the physical world." Even today one has not yet penetrated through to this knowledge. Instead of investigating what it is that makes the approach of the inorganic sciences scientific, and of then seeing a method that can be applied to the world of living things while adhering to the requirements that result from this investigation, one simply declared that the laws gained upon this lower stage of existence are universal.
Above all, however, one should investigate what the basis is for any scientific thinking. We have done this in our study. In the preceding chapter we have also recognized that inorganic lawfulness is not the only one in existence but is only a special case of all possible lawfulness in general. The method of physics is simply one particular case of a general scientific way of investigation in which the nature of the pertinent objects and the region this science serves are taken into consideration. If this method is extended into the organic, one obliterates the specific nature of the organic. Instead of investigating the organic in accordance with its nature, one forces upon it a lawfulness alien to it. In this way, however, by denying the organic, one will never come to know it. Such scientific conduct simply repeats, upon a higher level, what it has gained upon a lower one; and although it believes that it is bringing the higher form of existence under laws established elsewhere, this form slips away from it in its efforts, -because such scientific conduct does not know how to grasp and deal with this form in its particular nature.
All this comes from the erroneous view that the method of a science is extraneous to its objects of study, that it is not determined by these objects but rather by our own nature. It is believed that one must think in a particular way about objects, that one must indeed think about all objects -- throughout the entire universe -- in the same way. Investigations are undertaken that are supposed to show that, due to the nature of our spirit, we can think only inductively or deductively, etc.
In doing so, however, one overlooks the fact that the objects perhaps will not tolerate the way of looking at them that we want to apply to them.
A look at the views of Haeckel, who is certainly the most significant of the natural-scientific theoreticians of the present day, shows us that the objection we are making to the organic natural science of our day is entirely justified: namely, that it does not carry over into organic nature the principle of scientific contemplation in the absolute sense, but only the principle of inorganic nature.
When he demands of all scientific striving that "the causal interconnections of phenomena become recognized everywhere," when he says that "if psychic mechanics were not so infinitely complex, if we were also able to have a complete overview of the historical development of psychic functions, we would then be able to bring them all into a mathematical soul formula," then one can see clearly from this what he wants: to treat the whole world according to the stereotype of the method of the physical sciences.
This demand, however, does not underlie Darwinism in its original form but only in its present-day interpretation. We have seen that to explain a process in inorganic nature means to show its lawful emergence out of other sense-perceptible realities, to trace it back to objects that, like itself, belong to the sense world. But how does modern organic science employ the principles of adaptation and the struggle for existence (both of which we certainly do not doubt are the expression of facts)? It is believed that one can trace the character of a particular species directly back to the outer conditions in which it lived, in somewhat the same way as the heating of an object is traced back to the rays of the sun falling upon it. One forgets completely that one can never show a species' character, with all its qualities that are full of content, to be the result of these conditions. The conditions may have a determining influence, but they are not a creating cause. We can definitely say that under the influence of certain circumstances a species had to evolve in such a way that one or another organ became particularly developed; what is there as content, however, the specifically organic, cannot be derived from outer conditions. Let us say that an organic entity has the essential characteristics a b c; then, under the influence of certain outer conditions, it has evolved. Through this, its characteristics have taken on the particular form a'b'c'. When we take these influences into account we will then understand that a has evolved into the form of a', b into b', c into c'. But the specific nature of a, b, and c can never arise as the outcome of external conditions.
One must, above all, focus one's thinking on the question: From what do we then derive the content of that general "something" of which we consider the individual organic entity to be a specialized case? We know very well that the specialization comes from external influences. But we must trace the specialized shape itself back to an inner principle. We gain enlightenment as to why just this particular form has evolved when we study a being's environment. But this particular form is, after all, something in and of itself; we see that it possesses certain characteristics. We see what is essential. A content, configurated in itself, confronts the outer phenomenal world, and this content provides us with what we need in tracing those characteristics back to their source. In inorganic nature we perceive a fact and see, in order to explain it, a second, a third fact and so on; and the result is that the first fact appears to us to be the necessary consequence of the other ones. In the organic world this is not so. There, in addition to the facts, we need yet another factor. We must see what works in from outer circumstances as confronted by something that does not passively allow itself to be determined by them but rather determines itself, actively, out of itself, under the influence of the outer circumstances.
But what is that basic factor? It can, after all, be nothing other than what manifests in the particular in the form of the general. In the particular, however, a definite organism always manifests. That basic factor is therefore an organism in the form of the general: a general image of the organism, which comprises within itself all the particular forms of organisms.
Following Goethe's example, let us call this general organism typus. Whatever the word typus might mean etymologically, we are using it in this Goethean sense and never mean anything else by it than what we have indicated. This typus is not developed in all its completeness in any single organism. Only our thinking, in accordance with reason, is able to take possession of it, by drawing it forth, as a general image, from phenomena. The typus is therewith the idea of the organism: the animalness in the animal, the general plant in the specific one.
One should not picture this typus as anything rigid. It has nothing at all to do with what Agassiz, Darwin's most significant opponent, called "an incarnate creative thought of God's." The typus is something altogether fluid, from which all the particular species and genera, which one can regard as subtypes or specialized types, can be derived. The typus does not preclude the theory of evolution. It does not contradict the fact that organic forms evolve out of one another. It is only reason's protest against the view that organic development consists purely in sequential, factual (sense-perceptible) forms. It is what underlies this whole development. It is what establishes the interconnection in all this endless manifoldness. It is the inner aspect of what we experience as the outer forms of living things. The Darwinian theory presupposes the typus.
The typus is the true archetypal organism; according to how it specializes ideally, it is either archetypal plant or archetypal animal. It cannot be any one, sense-perceptibly real living being. What Haeckel or other naturalists regard as the archetypal form is already a particular shape; it is, in fact, the simplest shape of the typus. The fact that in time the typus arises in its simplest form first does not require the forms arising later to be the result of those preceding them in time. AR forms result as a consequence of the typus; the first as well as the last are manifestations of it. We must take it as the basis of a true organic science and not simply undertake to derive the individual animal and plant species out of one another. The typus runs like a red thread through all the developmental stages of the organic world. We must hold onto it and then with it travel through this great realm of many forms. Then this realm will become understandable to us. Otherwise it falls apart for us, just as the rest of the world of experience does, into an unconnected mass of particulars. In fact, even when we believe that we are leading what is later, more complicated, more compound, back to a previous simpler form and that in the latter we have something original, even then we are deceiving ourselves, for we have only derived a specific form from a specific form.
Friedrich Theodor Vischer once said of the Darwinian theory that it necessitates a revision of our concept of time. We have now arrived at a point that makes evident to us in what sense such a revision would have to occur. It would have to show that deriving something later out of something earlier is no explanation, that what is first in time is not first in principle. All deriving has to do with principles, and at best it could be shown which factors were at work such that one species of beings evolved before another one in time.
The typus plays the same role in the organic world as natural law does in the inorganic. Just as natural law provides us with the possibility of recognizing each individual occurrence as a part of one great whole, so the typus puts us in a position to regard the individual organism as a particular form of the archetypal form.
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA002/English/GA
--
best regards,
john
if you want an essay written by EINSTEIN HIMSELF on his religious views, try here:
Einstein on Cosmic Religious Feeling
"In my view, it is the most important function
of art and science to awaken this [cosmic religious] feeling
and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.
(Albert Einstein)
Before replying, consider that a "theory" is not some wild-assed notion that someone pulled out of their *ss. It's not conjecture or wild speculation.
'...to suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances
for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting
different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical
and chromatic aberration could have been formed by natural
selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'
(CHARLES DARWIN, Origin of the Species)
Your facts are somewhat out of synch with reality.
In Brazil the Catholic schools have been teaching Evolution as a scientific fact for a long time. One detail easily overlooked is that the Catholic Church never favoured the literal interpretation of the Bible - sometimes they even considered certain literal interpretation sins.
I never seem any creationinst around here. They must exist somewhere, but they are probably hidden in their churches talking among themselves.
Where are all of the transitional fossils?
What, you mean all the fossils that actually prompted people to think about all this to start with? The ones people were discovering in the 19th century that caused people like Darwin to wonder, "Hey, the fossil record in South America includes these giant forms of what appear to be relatives of modern animals? What gives?" Those fossils? Go look at the history of evolutionary thought -- this book we're talking about might be a good starting point -- and watch how, as people try to explain the fossils they're finding, they eventually arrive at more and more coherent ideas about how evolution works. It's not like they started up bashing your "perfect" scripture out of a wrongheaded desire to make trouble, and then couldn't find any evidence; they started with the evidence you're saying is absent, and it pushed them, against their wills in a lot of different ways, toward the conclusion that scripture-based world views just didn't explain things. Darwin was trained as a priest in the Anglican church, and he really struggled with his ideas, but trying to explain the physical evidence pushed him along.
You've got it exactly backward, both historically and in terms of how you'd like to argue.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
2think.org? If I didn't know any better, I'd swear they were trying to prove he was...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
2. More to the point, my link and data is about belief in Biblical accounts of cration, not on religious affiliation or sensibilities. Many scientists have some religious affiliation (I know a number of Buddhist-affiliated cognitive scientists) - that's a far, far cry from questioning scientific theories on the basis of religious doctrine.
I have a book you should read. It is Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D. Dr. Schroeder is an applied physicist and an applied theologian with undergraduate and doctoral degrees from MIT. In the book he explains that in reality the two theories (Genesis and Evolution) are really not at odds with each other. I saw a show with this guy and he impressed me. The book is still on my to read list, but the talk he was giving was basically on the book. Definately worth reading no matter what side of the argument you fall on. I'm thinking about boning up on my physics before reading the book (just the basics).
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
I suggest you study carrefully the list of Arguments for the existence of God. Specially on-topic for the present discussion are arguments 10, 26 and 120:
10. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God
exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to
understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be
uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.
26. ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM
(1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
120. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II) / ARGUMENT FROM IDIOCY (I)
1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
2) I am an idiot.
3) People often point that out.
4) Therefore, God exists.
No. The truth is here
YOU are out there.
Technoli
The theory of evolution is almost entirely irrelevant to the fields of philosophy and theology. As Ludwig Wittgenstein said in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, "The Darwinian theory has no more to do with philosophy than has any other hypothesis of natural science."
Philosophy consists of epistemology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, and philosophy of language. It is difficult to see any applicability of the theory of evolution in any of these fields. The philosophical argument advanced in the review about the incompatibility of metaphysical idealism with evolution is rather strange. Adherents of the forms of Idealism attacked therein are likely to say that the argument suffers from equivocation. "Species as eternal Forms," I can hear such Idealists saying, "are not sets of animals which can interbreed and have fertile offspring."
The continual Slashdot derision of Creationism is based on a straw man and/or bandwagon argument and the fallacy of the excluded middle. "Creationists all believe the Universe is less than ten thousand years old and was created in exactly the manner described in Genesis; since this view is disproven, God did not create the Universe!" is the line generally taken here, and there should be no need for an explanation of why this is fallacious. Nor is there any serious threat from the people who say "My Google-based Rules/Sucks-o-meter says God did not create the Universe" or "Contemporary Europeans don't believe God created the Universe."
No adherent of any metaphysical or theological/anti-theological position need feel that the above is an argument against that position. I have here argued only against misapplying what I think is a solid scientific theory.
christians arent even well-versed in the bible.
... hi bingo
"On the third day of creation grass and trees were created, but it wasn't until the fourth day of creation that the sun and moon were created. That obviously does not agree with evolution theory."
Funny that you care to argue how this contradicts evolution. Why do you choose to hide the real consequences? Because this little "fact" does not contradicts evolution directly, only all known biology upon which evolution rests. It contradicts every known fact about the physiology of plants. It contradict physics.
But thank you, you just demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt why your kind of Christian fanatic must be publicly exposed, debunked and fought at every possible forum. You are not just a danger to innocent Kansas children, you are a danger to civilization. Left to your own you would ban all known science and happily lead us to a dark age of ignorance and fear...
Ah yes, Johnson. Why are lawyers suddenly considered the most honest and upright of all professionals, just because they say things you like? Johnson brings the sort of ethics to the debate that a personal injury lawyer brings to law. In other words: he makes a lot of slanderous accusations and practiced usage of logical fallacy. His claims have been refuted countless times in books like "Tower of Babel," but even when it's proven how wrong he is, even after he admits it, like all creationists, he simply continues on making the same dishonest claims.
Yep: the high level of dustfall was based on an old miscalculation taken from an earthbound measurement. It put the level of dustfall many orders of magnitude higher than it actually turned out to be when measured on the moon.
It's a tough read, though, because Gould goes into excruciating detail about everything, and because it assumes a lot of knowledge in the field. Amazing book, though.
The cake is a pie
Nonsense. What we've found is that the rate of mutation is many order MORE than it needs to be, and that natural selection, if anything, actually seems to slow it DOWN.
Let's see:
1) An educational system that, since the 1970's at LEAST has developed a pervasive philosophy of social promotion, moral relativism, and anti-intellectualism*. Teachers compensated not against performance, but according to time served.
2) Schools that have so much corruption, kickbacks, and a positively Medieval fixed resistance to change that they look like Papa Doc's Haiti.
3) Dependence on rote learning, memorization, and 'teaching to the test'.
4) A culture that agrees that your average pro baseball player should make $45/minute ($2.3 mill/yr), and popular icons are Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake, but there's little money for consistent space exploration.
* if you disagree, you've never seriously tried to dispute a politically-correct position in a modern American university system. No matter the labels, it's NOT about 'discourse', it's dogma. It may be liberal dogma, but it's dogma nonetheless.
I'll be blunt: people who believe in creationism are ignorant. The American educational system is turning out ignorant graduates. Why is anyone surprised that as these people grow into adulthood they are easily led by charismatics touting infantile ideas?
-Styopa
There, its all there, nothing else has to be said you can go on to a different article now.
Why do think that an article dealing with a book about evolution needs to start a flame war at all? Articles dealing with books about physics don't start flame wars -- people interested in physics discuss the book and people ignorant of physics ignore the article. Why can't that be the case for evolution?
Compare and contrast the intellectual honesty Darwin showed in approaching objections to his theory this way with your own duplicity and/or ignorance in quoting him so ridiculously out of context. Doesn't look good for you.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The future is in intelligent design, baby.
:)
Intelligent design, eh?
Why didn't the designer make my jaw big enough to hold all my teeth including my wisdom teeth?
Why did the designer make it possible for me to choke on a piece of food?
Why are human eyes so much crappier compared to, for example, a squid's?
Why is our reproductive system such a kludge?
Why do we have a useless add-on to our digestive system (the appendix), which in some people ruptures and kills them?
I guess the designer is an idiot.
Not that Michael Behe's publishing his grand ideas in peer review journals like a real scientist, mind you, but he's still miles more credible than a whole lot of the yahoos who love "Black Box." Sometimes it doesn't seem like they've even read it.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
"Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
What happens on that day if the Lord turns out to be Odin the All-Father in the Halls of Asgard?
Boy will you feel foolish!
> Einsteins "religiosity" was far more about aesthetic
> sensibility than about doctrine. He is talking
> about a feeling of wonder, not about belief.
agreed - its not about 'belief in doctrine'.
einstein's views on religion (as can be seen by reading
his essay) was much profounder than mere dogma.
because of all the BS of dogma, people often throw out
any sense of 'religious wonder' out the window along
with it - einstein nicely deliniates between that
sort of religiosity and what he calls 'cosmic religious feeling'.
regards,
john
I'm dead serious. "Dr. Dino" is quite the fellah.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Don't you worry; aboriginal native Americans were having their graves robbed by devout, God-fearing pilgrims before Darwin's father was a twinkle in his grandmother's eye.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
There is alot of evidence to support Creationism, and a good portion of it is scientific.
Such as?
It ranks up their with their tendency to characterize Hitler, and Naziism, as an athiest regime when in fact Hitler, and most of the Nazis, were devoutly Christian.
His references to God (playing dice) etc. were metaphorical, not literal, as anyone who has read any of Einstein's works can trivially observe.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
but when they landed there, there was only an inch or so.
Nah, they only sank in an inch. When you go to the beach, how far do you sink into the sand? And how deep is it?
"Here" is my comment was meant to refer to Brazil. Sorry for the ambiguity. On the other hand, I support all moderation to hide creationist trolls and I am also not aware of the existence of any other kind of creationist. Slashdot should not harbour archaic superstition, else the next thing we will be reading is that Windows is evil because Bill Gates astral map says so.
Please read my response that ponted to the same ambiguity in my comment.
In short, no, I don't care to read you book of all truth, nor will I study useless superstition posed as serious opposing views for your sake.
If you can't see how what you just posted contradicts all known science, alas, I am not your teacher, I am not your preacher, I am not responsible for you.
My position is pretty clear, I believe all creationist noise should be moderated down as trolls here (and I am not persecuting you alone, I also think references to astrology, Bach florals, and other superstitions should also have the same fate). You are just trying to disrupt a discussion about scientific books and issues with your useless nonsense. Hence, you are just common trolls disguised as defenders of a "truth" only you can see.
I think you're a bit confused, if that's what you were really talking about. This is a rather ancient creationist claim, and indeed a rather silly one. An increase in variation is itself an increase in "information" content if one means unique sequences. But increasing "information" in terms of information theory is the result of selection: not of mutation itself.
Here you go
> Yeah, your basic fundie doesn't have the time to read those opening chapters of Behe, in which he concedes macroevolution in all its guises, for humans too...
>
For this you have to understand something deeply ingrained in the Fundamentalist mentality. Basically, it's a desire to "find an expert that supports my position". It doesn't matter how badly the expert's point is taken out of context, let alone how many other experts disagree entirely; it's sufficient to find any support, and throw away the rest as chaff.
The reason I say that this is deeply ingrained in the Fundamentalist mentality is that it doesn't just apply to evolution bashing. They use exactly the same methodology when quote-mining the bible to "prove" that their sect is correct and the rival sect meeting two blocks down the street is wrong.
I was taken to a fundie church three times a week as a kid, and about 95% of what I heard from the pulpit was exactly this style of super-shallow rhetoric that serves no purpose other than to draw a line in the sand separating "us" from "them", and to give the members of "us" a jukebox mantra to recite whenever their beliefs were challenged. It's about as intellectually bankrupt as rhetoric can get, but it's not intended to promote understanding of {the bible, nature} - it's purpose is purely sociological. And it works for lots of people, as you may have noticed.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Because once one part of the Bible is dismissed as not being straight fact, what other parts of the Bible are also not straight fact?
The entire book of Job is an allegory, to name one. Why would you think God didn't use myths to express Himself in the Old Testament, when parables were His main lesson style in His human form as Jesus?
They encouraged me to research the topic myself and then decide. So I did, and after looking at the evidence I now believe in a literal six-day creation.
What evidence, other than the Bible itself, shows that creation took six days? By that I mean evidence that shows that the period of time between the first light on Earth (day 1, let there be light) and humans (day 6, let us create man in our image) was 120 hours or thereabouts. It must have been pretty substantial to change your beliefs like that.
I'm not really expecting an answer, but if you feel like it, keep in mind that I'm not even worried about when creation happened - 6,000 or 6 billion years ago, I could care less. I want to hear about the evidence that made you believe it only took six days.
Of course, I just realized I'm replying to an AC, so you might not even know I've asked. I don't think that's what Jesus intended when He asked you to preach the Good News to all nations!
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
It appears that you are correct, but I have seen a creationist web site that did make some allegations similar to what the original poster claimed.
. html) that might be it but that link is broken now.
My quick Google search for it has turned up only one link (http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda
As for the 38 questions, I'll leave that for someone with more time to waste tilting at windmills.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Alas, the typical creationist is so ignorant of science - to say nothing of the history of science - that they think they can validate their beliefs by nitpicking at various aspects of the theory of evolution.> Before replying, consider that a "theory" is not some wild-assed notion that someone pulled out of their *ss. It's not conjecture or wild speculation.
The fact is, basic geology had already done irreparable damage to biblical literalism by the time Darwin set foot on Beagle. Creationists tend to combat the theory of evolution as if it were a rival religious sect in competition with their own for membership recruitment, when in fact it is merely an attempt to explain all the stuff we've discovered that the bible can't comfortably be stretched to cover anymore. The theory of evolution didn't displace creationism; it merely filled the void after creationism had already been shown to be contrafactual. Creationists are charging the wrong windmill.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> 1) Where are all of the transitional fossils?
Nothing could better illustrate the fact that creationism is the "science" of ignorance. Creationists like to argue about missing fossils, but scientists like to try to explain the fossils we have.
Rather than asking about missing fossils, why don't you tell us how Genesis I explains all the fossils we do have.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I think the other poster answered your concerns fairly well, and I still think you're confused. The idea that transcription errors (which are only one means by which new genomes come to being) need to create information is sort of beside the point. I suppose they could, but that's simply not what evolution is talking about. "Information," insofar as we are talking about information theory, only really enters into the picture when selection pulls out certain slice of psuedo-random variation. Only then is some sort of filter (what's needed for information) applied.
And somehow "the Roman Catholics" are further from "Christianity" than social Darwinists are from Darwin? How, exactly?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.