Slashdot Mirror
Darwinism Must Die So Evolution Can Live
Pickens writes "MacArthur fellow Carl Safina, an adjunct professor at Stony Brook University, has an interesting essay in the NYTimes that says that equating evolution with Charles Darwin opened the door for creationism by ignoring 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution — Gregor Mendel's patterns of heredity, the discovery of DNA, developmental biology, studies documenting evolution in nature, and evolution's role in medicine and disease. Darwinism implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates, like Marxism, says Safina. He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism, and that by making Darwin 'into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching.' By turning Darwin into an 'ism,' scientists created the opening for creationism, with the 'isms' implying equivalence. 'By propounding "Darwinism," even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one theory,' writes Safina. '"Darwinism" implies that biological scientists "believe in" Darwin's "theory." It's as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.'"
That is, as the Brits say, bollocks.
The issue is that this ignorant view may be perpetuated in America. I have never heard anyone in Europe utter such crap.
Let us pray that Obama can wipe public references to deities into oblivion.
I'm sick of pandering to the ill-educated buffoons who want to drag civilisation kicking and screaming back into the dark ages.
Darwin wasn't utterly and completely right first time out of the bag. So what?
His discoveries have been validated, refined, added-to, improved in ways he could never have predicted.
Again, so what?
Darwin laid the bedrock, the foundation, upon which stands much of modern science, let alone biology.
And until you can give me a reason why we should metaphorically bury the giants upon who's shoulders we collectively stand, I will resist this utterly foolish idea.
The only people who go on and on ad nauseum about "Darwinism", as if it were the be-all and end-all of Evolutionary Theory, are the Creationists.
The reason no-one talks about "Newtonism" or "Eisteinism" is because neither of those things threaten the basis behind the belief systems of a significant chunk of the planet (and therefore the power weilded by the people behind them). Why waste time attacking something you couldn't care less about ?
I could be hanging out with the wrong scientists, but I rarely hear anyone describe what they work on as "Darwinism". There are "evolutionary biologists", who research evolution, not Darwinism. The well-accepted name for the process is evolution, and as far as I can tell nobody calls the idea Darwinism, though Darwin is widely credited as having had an important early role in its development.
We do actually speak of Newtonian mechanics, for what it's worth. Probably more than anyone in science actually speaks of Darwinian evolution. So we've sort of already done what this guy is asking for, it seems?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Darwin didn't have a true theory because the idea he had had no predictive power and little explanatory power, therefore was inherently untestable and not able to be used to answer questions. He wasn't aware of DNA, genes or chromosomes.
Arguably his hypotheseses were quite testable - just not by the science and technology of the time.
Also, not understanding the underlying mechanics of a system does not automatically invalidate a theory explaining them. Exhibit A: Gravity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these days the term "Darwinism" refers to a 19th century understanding of evolution, specifically to distinguish it from modern evolutionary theory.
The only people who use "Darwinism" to mean "theory of evolution" are creationists.
sic transit gloria mundi
A quite skim over the article. It's rubbish. That Darwin distracts from all the others who have helped strengthen our understanding of how the variety of life on the planet came to be, I'll accept that.
That 'Darwinism' must die so people can understand evolution? That's just bollocks.
Education must simply improve, and ignorance should never be tolerated.
I'm really sorry anyone is comparing any scientific idea to "Creationism" or the current flavor of the month "Intelligent Design" which from every angle I can see is neither. Evolution as a general study covers everything from punctuated equilibrium, to impact of ionizing radiation on nucleotides. There must be dozens, maybe hundreds of different disciplines, technologies, framed of reference, scientific venues, and interrelated studies. This would be like comparing a sequoia to a blade of astro-turf, and arguing they are equal because they are both green.
Creationism is a belief system in search of evidence to justify it's validity. This someone opening a box of puzzle pieces, cutting all the none conforming bits off the pieces, and forcing them into some semblance of a presupposed picture. In short this is a mental illness. It is someone who places more importance in the way they want things to be, than the way they in fact are. This is magical thinking. Most human beings develop beyond this level of function at about the age of 10. It is no more ludicrous than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
The nature of science is you have an idea. You test it against the world. If the data doesn't match the theory, the theory is wrong, and you need to rethink it. No handpicking data to match your theory. Scientist who do that are called frauds, and lose the respect and recognition of their peers almost instantly. This isn't to say that there isn't belief, politics, and hubris among scientists. It's hard to ignore human foibles, but at least one can account for them. Magical thinking doesn't even try. Those same foibles are point and purpose to magical thinking, and any truth that happens there is purely coincidental.
Actually, it _still_ isn't testable, since it has idiocies like "sexual selection" tacked on to it as a catch-all for everything it couldn't actually explain. (Why did the peacock evolve such a big and handicapping tail? Hur-hur-hur, to impress women, Beavis.)
The problem is that no matter how you slice it, it proposes that an organism can also evolve towards _less_ fit, i.e., that sometimes natural selection works against the logical direction or in some random direction. You can't falsify something with such a catch-all clause. It predicts that something will get more fit for the environment... except in the unpredictable cases where it actually evolves to be less fit.
It's like saying that gravity makes bodies attract each other... except when they repulse each other, or make each other move in a random direction. That's not falsifiable, i.e., plain old not science.
Why do I call it idiotic?
A) Because it handwaves away half the problem. Ok, so male peacocks evolved so to impress the females. But why did females evolve that trait then? Going strictly natural selection, if that tail were indeed a disadvantage, some females would be randomly born with a preferrence for smaller tails and mate with males with smaller tails, their children would have less of a disadvantage, repeat. So natural selection would guide things towards removing that handicap anyway.
Just because sex is involved in selecting that, it doesn't mean it is the only factor or evolutionary pressure. If it were a disadvantage for males, then natural selection among _females_ would phase it out.
B) Because it doesn't even try to see if there's another advantage to that. It's a catch-all "I don't know why it's like that, so it must be about sex." And I mean other disadvantages like:
- disruptive camouflage. Just because for the advanced image recognition circuitry of a primate something stands out like a sore thumb, it doesn't mean it's like that for other species too. E.g., an orange tabby tomcat is actually very well camouflaged for its prey, because its many lines prevent a mouse's simple circuitry from figuring out the shape of the cat. E.g., the lines of the zebras are a nightmare for lions.
A peacock's tail's patterns would be a right nightmare for many species of predators.
- apparent size. Most animals don't have the circuitry to really figure out the real size of an opponent, so a bigger total shape means a bigger animal. E.g., there's a reason why your cat puffs up and turns sideways when it tries to scare off a potential enemy. For your advanced brain it's the same cat, but for another cat it's "whoa, it just got a lot larger." E.g., just putting a tophat on a kid makes him/her look like a less tempting prey to a hyena, because it looks bigger.
A peacock's tail makes it look freaking big. A lot of the smaller predators would be a lot less inclined to mess with it.
- protecting one's young and females. Many species essentially take a personal risk to try to lure a predator away from their children. Even a personal disadvantage can be an evolutionary advantage if it helps save your kids.
- aposematism. Sometimes you want to make yourself visible as an easily recognizable warning. E.g., see ladibugs being that brightly coloured. It was actually an evolutionary advantage to make sure that whatever bird tasted a ladybug once, can easily recognize and avoid others.
But here's the fun part: sometimes it's an evolutionary advantage to imitate such a species. If the predators already are "trained" to avoid species X, it can be an advantage to look like species X although you don't have the same defenses.
So the peacock could have simply evolved to look like _something_ that the predators would rather avoid. E.g., to show a bigger version of a pattern of a more dangerous predator, or of a toxic/stinging plant that everybody avoids, etc.
- changing conditions. Just because something looks like a pure disadvantage to you now, it could have been an advantage against
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
They do believe in natural selection obviously, since you can't make predictions (hence, do any science at all) from ID.
From a strict technical, linguistic-nazi, point of view : they don't *believe in* natural selection, they *believe that natural selection is an useful model they can use*.
Usually the phrase *believe in* implies some form of faith.
Whereas scientist *just pick up* a model they consider the best for the situation, based on how much usable it is for making accurate predictions.
No faith required.
But apart from the nit-picking about words, I agree with you : ID is useless because its principle simply contradict the way science work - it's not a model you can use to make any useful prediction at all.
Sometimes deprecated model are used because they are accurate enough in a simpler subset of problems : Newton's physic is simpler to use than Einstein's, yet still good enough at low energy/speed/mass.
In the case of evolution and natural selection, the model is currently still the best one, considering the tons of additional material that has been added to it.
And considering the fact that each time a completely brand new branch of biology appears (like genetics), the data produced results still in accordance to what would expect when using the evolution and natural selection models.
Currently that's the best model we have and a better one has yet to come.
ID is no possible contender, as its fundamental principle aren't scientific : scientific model are made to be used to make prediction, and to model the world in order to understand it better. ID tells us that everything is done on the will of some higher being (and thus nothing could be predicted) and some things are just too complex to be explainable (and thus you can't model the world).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism
No one talks about "Darwinism" except the creationists. The reasons he gives are exactly the reasons they invented the term - it's far easier to discredit a dead guy from 100 years ago than it is a scientific concept.
By making it seem like the work of one man with millions of blind followers it appears more fallible.
Their tactics are pretty ironic really.
Allow me just a few points. BTW I am an evolutionary biologist. Carl Safina, with all due respect, is not.
First, let's get one thing straight that the author of the article confuses. "Evolution" is the observation that all living things seem to be related, plus the observation of the change of the living world in time. This observations are older than Darwin. "Theory of evolution" is any theory that tries to explain this observation. "Neodarwinism" or "Synthetic Theory of Evolution" is one particular theory that involves the mechanism called "natural selection". Natural selection is a mechanism that can be observed. Darwin's greatness was in linking this mechanism to the rise and change in complexity of all living things, and in the ability to foresee the consequences that only recently started being fully understood.
1) "Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries"
First, nowadays formally we use the terms "neodarwinism" or "synthetic theory of evolution". "Darwinism" is most often used in certain popular (non-scientific) texts, and also by creationists.
2) "Using phrases like Darwinian selection or Darwinian evolution implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective."
Well, of course, as any of my students would immediately ask "what about lamarckian evolution?" (an alternative explanation for the process of evolution, largely rejected or falsified by observations)
3) "And isms (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science."
Yeah, right, like electromagnetism, empiricism or autism.
4) "What Darwin had to say about evolution basically begins and ends right there."
If this only was so simple. Darwin, as I mentioned before, not only proposed natural selection as an important mechanism of evolution, but also was able to point out the consequences, ranging from kin selection to the role of sexual reproduction.
5) Do you really believe that creationists would less fiercely attack a "synthetic theory of evolution"? The problem is much, much deeper than just an association or a given name.
Cheers,
j.
I thought that "Darwinism" was a term thought up by the religious anti-evolution side.
Why? I suspect that it is because they associate their beliefs with an entity, God in this case, and thus cannot see how other people don't need to also do that. Thus they ultimately project this viewpoint that people who believe in evolution are actually believing in a false God as part of their propaganda against evolution.
Darwin, of course, studied theology at Cambridge University. He was also a depressive, presumably because of how stupid (and stubbornly-so) most people were. I think he would be depressed today. Especially if he saw the creationism museum.
Btw, there was a pretty good David Attenborough programme on BBC TV last week about Darwin and Evolution that showed many of the subsequent discoveries. I forget the title, but it must be available on popular video sharing sites.
Two seconds on google shows this is a copy-and-paste almost 9 months old. Original content, please.
http://talkingtotheists.blogspot.com/2008/05/story-thus-far-noted-youtube.html
Let's poke some holes in your argument though, even though I'm sure you won't be back, it may serve as an amusement for slashdotters and a deterrent for more of your ilk with their recycled arguments.
1)Your first argument that in order for a theory to be considered valid that it must be proven "not false" is patently untrue.
When a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific theory it is because all evidence to that point provides overwhelming support for the hypothesis. Redefining what science is not a justification for an argument, and invalidates most of your following reasoning. A theory is a theory not because experiments prove it "true" or even "not false", but because experiments have failed to prove it false.
2) If your blue watermelon example were a proper scientific hypothesis, it could be disproven, because a requirement of a scientific hypothesis is that it must be disprovable (and not necessarily provable). Add in your hypothesis of why it turns red when opened, and you have a true scientific, disprovable, hypothesis. (I'd open it under argon because if that were the case, rapid oxidation would most likely be the cause).
3) Quote:If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design.
A scientific hypothesis or experiment does NOT pose an ultimatum like this. Science is not an either/or endeavor. It is a pursuit of truth, with each experiment leaving a puzzle piece.
4) Quote:Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy)....since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.
I'm going to take a red car, and over the process of 10000 coats paint it slightly darker red each time. At the end,it will be black. I will then show you a picture of the original car. Will they look the same?
I also point you to the origin of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells. Any microbiologist or decent microbiology text will show that they were obtained, rather quickly, by endocytosis, and altered by the cell to work for it.
4) Quote:Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants
It is very convenient how you leave out bacteria, which have been proven over and over again to evolve on an observable timescale.
5) Quote:A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line
I won't even go into how uncouth it is to define your own terms in an argument. However, as evolution is a slow process (and you use it in your argument and thus cannot come back and say that you disagree), where would you draw the line of a "prototype"? The transition of species from a common ancestor is a gradient, not a series of steps.
6) My final argument.
Quote:If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias
That one statement says more than enough.If someone's logic trumps your own, you will cry "bias". Quite simply, that makes it "not false" that you are not a scientist.
- Sol
Find a fossil that doesn't fit the record. You show us a 200 million year old fossilized Koala..
Ok, that makes more sense then. However, I'm not sure that the standard view of sexual selection is that the feathers are a disadvantage that just happen to impress females. As you said, if the tail was a disadvantage that would seem absurd.
What do you think is wrong with the more likely scenario that the tail is neutral to survival, while at the same time being preferred by females thus giving the male a reproductive advantage. I don't know what the peafowl's habitat is like, but the somewhat awkward creature could thrive due to a lack of natural predators. After all, the tail doesn't prevent the bird from flying, and flying is always a strong defense. The females preference could also have a logical basis since individuals that are healthy and well-fed would be better able to produce an extravagant tail.
It's also possible that the tail could have multiple purposes. It could have one of the survival advantages as you outlined so well above as well as the reproductive advantage from sexual selection. There's no reason it has to be only one or the other, is there?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I thought that "Darwinism" was a term thought up by the religious anti-evolution side.
I was taught 'Darwin's theory of natural selection' in school, as part of the basic theory of evolution. Mendel and his peas were in there as well. I'll also note that the theory of evolution in my textbook explicitly didn't cover the start of life; there was some mention of 'primordial soup', but fully admitted that scientists don't really have a clue.
I have never heard it called 'Darwinism' by anything other than creationists and the people handing out awards in a bit of black humor.
I wonder if the anti-evolutionists were around when I was a kid; I don't remember ever hearing about them. I wouldn't be surprised if a big part of the yelling right now is the last gasp of the creationists, as they can no longer hide in small areas in local or church schools. News is far more national now than it was even 20 years ago. If my study of history has shown me anything; it's that rarely is anything having to do with the human condition new or unique. There's creationists over in Europe; in China and India.
I don't read AC A human right
I haven't studied that stuff for years, but "Darwinism" has not been the alpha and omega of evolution for quite some time.
I've read about some of that stuff as well, but having to gone to public school and been stuck in 'regular' classes on occasion, I'd say that 'Darwinism' is about the right level for basic grade school scientific theory. Just don't go trying to apply it to bacteria too much. Bacteria sex is one of the weirder things out there. Mendel's Pea experiments are good for heredity.
Honestly enough, I've never really understood any but the most literal creationist's objections to evolution. I mean, why aren't they protesting dinosaurs? Isn't the Earth supposed to be too young for them to have existed?
I don't read AC A human right
Absolutely.
I don't know where the author got his information from, but equating Darwin directly with evolution and setting him up as the absolute authority on evolution and natural select is exactly the straw man argument used by the ID/creation morons.
They try, in their pathetic attempt to debate, to equate "The Origin of the Species" with the bible and insinuate that it is a text that "atheists" (i.e. everyone that doesn't agree with their exact take on biblical inerrancy) hold to be inerrant, holy and the subject of religious fervour. Or that "atheists" hold Darwin to be some sort of messiah, and ascribe that view to belief and faith. This then allows them to knock down their hastily erected straw man by saying "my religion is as valid as yours". It's not only an invalid argument, it's intellectually dishonest, as is the entire ID movement.
That the NYT thinks this is really the case is shocking.
Darwin was a smart guy. He wasn't *the* smart guy, and in fact some others around his time were starting to explore similar ideas. A lot has happened since then, some of his work has been extended, some parts contradicted or corrected.
"I mean, why aren't they protesting dinosaurs?"
I'm pretty sure they used to. There's a whole set of Fundy arguments about the validity of carbon (and other) dating methods, and a load of stock rants on how it's all based on faulty assumptions and circular reasoning.
They tend not to even touch on the fact we have records of humans and human civilisation back before they think the world was created...
Bunch of hateful, wilfully ignorant assholes. Wilful ignorance on this scale should be the greatest sin.
http://www.transitional-fossil.com/
now fuck off
Utter tosh, both the article and this comment. We refer to Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian space time so why not Darwinian Evolution. As for creationism, its just another religious ideology and you either fight its proponents to the death or you let them kill you. Politics is not civilized and grown up and we still settle political (read religious) differences with war. Darwinian evolution does not need proof in the terms offered by this post because it is a theory not a law. We use it because its predictions work. Find a better theory and we will adopt it, otherwise shut the F up.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Indeed they have. This doesn't, however, mean that they respect the rules of debate or any sort of historical precedent. I think it's because the general public, even the religious general public, laugh out loud when they say that dinosaurs are a lie/a test/all fake/a set of species that lived with humans 4K years ago.
They've moved on to evolution in general because it's a complicated issue, and the rhetoric they can use on their congregations becomes simpler - "you don't want to understand what all these egghead sciency guys are saying do you? That would be a lot of effort and you like easy answers! They're all elitist and liberal and stuff! They believe this really complicated thing that I'm going to summarise as them saying there's no God! You believe in God right? Right!?!"
It's not really a debate as such, it's them trying to turn the tide of popular opinion and latching on to whatever they can, whilst trying to persuade people that "we can do science talk too!" and then talking in circles and trying to keep their ideas from too much scrutiny.
Science and Religion are different bodies of knowledge, but not mutually exclusive
That's a politically correct lie used to avoid alienating religious folk (maybe even to avoid the cognitive dissonance of alientating yourself if you're a religious pseudo-scientist!).
The fact is that science and religion really are, in at least one very core area, mutually exclusive.
If something happens then it's either happening according to the laws of nature or it's not (maybe it's happening due to the intervention of god, or the flying spaghetti monster). It can't be both. Given that scientists believe that the laws of nature (as revealed by the scientific method) govern EVERYTHING that happens (with major reason - there's never, by definition, been any exception to any scientifically accepted theory), it means that science is incompatible with any notion of god other than a totally impotent one that can have no influence on your life, or anything else.
So, science may be compatible with going to church, living the ten commandments, or whatever else you like to do, but it's not compatible with belief in a god that has any power in any domain covered by a scientific theory.
but what hope do people have who REFUSE to believe in ANY higher power?
Hope for what? Life after death? Why do you need "hope" in *anything*? What's going to happen is going to happen, regardless of what you believe. And what's going to happen is that you wink out of existence when you die.
This is what I don't understand. How is it better to believe in a lie that you know isn't true?
[I'm fairly convinced that all religious people know, in their deepest, darkest, secret place that most will never admit, they know that the God and the bible is a bunch of nonsense. But the idea frightens them to their core.]
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
You are equivocating on the word faith. This is a common error, please don't perpetuate it.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/equivocation.html
Your list is rather slim. All species are transitional species, including humans.
Also, don't respond to trolls.