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.'"
This is why most biologist refer to Darwins theory plus all the addition thoughts of the last 150 year as neodarwinism
Darwins basic idea still stands so it doesn't seem illogical to use his name for the theory
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
I don't think many popular science writers, or whoever it is that shapes the public understanding of scientific issues, have read, let alone endorse, The Origin of Species. It is truer that most of them do endorse the so-called Modern Synthesis, a synthesis between evolution-theoretic ideas and genetics, which cristallised around the mid-40s and is, arguably, not the last word in the theory of evolution. But I don't see how having Darwin's name associated -in all justice- to the Modern Synthesis cluster is any more harmful to the theory than having Einstein's name associated -in all justice- to the theory of relativity.
On the other hand, from TFA:
"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. For instance, "Newtonian physics" distinguishes the mechanical physics Newton explored from subatomic quantum physics. So "Darwinian evolution" raises a question: What's the other evolution?
Into the breach: intelligent design."
Of course. This is just as it should be. Intelligent design is a powerful source of evolution. Or how does the writer think Airbuses emerged from the Wright brothers' prototype? The passage I just quoted implies that there is no legitimate evolution that is not Darwinian. This is plain silly.
You sure live up to your name.
This is a good idea. Just ask any proponent of creati...err...intelligent design.
Darwin did make predictions based on his observations. He observed a flower with an extremely long distance to it's store of nectar, up to a metre if I recall. He predicted a wierd kind of insect (maybe a moth) that must have a massive, metre long tongue to drink the nectar as an example of the two organisms evolving together. The moth was observed and catalogued about 20 years later if I remember right.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
This is utter rubbish. The people running the Large Hadron Collider believe that hadrons really exist as actual tangible particles rather than mere mathematical models and really collide inside the collider (or would if the darn thing worked). The astronomers believe that there really was an Earth-shattering kaboom at the beginning. And biologists believe that species really evolved from slime sitting on ocean waves to slime sitting on corporate boards.
There's a difference between healthy scepticism and insane paranoia. Confusing the two and implying the latter is some kind of scientific ideal will do nothing but make the general populace see scientists as lunatics. And making patently absurd claims like "no faith required" - Really? Then how do you build those models if you have no faith in logic or your observations? - might make for nice soundbites but will make you sound like an arrogant megalomaniac as soon as someone starts analyzing them a little deeper.
The basic problem seems to be that "faith" has become associated with religion, despite being a necessary and unavoidable component of everything a non-omniscient being does, and religion has for whatever reason been painted as the antithesis of science, from which a conclusion that they can't have anything in common has been drawn. Consequently, some people feel the need to defend the "purity" of science against such horrible accusations as scientists having faith; in extreme cases not even religious faith but faith in anything, even the reality of whatever they're examining. This whole thing is slowly but surely becoming a farce.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Lungfish? Manatees? Feathered dinosaurs? Egg-laying marsupials? Darwin's own Galapagos Finches? That argument is silly, because it glosses over the fact that these processes happen on a timescale we can't observe.
Scientists don't believe in evolution, they see it confirmed over and over again, so accept it as a very good theory. Therefore religion is not an alternative for evolution, it's a whole different game.
Nobody will oppose that "there are particles", but what a particle actually is, no one can really say.
I work in quantum physics, and to me, an electron is just a bunch of so-called quantum numbers, such as mass, electric charge etc.
http://www.transitional-fossil.com/
now fuck off
If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design.
Uh, no. There are other "theories" with just as much evidence as intelligent design.
For instance, there's my "poof" theory. In the "poof" theory, all of the life forms on earth "poofed" into place from another universe. Or universes. Doesn't matter. Anyway, my "poof" theory explains the variety of life on earth, because these alternate universes from which life is "poofing" have much more variety than Earth does. How come we don't see it happening now? We do, actually. Haven't you heard of unicorns? Not everything that poofs into place survives, and you don't always get a breeding pair, either.
What's that? Intelligent Design is better? Nope. We have exactly as much evidence for your Designer and your Designer's methods as we do for my "poof" theory. Sure, I can't show you my alternate universes, but you can's show me your Designer, His Workshop or anything else.
For that matter, there are plenty of other whackos out there who've got a theory with just about as much evidence as mine, such as Michael Cremo (author of "Forbidden Archaeology" and sort of a Hindu creationist), the late Fred Hoyle (panspermia), or Periannan Senapathy (author of "Independent Birth of Origins"). You have to show your Intelligent Design is better than them, too.
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot;
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid.
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small.
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.