Oh, and I would have to reiterate all the earlier complaints, beginning with the fact that the current theory(s) of evolution, like the one of Darwin, is still the most vague and multifarious theory in the universe.
Well, we will certainly have to disagree there. Compared to the more established, mature, sciences, Evolution does look a bit open to such comments, but the reality is all science suffers from the same issues and changes.
Chemistry had added 26 elements to the periodic table in less than a hundred years, a table which has been radically restructured more than once in the same time span. Physics is awash with conflicting ideas which in the last half century have changed everything from how we think of gravity interacting at the smallest scale, to the very shape of the standard model. Cosmology has re-invented blackholes a few times and postulates such strange concepts as dark energy and dark matter to explain an arbitrary number as a cosmological constant.
All science is in a state of flux and this is good.
It is routinely falsified only to have an ad hoc fix
When you say “routinely falsified,” what do you mean?
Even if it were routinely falsified (which I doubt) this would mean nothing more than it was actually good science. If it were bad science (vague and multifarious, for example) then it would be impossible to falsify – ala ID/Creationism.
]]>Specifically the notion that technology can self-create if we wait long enough.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Evolution does not, of itself, dictate that technology can self-create. Some people use an evolutionary analogy to predict a point at which intelligent systems may be able to do this, but this is not evolution in any real sense of the term.
Additionally, the claim that certain kinds of technology can be proven not to have been the result of ID.
Who has made such a claim? How is this related to evolutionary biology?
Evolutionary theory does not address the development of man-made technology. People use the concept of a selection pressure as an analogy about how some technologies prosper and others fail, but it is not related to the theory of evolution as such.
This still, as I have said previously, strikes me that you are objecting to the secondary conclusions and analogies people have made about the theory, rather than the science contained in the theory itself.
]]>Specifically the notion that technology can self-create if we wait long enough. Additionally, the claim that certain kinds of technology can be proven not to have been the result of ID.
]]>The biology curriculum here in California is set by the state. He was taking a second year of biology at the time which is all geared towards passing a statewide Advanced Placement test so that the kids can skip a year in college.
This does not mean it adheres to any of the standards of “good science.” The farce in Dover identified that sometimes a curriculum can be set with little or no input from people who know the subject. Here in the UK the curriculum is set nationally and there are still times when the teaching is markedly divorced from the “real” science.
The crucial point (IMHO) is that saying (effectively) School X, or even State X are teaching Evolution in this manner, which is wrong therefore Evolution is wrong is simply false.
I have never read Genetics and Molecular Biology, so I can not comment as to it’s content in any way. However, what I said before still stands. Book X being incorrect does not falsify a theory.
Mainly, my complaint is that evolution was promoted as scientifically proven fact since about 1870. Newton’s laws were established much earlier, but my father’s Newton’s laws are the exactly same as my Newton’s laws and the same as my son’s Newton’s laws.
Interesting, and valid comments. In the case of Newton, he was heavily building on an area of science which was already old by human standards – the work of those who went before him contributed to the theories he produced. Given such a pedigree, it is not unusual that he developed a more mature theory. The Evolution Darwin suggested was new – akin to looking at how Hipparchus described planetary motion and wondering why the theory was tweaked for one and a half millennia before becoming solid under Newton’s hand. In the future there will, certainly, be solid and unchanging laws of evolution where people can say their fathers laws were the same as their sons.
A similar example is quantum mechanics. This changes dramatically on a daily basis. The argument over who should carry the “credit” for its “discovery” could last for eternity. Would Bohr recognise the standard model of today as one which falls out of his early work?
The current versions of the theory of evolution would be incomprehensible to Darwin (what is an allele?) but we insist that it is the same theory of evolution for teaching purposes.
Well, as far as I was aware it isn’t taught as “Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution,” at least not in the UK when I was at school. Evolution is normally credited as a theory first proposed by Darwin but any responsible text will then explain how the theory has evolved since Darwin. It is not formally named “Darwins Theory of Evolution.” On the Wikipedia page for Evolution, three paragraphs pass before Darwin is mentioned. Generally speaking, referring to “Darwinism” and “Darwinian Theory” (etc) is normally used as snide appeal to ridicule or ad hominem by creationists.
That aside, faulty nomenclature of the theory name, does not falsify the theory. So if your objection is that Evolution is not the same theory that Darwin proposed, it is easily solved.
An additional complaint is that the teaching of evolution is done according to the Dobzhansky principle: “Nothing in biology can be understood except in the light of evolution”.
Then the complaint is with the principle and teaching methodologies, not the underlying theory.
On the oher hand, every application of biology, farming, medicine, drug design, virology, etc. has numerous successful practitioners who are quite productive and reject macro evolution.
That some practitioners choose to ignore the theories they are using, does not falsify the theory. I can function day in, day out without needing to believe dark matter exists, or that the cosmological constant is what it is. Does that falsify either element of cosmology?
Young Earth Creationists can also be Geologists – does that falsify plate tectonic theories?
Similarly, if I accept an ID paradigm for biology, I must admit that I haven’t a clue how God might design things.
It is a valid theological viewpoint, but is as scientific as saying the flying spaghetti monster designed the universe.
Thus, I really believe that no theory of biological origin would be preferable to one that insists that we know about biological origins, but then can’t enumerate anyhing that we really do know.
This is not what evolutionary theory puts forward.
Can I ask for specific issues about evolutionary theory you feel are false, rather than the teaching methods?
]]>The biology curriculum here in California is set by the state. He was taking a second year of biology at the time which is all geared towards passing a statewide Advanced Placement test so that the kids can skip a year in college.
“The same with your molecular biology text books.”
The molecular biology text I referred to is “Genetics and Molecular Biology” by Schleif. It was used at Johns Hopkins University a few years back. There are a few exclamations regarding evolution, then back to the physical and organic chemistry grind.
“All science develops and progresses. Is your complaint that evolution is changing too quickly?”
Mainly, my complaint is that evolution was promoted as scientifically proven fact since about 1870. Newton’s laws were established much earlier, but my father’s Newton’s laws are the exactly same as my Newton’s laws and the same as my son’s Newton’s laws. Einstein’s theory of gravity was not presented as Newton’s law of gravity, but rather as something distinct. The current versions of the theory of evolution would be incomprehensible to Darwin (what is an allele?) but we insist that it is the same theory of evolution for teaching purposes.
An additional complaint is that the teaching of evolution is done according to the Dobzhansky principle: “Nothing in biology can be understood except in the light of evolution”. On the oher hand, every application of biology, farming, medicine, drug design, virology, etc. has numerous successful practitioners who are quite productive and reject macro evolution. For emphasis, mastering the micro-evolutionary issues associated with drug design is no obstacle to those who reject macro-evolution. Thus, we have medical researchers at my semi-fundamentalist church here in Silicon Valley.
Similarly, if I accept an ID paradigm for biology, I must admit that I haven’t a clue how God might design things. Thus, I really believe that no theory of biological origin would be preferable to one that insists that we know about biological origins, but then can’t enumerate anyhing that we really do know.
]]>That was precisely my point: The theory of evolution today is different from the one of Darwin. In fact, there is a new theory of evolution every generation so that what I learned in school is different from what my children learn. My son came home after aceing a biology test and said “any answer is correct, as long as we mention evolution”.
Assuming this is a 100% correct rendition of the school’s policy then I suggest you change the school your son goes to. This is an indictment of their teaching and assessment methods rather than the theory of evolution. The same with your molecular biology text books. It strikes me that they are badly written rather than anything else.
All science develops and progresses. Is your complaint that evolution is changing too quickly? All areas of science have progressed from generation to generation – it was not long ago that plate tectonics were not taught at school. Cosmology has developed leaps and bounds in the last twenty years, let alone the massive developments following the second world war. The periodic table, that bedrock of chemistry changes over time (where should H go?)
A parent in the 1960s could have had the same arguments you have about physics, the standard model was just coming in and new particles were being discovered. Would that have meant the science was flawed?
If we accept the bedrock of science as being able to make falsifiable predictions which can be experimented against, and the experiments being repeatable, then yes, evolution is not only more tangible than Darwin’s ghost, but it is indeed a science.
Are you seriously arguing for “no theory” simply because you are uncomforable with your understanding of the current theory – or do you have an alternative theory you think is more sound?
]]>TW: “Not at all. The false analogy is that evolution as Darwin understood it, is not evolution as it is understood today. If you want to mount a crusade against Darwin, then I suggest you learn to commune with the dead.”
That was precisely my point: The theory of evolution today is different from the one of Darwin. In fact, there is a new theory of evolution every generation so that what I learned in school is different from what my children learn. My son came home after aceing a biology test and said “any answer is correct, as long as we mention evolution”.
Similarly, if you pick up a molecular biology text, you will see some exclamations regarding evolution, then they will not mention evolution at all for a few chapters as they get into physical chemistry concepts. Finally it will finish up with some more exclamations about evolution. All the while, there is no mention of how evolution theory connects to anything else.
So the issue of Popper remains: Is the theory of evolution any more tangible than Darwin’s ghost?
]]>