Sunday, 25 February 2024
The odd couple?
Can Evolution and Intelligent Design Be Happily Wedded?
On a new episode of ID the Future, host Casey Luskin kicks off a series of interviews responding to theologian Dr. Rope Kojonen’s proposal that front-loaded intelligent design and a full-blooded evolutionary process worked together in harmony to produce the diversity of life we find on Earth. Here, Dr. Luskin interviews Dr. Stephen Dilley, lead author of a comprehensive critique of Kojonen’s model, co-authored with Luskin, Brian Miller, and Emily Reeves and published in the journal Religions.
In the first half of a conversation, Luskin and Dilley describe Dr. Kojonen’s proposal in a nutshell, providing the philosophical framing needed to grasp Kojonen’s elegant but flawed argument. Kojonen’s idea is the ultimate front-loaded design model, allowing for evolutionary mechanisms to work themselves out, but within a careful and purposeful arrangement of finely tuned preconditions and laws of form. Seemingly, t’s the best of both worlds: empirically detectable design within a fully natural evolutionary process.
But there’s a problem. The fine-tuning Kojonen claims is baked into evolutionary processes is actually not there. The sequence space for amino acids to come together to form functional proteins has been found to be exceedingly rare as well as isolated. We don’t find evidence of fine-tuning within the mutation/selection mechanism. Instead, we find a process limited in its creative power that cannot have produced the complexity and information-rich innovation necessary to bring about life’s biological diversity. As Luskin puts it, “He [Kojonen] is arguing that God had to stack the deck in favor of evolution in order to get it to work.” It’s an interesting thesis, and Kojonen is serious and scholarly in his approach to the problem. But in the end, it fails on scientific grounds.
Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Yet more confirming of the humanity of ancient humans.
Burials Reveal Prehistoric Cultures Valued Children with Down Syndrome
We’ve all probably heard from one pundit or another that prehistoric humans discarded children with disabilities, just as animals might. Well, recently, researchers screened the DNA of 10,000 ancient humans (historic and prehistoric) for evidence of genetically detectible syndromes like Down sydrome. According to their report in Nature, “We find clear genetic evidence for six cases of trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) and one case of trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), and all cases are present in infant or perinatal burials.”
Clearly, people with significant genetic disorders could not expect a long life back then. But the researchers were surprised by the respect shown to the deceased children: “Notably, the care with which the burials were conducted, and the items found with these individuals indicate that ancient societies likely acknowledged these individuals with trisomy 18 and 21 as members of their communities, from the perspective of burial practice.”
The five prehistoric burials were all located within settlements and in some cases accompanied by special items such as colored bead necklaces, bronze rings or sea-shells. “These burials seem to show us that these individuals were cared for and appreciated as part of their ancient societies,” says [Adam] Rohrlach, the lead author of the study.
MAX PLANCK SOCIETY, “ANCIENT GENOMES REVEAL DOWN SYNDROME IN PAST SOCIETIES,” PHYS.ORG, FEBRUARY 20, 2024 > THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS VIA A SHAREIT TOKEN
Down syndrome (an extra whole or partial copy of the 21st chromosome, hence trisomy 21 ) is comparatively common (1/1,000 births). Edwards syndrome — three copies of chromosome 18 — occurs in 1/3,000 births.
Five of these burials of children with Down syndrome date to between 5,000 and 2,500 years before the present, in settled communities. An interesting feature is that the infants were buried inside houses:
“At the moment, we cannot say why we find so many cases at these sites,” says Roberto Risch, an archaeologist of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona working on intramural funerary rites, “but we know that they belonged to the few children who received the privilege to be buried inside the houses after death. This already is a hint that they were perceived as special babies.”
MAX PLANCK SOCIETY, “IN PAST SOCIETIES“
“A Surprise to Us”
In an article at The Conversation, researchers Adam “Ben” Rohrlach and Kay Prüfer comment,
The fact that three cases of Down syndrome and the one case of Edwards syndrome were found in just two contemporaneous and nearby settlements was a surprise to us.
“We don’t know why this happened,” says our co-author Roberto Risch, an archaeologist from The Autonomous University of Barcelona. “But it appears as if these people were purposefully choosing these infants for special burials.” “
ANCIENT DNA REVEALS CHILDREN WITH DOWN SYNDROME IN PAST SOCIETIES. WHAT CAN THEIR BURIALS TELL US ABOUT THEIR LIVES?,” FEBRUARY 20, 2024
Generally, when people are buried inside a home (floor burials), they are thought to be good, not bad, in some way. The sixth such burial was in a church graveyard in Finland, dated to the 17th–18th century
Why Were the Researchers So Surprised?
The researchers may be startled that the children were treated as members of the community because today considerable effort is made to identify children with Down syndrome prenatally — and most of them are aborted.
But perhaps Wayne Gretzky (in hockey, the legendary Great One) would be less surprised. In 1981, he met and developed a friendship with teenage Joey Moss (1963–2020) who had Down syndrome. In 1984, he got him a job as a locker room attendant with the Edmonton Oilers. Moss took to League life very well. An ardent fan and great favorite, he was inducted into the Alberta Sports Hall of Fame in 2003. He also received the National Hockey League Alumni Association’s Seventh Man award that year, for those “whose behind-the-scenes efforts make a difference in the lives of others.
A YouTube commenter writes, “I still tear up when I think of what we lost in Joey. He totally changed the way I deal with handicapped people. Clearly, his name must be in the rafters.”
Gretzky told People Magazine in 2016, “The people of Edmonton have accepted Joey as an everyday person without any sort of handicap and that’s what’s really special about his story.” Meanwhile, Gretzky himself raised money through golf tournaments to build more group homes for people who live with Down syndrome as adults — something that, of course, didn’t happen much in remote antiquity when almost all life expectancies were short.
If we don’t give people like Joey a chance, perhaps we haven’t advanced beyond our ancestors as much as we think, apart from our better living conditions.
Saturday, 24 February 2024
Getting fraud down to a Science?II
Data Can Appear in Science Journals — Out of Thin Air
Recently, Retraction Watch, a site that helps keeps science honest, noted some statistical peculiarities about a paper last September in the Journal of Clean Energy, “Green innovations and patents in OECD countries.” The site was tipped off by a PhD student in economics that “For several countries, observations for some of the variables the study tracked were completely absent.”
But That Wasn’t the Big Surprise
The big surprise was when the student wrote to one of the authors:
In email correspondence seen by Retraction Watch and a follow-up Zoom call, [Almas] Heshmati told the student he had used Excel’s autofill function to mend the data. He had marked anywhere from two to four observations before or after the missing values and dragged the selected cells down or up, depending on the case. The program then filled in the blanks. If the new numbers turned negative, Heshmati replaced them with the last positive value Excel had spit out. “No data? No problem!” …
But it got worse. Heshmati’s data, which the student convinced him to share, showed that in several instances where there were no observations to use for the autofill operation, the professor had taken the values from an adjacent country in the spreadsheet. New Zealand’s data had been copied from the Netherlands, for example, and the United States’ data from the United Kingdom.
UNDISCLOSED TINKERING IN EXCEL BEHIND ECONOMICS PAPER,” RETRACTION WATCH, FEBRUARY 5, 2024
“It’s Pretty Egregious”
While many researchers decried the results, University of Copenhagen econometrician Søren Johansen said something worth pondering: “The reason it’s cheating isn’t that he’s done it, but that he hasn’t written it down,” adding, “It’s pretty egregious.”
Pomona College business prof Gary Smith weighed in at Retraction Watch, explaining how blanks can come to seem like information in statistical papers.
Imputation (the technique the authors were using), he says, is not always unfair: “If we are measuring the population of an area and are missing data for 2011, it is reasonable to fit a trend line and, unless there has been substantial immigration or emigration, use the predicted value for 2011. Using stock returns for 2010 and 2012 to impute a stock return for 2011 is not reasonable.” In other words, whether imputation is unfair depends on whether anything was likely to have happened in the period for which data is missing that would change the results.
Another Story
But, he says, the way the authors of the controversial paper were using the technique was another story:
The most extreme cases are where a country has no data for a given variable. The authors’ solution was to copy and paste data for another country. Iceland has no MKTcap data, so all 29 years of data for Japan were pasted into the Iceland cells. Similarly, the ENVpol (environmental policy stringency) data for Greece (with six years imputed) were pasted into Iceland’s cells and the ENVpol data for Netherlands (with 2013-2018 imputed) were pasted into New Zealand’s cells. The WASTE (municipal waste per capita) data for Belgium (with 1991-1994 and 2018 imputed) were pasted into Canada. The United Kingdom’s R&Dpers (R&D personnel) data were pasted into the United States (though the 10.417 entry for the United Kingdom in 1990 was inexplicably changed to 9.900 for the United States).
The copy-and-pasted countries were usually adjacent in the alphabetical list (Belgium and Canada, Greece and Iceland, Netherlands and New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States), but there is no reason an alphabetical sorting gives the most reasonable candidates for copying and pasting. Even more troubling is the pasting of Japan’s MKTcap data into Iceland and the simultaneous pasting of Greece’s ENVpol data into Iceland. Iceland and Japan are not adjacent alphabetically, suggesting this match was chosen to bolster the desired results.
GARY SMITH, “HOW (NOT) TO DEAL WITH MISSING DATA: AN ECONOMIST’S TAKE ON A CONTROVERSIAL STUDY, RETRACTION WATCH, FEBRUARY 21, 2024
He concludes, “There is no justification for a paper not stating that some data were imputed and describing how the imputation was done.”
What Counts as Science
Perhaps Elsevier, the journal publishers, agree with his view. Retraction Watch announced that Elsevier, the journal’s publisher, would retract the paper:
As we reported earlier this month, Almas Heshmati of Jönköping University mended a dataset full of gaps by liberally applying Excel’s autofill function and copying data between countries – operations other experts described as “horrendous” and “beyond concern.” …
Elsevier, in whose Journal of Cleaner Production the study appeared, moved quickly on the new information. A spokesperson for the publisher told us yesterday: “We have investigated the paper and can confirm that it will be retracted.”
“EXCLUSIVE: ELSEVIER TO RETRACT PAPER BY ECONOMIST WHO FAILED TO DISCLOSE DATA TINKERING,” RETRACTION WATCH, FEBRUARY 22, 2024
If Elsevier doesn’t end up retracting the paper, that will certainly say something about what counts as science today.
Note: As noted above, the first author of the paper, Almas Heshmati, was the one originally interviewed by the student. The second author, Mike Tsionas, died recently.
"Settled Science" vs. Actual science.
Stifling Opposition Is the Real “Anti-Science”
The advancement of science is one of mankind’s greatest triumphs. And who could be against it? Deploying the raw power of rational analysis, science exponentially increases our understanding of the natural world and leads to wonderous applications to improve the human condition.
But these days, science has become something of a divisive concept. It’s not that most people reject the scientific method or science’s many achievements. Rather, because some in the scientific establishment co-opt the term “science” as a means of exerting control over policy or to further favored ideological agendas, trust in the scientific sector is deflating.
You know the types. They can be seen regularly on cable TV claiming righteously that “the science is settled” about the rightness of their opinions — for example, the medical propriety of “affirming” gender confusion in children with puberty blockers. Then, they deploy the pejorative “anti-science” against those who disagree to stifle other perspectives.
The Antithesis of Science
But shutting critics up is the antithesis of science, properly understood. Indeed, stifling opposition is the real “anti-science” because it betrays the fundamental precepts of the scientific method, an approach to learning that requires continual argumentation, (sometimes bitter) disagreements, and the never-ending willingness to challenge accepted orthodoxies. In this sense, “the science” is never “settled” but always open to revised understandings. Otherwise, science mutates into dogma, which suppresses the pursuit of knowledge. Indeed, sometimes that is the point.
Examples of once-unquestioned “truths” overturned by subsequent discoveries are legion. Here’s a recent example. Biologists used to believe that the human appendix was a useless vestigial organ. But because science is dynamic, this once uncontroversial perspective was challenged. And what do you know? “Science” has now discovered at least two valuable purposes for the appendix: it supports the body’s immune system and serves as a “bank” of sorts for storing beneficial gut bacteria.
Now, imagine if the scientists who worked to attain a better understanding of the appendix had been prevented from exploring that subject because the “scientific consensus” had determined previously that the organ had no beneficial purpose. What if the self-appointed guardians of perceived medical wisdom had dissuaded researchers from pursuing their investigations for fear of losing university tenure, being scorned by colleagues, or having research funding blocked? Valuable knowledge would have been lost. New medical approaches for treating an infected appendix would never be developed. The mistaken scientific understanding would have remained, yes, “settled.”
The Costs of “Settled Science”
Alas, these days the science establishment too often engages in just such censorship when it involves controversial scientific issues. We saw that on full display during the COVID-19 pandemic. When three noted epidemiologists (pictured above) questioned the wisdom of societal shutdowns and keeping children out of school, in the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), rather than engage its content — as would have been the proper scientific approach — the public health establishment instead attempted to destroy the messengers. For example, then-National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins slandered the authors as “fringe,” and Anthony Fauci worked to undermine the GBD in the media. One of the authors, Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, even found himself scorned by his own academic community for contesting the “settled science.”
Funny that. In the end, the GBD proved to have the better argument, illustrating the terrible harm that can be caused by stifling the scientific method and suppressing dissenting views.
Or consider the hot-button topic of evolution. For decades public spokespersons for the scientific establishment have insisted that the contemporary theory of evolution is unchallengeable. Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even went so far as to claim that “if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” Talk about chilling open scientific inquiry!
Yet, in 2016, a group of leading evolutionary and cell biologists convened a conference at the Royal Society in London. Many scientists who attended openly called for a new theory of evolution because of their increasing doubts about the supposed creative power of Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection. Are all these scientists “ignorant, stupid or insane”? Of course not. They are simply “doing science.”
The same vituperative anti-science approach to stifling critics was pursued by the scientific establishment during the embryonic stem cell debate between 2001 and 2008. After President George W. Bush funded embryonic stem cell research but also placed modest federal funding limitations on the experiments, he and supporters of his policy were accused of imposing their religious beliefs against “the gold standard” of regenerative medicine that could soon allow disabled people to throw away their wheelchairs. Scientific arguments that adult stem cells offered the better hope of developing treatments for a wide array of medical conditions were similarly attacked.
The Proof Is in the Pudding
More than twenty years later, what do we see? Embryonic stem cell research was mostly hype. There is not one FDA-approved treatment using embryonic stem cells. Meanwhile, adult stem cells are used to treat a wide array of pathologies. In other words, despite all the name-calling and screeching about interference with the scientific consensus, the heterodox theorists were right.
That isn’t always true, of course. Established views frequently prove correct when challenged. But that isn’t the point. What matters is that for science to be “science,” perceived truths — no matter how seemingly settled — must always be subject to rethinking. The defense of generally accepted views should be based on evidence, not personal denigration of the challengers.
Alas, they never learn. Whether the scientific issue involves climate change, the safety of vaccines, how best to care for children with gender dysphoria, or the alleged scientific support in favor of Darwinian evolution, etc., the scientific establishment continues to brand those who contest their opinions (as a column in Scientific American put it recently) “anti-science” for rejecting “mainstream scientific views.”
That’s Baloney
Stifling the messy and contentious process required for scientific knowledge to advance undermines science. Yes, that means charlatans and frauds may, at times, successfully beguile the ignorant. But just like the most efficacious answer to bad speech is good speech, the way to overcome bad science is for good science to demonstrate its veracity. Attempts to short-circuit that contentious process betray the very purposes science is supposed to serve.
Yet another of the fossil record's explosions.
Fossil Friday: The Big Bang of Tertiary Birds and a Phylogenetic Mess
This Fossil Friday we look into the abrupt origin of birds, which is just one of the many discontinuities in the fossil record of life on Earth. The image features a fossil bird of the genus Rhychaetites from the famous Eocene Messel pit in Germany. It is similar and also related to modern ibises.
While feathered dinosaurs and primitive toothed birds were abundant during the Cretaceous period, only the chicken and duck clade (Galloanserae) appeared in the Late Cretaceous (Field et al. 2020), while all the other groups of modern birds (Neoaves) appeared suddenly and with great diversity in the Lower Tertiary (today called Paleogene). Indeed, modern crown group birds appear and diversify so abruptly that it has been called a “Big Bang of Tertiary birds” by some paleo-ornithologists (Feduccia 1995, 2003a, 2014, Ksepka et al. 2017). Some of their colleagues did not like such an explosive view for obvious reasons (e.g. Dyke 2003, van Tuinen et al. 2003), but Alan Feduccia addressed and rebutted all critics (Feduccia 2003b), and emphasized that “a rapid, explosive Tertiary radiation best explains why resolving phylogenetic relationships of modern orders remains intractable.” James (2005) reviewed the Paleogene fossil record of birds and found that
before the Paleogene, fossils of putative neornithine birds are sparse and fragmentary (Hope 2002), and their phylogenetic placement is all the more equivocal. … The weak molecular genetic signal found so far for relationships among many higher-level taxa of birds could be explained if there was an early, explosive radiation of birds into diverse ecological niches. … Perhaps the greatest unsolved problem in avian systematics is the evolutionary relationships among modern higher-level taxa.
Rocks vs Clocks
Molecular clock studies, which suggested that modern birds might have originated more early in the Cretaceous, were thoroughly rejected as incompatible with the fossil record (Benton 1999), which could rather suggest that the molecular clock is running faster during the phases of rapid diversification in the major radiations. Nevertheless, van Tuinen (2009) estimated for the Timetree of Life that Neoaves initially diversified already 95 million years ago, followed by another diversification 87-75 million years ago and in the Tertiary (van Tuinen 2009). The author hoped that “more Cretaceous and Paleocene fossil material” may resolve the conflict but admitted that “phylogenetic resolution among the main divergences within Neoaves continues to remain a major hurdle, with most neoavian orders appearing to have diverged in close succession … indicating a rapid evolutionary radiation.” Six years later new fossil discoveries did not come to rescue yet: A fossil calibrated time line of animal evolutionary history (Benton et al. 2015; also see Fossil Calibration Database) suggested an age 86.8-60.2 million years for crown group Neoaves, even though the authors explicitly acknowledged the Paleocene penguin Waimanu from New Zealand as oldest unequivocal neoavian fossil record. Clearly, the molecular clock studies still do not agree with the empirical data of paleontological research.
A few scientists claimed that the problem can be resolved, such as the study by Ericson et al. (2006), which presented “the first well-resolved molecular phylogeny for Neoaves, together with divergence time estimates calibrated with a large number of stratigraphically and phylogenetically well-documented fossils.” According to these authors their results “do not contradict palaeontological data and show that there is no solid molecular evidence for an extensive pre-Tertiary radiation of Neoaves.” However, their result was quickly critiqued and refuted by Brown et al. (2007), who found that “nuclear DNA does not reconcile ‘rocks’ and ‘clocks’ in Neoaves”. They mentioned that “the discrepancy between fossil- and molecular-based age estimates for the diversification of modern birds has persisted despite increasingly large datasets on both sides”, and their reanalysis of Ericson’s data documented “that there is no reliable molecular evidence against an extensive pre-Tertiary radiation of Neoaves.” In the same year Zhang (2007) confirmed that “paleontological studies showed that modern avian groups probably first appeared in the Paleocene and experienced an explosive radiation in the early Cenozoic.”Brown et al. (2008) called this problem the “rock-clock gap” and said that “determining an absolute timescale for avian evolutionary history has proven contentious. The two sources of information available, paleontological data and inference from extant molecular genetic sequences (colloquially, ‘rocks’ and ‘clocks’), have appeared irreconcilable; … These two sources of data therefore appear to support fundamentally different models of avian evolution.” Their own study of mitochondrial DNA did “fail to reconcile molecular genetic divergence time estimates with dates taken from the fossil record; instead, we find strong support for an ancient origin of modern bird lineages.” Thus, the problem turned out to be quite stubborn and refused to go away with more data. On the contrary, each new study reenforced the problem. For example, the attempt by Pratt et al. (2008) to resolve the deep phylogeny of Neoaves produced molecular datings from mitochondrial genomes that “support a major diversification of at least 12 neoavian lineages in the Late Cretaceous.” Another example is the study by Pacheco et al. (2011), who used several molecular dating approaches and conservative calibration points, but still “found time estimates slightly younger than those reported by others, most of the major orders originated prior to the K/T boundary.” But even more interestingly, these authors revealed the secret reason why so many evolutionary biologists do not like the Big Bang model: “proponents of this hypothesis do not provide viable genetic mechanisms for those changes” (Pacheco et al. 2011). In other words, if there were such Big Bangs then Darwinism cannot plausibly explain them. This is why these abrupt appearances in the history of life fascinate me and will be subject of my book project called “The Big Bangs of Life.”
Phylogenomics vs Clocks
But it gets worse. Not just that rocks and clocks conflicted, but phylogenomic studies increasingly supported the Big Bang of Tertiary birds so that now molecular trees conflicted with molecular clocks. The Big Bang view was most strongly confirmed by the seminal study of Jarvis et al. (2014), a genome scale phylogenetic analysis by more than 100 authors (!), who found that “even with whole genomes, some of the earliest branches in Neoaves proved challenging to resolve, which was best explained by massive protein-coding sequence convergence and high levels of incomplete lineage sorting that occurred during a rapid radiation after the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction event about 66 million years ago.” This result was widely reported by the popular science media with sensational headlines about the mapping of the “‘Big Bang’ of Bird Evolution” (AMNH 2014, Duke University 2014, BGI Shenzen 2014, Smithsonian Insider 2014), or as Time Magazine titled “There was a Big Bang for Birds” (Kluger 2014), or “Rapid bird evolution after the age of dinosaurs unprecedented, study confirms” (University of Sydney 2014). Casey Luskin (2014) then also reported for Evolution News how this “massive genetic study confirms birds arose in Big Bang-type of explosion.”
Another comprehensive phylogenetic study more recently again confirmed such an extremely rapid “major radiation of crown birds in the wake of the Cretaceous–Palaeogene (K–Pg) mass extinction” (Prum et al. 2015; also see Wink et al. 2023 for a perfect visualization of Prum’s results). Claramunt & Cracraft (2015) “combined DNA sequences of clock-like genes for most avian families with 130 fossil birds to generate a new time tree for Neornithes” and concluded that “it was not until the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition (66 million years ago) that Neornithes began to diversify rapidly around the world.” Brusatte et al. (2015) concluded in their review article on the origin and diversification of birds that “after the mass extinction, modern birds (members of the avian crown group) explosively diversified, culminating in more than 10,000 species distributed worldwide today.” Braun et al. (2019) still acknowledged that Neoaves “appears to have undergone a rapid radiation near the end Cretaceous mass extinction (the K-Pg boundary).” Looks like a solid scientific consensus, but not so fast. After all, we are dealing with evolutionary biology, where almost anything can happen.
A New Study
Indeed, this month a new paper by Wu et al. (2024) came to a totally different result from the consensus of virtually all previous studies. The press release (Yirka 2024) says that this “new study suggests birds began diversifying long before dinosaurs went extinct” and “the research team found evidence that the Neoaves divergence path began long before the asteroid struck.” The team of mainly Chinese authors analyzed the genomes of hundreds of species of birds and arrived at a new tree of Neoaves. The authors concluded that “the evolution of modern birds followed a slow process of gradualism rather than a rapid process of punctuated equilibrium, with limited interruption by the KPg catastrophe”. They dated the common ancestor of Neoaves to 130 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous and their diversification to the Late Cretaceous, even though there exists not a single Cretaceous fossil of this group, which had already led the worlds foremost expert on the fossil record, Michael Benton (1999), to strongly reject such hypotheses as impossible.
Unsurprisingly, other experts are not convinced either, and said that “if the new study was right, there should be fossils of all major groups of living birds from well before the asteroid impact. But almost none have been found. The signal from the fossil record is not ambiguous” (Berv quoted in Zimmer 2024 for the New York Times). Likewise another comment in the prestigious journal Science said that “if major bird groups really did emerge before the asteroid impact, then why have almost no ancient bird fossils from that time period been found?” (Jacobs 2024). Spot on, but still we have a conflict between molecular evidence and the fossil record, which should agree if Darwinism is correct.
Conflicting Trees
However, the conflicts are by no means restricted to the timing of bird evolution. Even though Darwinism would predict that all different sources of data should point to one true tree of life, there is fundamental conflict in the various attempts to reconstruct the tree of birds in the 20th and 21st century. This conflict is visible in the results of three general methodological approaches (DNA-DNA-hybridization, morphological cladistics, and phylogenomics), as well as between morphological and molecular data and even between different sets of molecular genetic data.
DNA-DNA-Hybridization
In the 1970s and 1980s the American ornithologists and molecular biologists Charles Sibley and Jon Edward Ahlquist conducted DNA-DNA-hybridization studies of numerous species of modern birds (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Sibley 1994; also see Wikipedia). Their revolutionary great tree of 1,100 species of living birds was called “the tapestry” and introduced a major revision of avian classification.
Sibley and Ahlquist’s used the melting temperatures of hybridized strands of DNA of two species as proxy for their overall similarity. Their methods were strongly critiqued as flawed and phenetic (Houde 1987, Lanyon 1992, Harshman 1994, Marks 2011), but even John Harshman found that “the data in Sibley and Ahlquist (1990), properly analyzed, have a strong phylogenetic signal.” Nevertheless, only few of the supraordinal groups from their tree survived later studies, mainly the basal split between Galloanserae and Neoaves.
It is of course a cheap point to say today that the method of DNA-DNA-hybidization is obsolete and was just a short-lived and misguided fad in the early days of phylogenetics, but was it? Think about it. Instead of just comparing arbitrarily selected and arbitrarily defined morphological characters, or instead of just looking into selected sequenced genes, this method compared the overall similarity between complete genomes, the whole shebang of DNA. If anything, it is this very method, which should have recovered the echo of evolutionary history and common descent. That its results failed to agree with the more modern cladistic and phylogenomic studies is basically evidence for the total bankruptcy of Darwinism.
Hennigian Phylogenetics (Cladistics)
Another school of phylogenetic methodology that dominated the pre-phylogenomic era was Hennigian phylogenetic systematics, also known as cladistics. It was mainly based on data from comparative morphology and used only shared derived similarities (called synapomorphies) for the reconstruction of the most parsimonious tree topology. In bird phylogenetics the most prominent representative was certainly the American paleo-ornithologist Joel Cracraft, who was the curator for birds at the American Museum of Natural History in New York (Cracraft 1981, Cracraft & Clarke 2001, Cracraft et al. 2004). Even though Cracraft’s work was not without criticism even from fellow cladists (e.g., Olson 1982), it arguably represents the culmination of traditional cladistic studies on avian phylogeny. Other important cladistic studies based on bird morphology were contributed by Livezey & Zusi (2001, 2006, 2007) and many other works on particular neoavian subgroups. The results differed from each other, from Sibley & Ahlquist’s “tapestry,” and from more modern phylogenomic trees.
By the way: Cracraft (2001) also looked into the rocks vs clocks problem. He acknowledged that “the fossil record has been used to support the origin and radiation of modern birds (Neornithes) in Laurasia after the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction event, whereas molecular clocks have suggested a Cretaceous origin for most avian orders.” He looked into the vicariance biogeography of birds as new source of data to resolve the problem and concluded “that neornithines arose in Gondwana prior to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event.” However, this is fully consistent with the Big Bang hypothesis, which is about the radiation of Neoaves, not of Neornithes. After all, we do have a late Cretaceous fossil record of fowl (Galloanserae). Fifteen years later Claramunt & Cracraft (2015) clarified, as already mentioned above, “that the most recent common ancestor of modern birds inhabited South America around 95 million years ago, but it was not until the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition (66 million years ago) that Neornithes began to diversify rapidly around the world.”
Phylogenomics
In the 21st century the era of phylogenomics came to dominate the field of bird phylogenetics, which mainly uses maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods for tree reconstruction from DNA sequence data. Within a few years several very extensive phylogenomic studies appeared (e.g., Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Pratt et al. 2008, Pacheco et al. 2011, McCormack et al. 2013, Jarvis et al. 2014, Zhang et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015, Reddy et al. 2017, Houde et al. 2019, Kimball et al. 2019, Braun & Kimball 2021, Kuhl et al. 2021, Yu et al. 2021, Wu et al. 2024; also see the Bird Phylogeny website), which not just conflicted with the previous phylogenies but also with each other (Mayr 2011, Matzke et al. 2012, Braun et al. 2019). This led some experts, such as Poe & Chubb (2004) and Suh (2016), to rather propose a hard polytomy (called “neoavian comb” by Cracraft et al. 2004) based on an explosive evolution, which brings us right back to the Big Bang of birds, because as Feduccia (2014) said: “our continued inability to produce a veracious phylogeny of higher avian taxa is likely related to a Paleogene explosive burst or ‘big bang’ evolution of bird and mammal evolution, resulting in short ordinal internodes.” The resolution of this polytomy has been called “the greatest current challenge of avian systematics” and “last frontier” which “is still elusive” (Pratt et al. 2008). The numerous phylogenomic studies only agree on a few higher clades that were called the “magnificent seven” by Reddy et al. (2017), which already indicates how rare such agreement is, but even those few clades conflict with the older trees based on DNA-DNA-hybridization and morphological cladistics (but see Mayr 2007, 2008 for a few exceptions).
Collapsing Trees
The above-described phylogenetic conflict and incongruent trees of birds exactly confirm a point that I recently made in two other Evolution News articles for Fossil Friday on the phylogeny of arachnids (Bechly 2023) and of insectivore mammals (Bechly 2024): When you look at the numerous published phylogenetic trees of a certain group of organisms and then calculate a strict consensus tree as a kind of common denominator, the result generally tends to be an unresolved polytomy, with basically only the pre-Darwinian Linnean classification of phyla, classes, orders, and families surviving this collapse of phylogenies. This is highly unexpected under Darwinian assumptions but very much resonates with the views of Darwin critics.
This is even implicitly and a bit cryptically acknowledged in mainstream findings like that of Gordon et al. (2021) who said:
Phylogenomic analyses have revolutionized the study of biodiversity, but they have revealed that estimated tree topologies can depend, at least in part, on the subset of the genome that is analyzed. For example, estimates of trees for avian orders differ if protein-coding or non-coding data are analyzed. The bird tree is a good study system because the historical signal for relationships among orders is very weak, which should permit subtle non-historical signals to be identified, while monophyly of orders is strongly corroborated, allowing identification of strong non-historical signals.
Maybe non-history (in the sense of uncommon descent) is the simple reason for a non-historical signal.
Braun et al. (2019) concluded in their review of the phylogenomic era in avian phylogenetics:
Reconstructing relationships among extant birds (Neornithes) has been one of the most difficult problems in phylogenetics, and, despite intensive effort, the avian tree of life remains (at least partially) unresolved. Thus far, the most difficult problem is the relationship among the orders of Neoaves, the major clade that includes the most (~95%) named bird species.
Explaining Away Conflicting Evidence
Of course, this is all reflecting the substantial conflicting data that do not align with an unambiguous nested hierarchy, contrary to the predictions of neo-Darwinism and the bold (and false) claims of its modern popularizers like Richard Dawkins. Something is way off, and mainstream evolutionary biologists simply ignore it and happily produce one conflicting tree after the other without ever questioning the underlying assumptions or even the general Darwinian paradigm. Conflicting evidence is explained away with inexpensive ad hoc hypotheses like convergence, ghost lineages, or incomplete lineage sorting. Torres & Van Tuinen (2013) said “rampant phylogenetic conflict at the ordinal level in modern birds can be explained by ordinal diversification taking place over a short time interval.” However, this is not the explanation of the problem but the description of the problem!
We can conclude that fossil and molecular data conflict in terms of the question when and how quickly modern birds originated, and molecular and morphological data conflict in terms of the reconstruction of the assumed bird tree of life. Why is there such a stark conflict, when Darwinism would naturally predict that different lines of evidence should converge towards one true evolutionary history of birds. Again, a quite obvious explanation could be that there just was no such history, or at least that totally different causal mechanism were at work.
Abrupt Origins
The most important take home message from this article is this: in spite of the new study by Wu et al. (2024), there is overwhelming evidence, recognized by the vast majority of mainstream experts, that there was an explosive diversification of modern birds (Neoaves) in the Lower Tertiary (Paleogene). There was an abrupt origin, a burst of biological creativity with a genuine Big Bang of modern birds, which is best explained by an infusion of new information from an intelligent agent outside the system. What do evolutionary biologists suggest instead? They say that the global collapse of forest ecosystems after the end-Cretaceous impact killed off all arboreal bird lineages and the remaining ground-dwelling ancestors of modern birds experienced a rapid diversification afterwards (Field et al. 2018). Yet another description of the problem, rather than an explanation, which seems to be a recurring theme in evolutionary biology.
Determinism is theatre?
Reply to Free Will Deniers: Show Me
Free will denial is a cornerstone of materialist–determinist ideology. We are, say the deniers, purely physical machines, meat robots.
Atheist-materialist evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne is a prominent proponent of deterministic free will denial, and there are many others — philosopher Stephen Cave, biologist Robert Sapolsky, author Sam Harris, attorney Clarence Darrow, to name just a few.
From Harris:
How can we be “free” as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware?… My choices matter — and there are paths towards making wiser ones — but I cannot choose what I choose. And if it ever appears that I do — for instance, after going back between two options — I do not choose to choose what I choose. There is a regress here that always ends in darkness.
Free will deniers invariably acknowledge that we have the ineluctable sense of freely choosing, and that our belief in free will is a cornerstone of human psychology, of our social interaction, of our moral codes and of our judicial system. Nonetheless, deniers claim, we are deluded. We are not free at all — we are slaves to the laws of physics and chemistry that govern the physiology of our brains.
How Do We Know What Words Really Mean?
What to make of this bizarre viewpoint that we have no genuine freedom to choose — a viewpoint that is contrary to the lived experience of every human being? It is helpful to consider the question on a different level — not “do we have free will?,” but rather “what does it mean to believe we don’t have free will?”.
What does it mean to believe anything? Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) critiqued our conventional understanding of the “meaning” of words and I think he sheds light on what both meaning and belief really are. He pointed out (in his middle work, most notably The Blue Book ) that it is confused to say that the meaning of a word is assigned via an interior mental act or act of interpretation. Why do we attribute the meaning of a word to brain physiology, when we could just as plausibly attribute it to the physiology of the larynx, tongue or hand when we speak or write the word?
Meaning, according to Wittgenstein, is just the way the word is used in life. Meaning, in a sense, is use. It is common for a word to have several different meanings, depending on the context in which it is used.
Even the word believe itself has several meanings depending on use — “I believe it’s going to rain,” “I believe in you,” “I believe that I will have a ham sandwich,” etc. The difference in the meaning of believe in these instances is in the context of use — what we mean by believe is determined by the context (the gestalt) in which we use the word. To believe something is to behave in a certain way.
Belief is behavior. The belief-behavior can include speaking or writing the belief, of course, but belief is behavior in a much broader sense than merely speaking. Belief is what you do, not merely what you say. Consider the statement by a serial adulterer “I believe in fidelity and chastity.” Of course, such a claim is not credible, because his behavior makes a mockery of that belief. Serial adulterers believe in serial adultery (otherwise, they wouldn’t do it), just as embezzlers believe in embezzlement and philanthropists believe in philanthropy. Belief is much more than words — it is, to use Wittgenstein’s phrase, a form of life. Belief is a way of living.
So, do free will deniers really believe that free will isn’t real? Of course not. Free will deniers live as if free will is real, despite their proclamations and their blog posts. What matters is what they do, not merely what they say. Every human being lives life as if free will is real. We all believe — as demonstrated by our behavior — in the fact that we choose some options and not others, that we have real moral accountability, that there is such a thing as justice. No one (outside of a mental hospital) really believes that we are meat robots without free will.
If you want to know what a free will denier really believes, steal his laptop or dent his fender and see if he holds you morally accountable.
So What’s Free Will Denial Really All About?
So what are free will deniers really doing when they say that they don’t believe in free will, but never act like free will isn’t real? Free will denial is determinist signaling, in which materialists flaunt their bona fides. It is analogous to a political yard sign or a cross worn around the neck.
It’s a way of announcing to the world who you are — whether or not you really believe (i.e., behave in accordance with) your politics or your faith. The difference between a political belief expressed on a sign or faith expressed via a pendant and free will denial is that sometimes the sign or cross do correspond to a way of life, and thus are real expressions of belief. Free will denial, on the other hand, never constitutes genuine belief, because it is not possible to live as if free will isn’t real.
Free Will Denial as Performance Art
Materialists don’t really mean it because they never do it. To truly believe that free will isn’t real — to believe that our actions are wholly determined by our brain chemicals, for which we have no moral responsibility whatsoever— is to utterly abandon any real sense of morality, to deny not only the salience but even the meaning of right and wrong behavior. It means to live every moment as if you and all people on earth are meat robots, utterly devoid of choice or free agency. A person who really believed that free will isn’t real wouldn’t hold a murderer morally responsible for murder, any more than the gun or the bullet is. If you carelessly dent a genuine free will denier’s car in a parking lot, he wouldn’t hold you responsible any more than he’d hold your car responsible.
So the next time a LARPing materialist declares to you that he doesn’t believe in free will, say this: “Your free will denial is performance art. What you do is immeasurably louder than what you say. You don’t really believe that free will isn’t real, unless you live like it isn’t real.”
Friday, 23 February 2024
Darwin has his bluff called?
Darwin’s Bluff Is a Number 1 New Release on Amazon!
Congratulations to our colleague Professor Robert Shedinger on the release of his new book, Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished! At this writing it’s the #1 New Release in Scientist Biographies on Amazon, and the #1 New Release in Evolution on Kindle.
Great work, Dr. Shedinger and Discovery Institute Press! It is a remarkable thing that Charles Darwin seems never to have been honest with himself, perhaps to the end of his life, about the implications of the fact that his planned big book about the actual evidence for his theory could not be written, because the evidence wasn’t there. It still isn’t. The famous Origin of Species, he said, was a “mere abstract.” If he could have written the Big One, you can be sure he would have done so. He found time to write other books subsequent to the Origin. Just not the really crucial one.
Thursday, 22 February 2024
Wednesday, 21 February 2024
Not an argument from silence.
Atheist Philosopher Explains Why Intelligent Design Is Not a “God of the Gaps” Argument
Jeffrey Jay Lowder is an atheist philosopher and author, whom I would rate as among the top tier of intellectual critics of theistic belief (you can watch him debate Frank Turek here). Not only is he an extremely balanced and nuanced thinker, but he is also quite amicable. I consider him a friend, and we have met for dinner or drinks a couple of times. On Twitter (I refrain from calling it by its hideous new name, “X”), he goes by the handle “Secular Outpost.” Recently Lowder posted the following remark:
Unpopular opinion (among nontheists): the arguments for intelligent design defended by the likes of Moreland, Craig, and Meyer are NOT god of the gaps arguments.
My colleague David Klinghoffer asked Lowder to clarify his thinking on this. In response, Lowder linked to two blog posts he had written addressing the subject. The first, published in 2016, responds to Victor Reppert, who had asked whether there is “any theistic argument [from/in natural theology] that can’t be accused of being a god-of-the-gaps argument,” and if this rejoinder may serve as “an all-purpose reply to all natural theology.” Lowder answers the first of those questions in the affirmative and the second in the negative.
Why Intelligent Design Is Not a “God of the Gaps’ Argument
(1) There is some puzzling phenomenon P which science cannot at present explain.
(2) Theism does explain P.
Therefore,
(3) P is more likely on the assumption that God exists than on the assumption God does not exist.
I have no issues with Lowder’s reconstruction of a god-of-the-gaps argument. As he explains, “The key feature of this argument — and what makes it a ‘God-of-the-gaps’ argument — is premise (1). The focus is on science’s present inability to explain P.” How might one construct an argument that is not vulnerable to the god-of-the-gaps critique? Suppose you want to advance an argument for theism based on the existence of consciousness. Lowder proposes that the following formulation of the argument (where E is the existence of human consciousness, T is theism, and N is naturalism) evades this charge:
(1) E is known to be true, i.e. Pr(E) is close to 1.
(2) N is not intrinsically much more probable than T, i.e., Pr(|N|) is not much greater than Pr(|T|).
(3) Pr(E | T & B) > Pr(E | N & B).
(4) Other evidence held equal, N is probably false, i.e., Pr(N | B & E) < 1/2.
Put into straightforward English, the argument is as follows:
(1) The existence of human consciousness is known to be true.
(2) Naturalism is not intrinsically much more probable than theism.
(3) The probability of the existence of human consciousness given theism and the background information is greater than the probability of the existence of human consciousness given naturalism and the background information.
(4) Other evidence held equal, naturalism is probably false (i.e., the probability of naturalism given the background and the evidence is less than 50 percent).
Lowder concludes that “Whatever problems may exist within that argument, being a God-of-the-gaps argument clearly isn’t one of them.” I completely agree with Lowder’s assessment. Intelligent design makes the argument that various specific features of life and the universe — in particular, the informational properties of DNA, and the irreducibly complex nature of molecular systems — are rendered vastly more probable than they would otherwise be by the supposition that a conscious mind was involved in their origins. Thus, they are positively confirmatory of design. Since confirmations of design in the universe are significantly less surprising (or, more probable) given the hypothesis of theism than on its falsehood, the evidence of design also translates into positive evidence of the existence of God. Perhaps there are vulnerabilities in this argument structure — but, whatever may be wrong with it, it is certainly not wrong by virtue of being a god-of-the-gaps argument. I would like to commend Lowder for his intellectual integrity in pointing this out, despite our disagreements on the larger question of whether intelligent design is in fact true.
Jeff Lowder Reviews Signature in the Cell
The second article linked by Lowder is a critical review of Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. I had more disagreements with this article than with the first. Lowder remarks that “We are fortunate that Meyer explicitly provides the logical form of his argument,” which he quotes as follows:
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.
Lowder, again to his credit, notes, “I agree with Meyer that it would be a mistake to dismiss his argument as an argument from ignorance.” Furthermore, “We should consider the possibility that the origin of life is a source of potential evidence for intelligent design (and for theism).” What, then, is Lowder’s principle objection to Meyer’s argument? He writes,
The objection I have in mind is this: the design hypothesis is not an explanation because, well, it doesn’t explain. Regarding the origin of biological information, it still isn’t clear to me what Meyers [sic] believes the design explanation is. I don’t find in the book a description of how an intelligent designer created / designed / programmed — not sure what the right verb is — the first biological information. In order to explain biological information, it’s not enough to posit the existence of an intelligent designer as a potential cause of biological information. In addition, it seems to me that a design explanation must also include a description of the mechanism used by the designer to design and build the thing. In other words, in order for design to explain something, we have to know how the designer designed it. If we don’t know or even have a clue about how the designer did it, then we don’t have a design explanation.
However, this seems to me to be mistaken. For example, suppose that future scientists are able to capture high resolution images of Alpha Centauri, the closest star to our sun, and were to discover that a vehicle resembling a Volkswagen Beetle were orbiting a planet there. Presumably, we could justifiably infer design if we had no idea what equipment or processes were used to assemble the vehicle, and even if we could not identity the agent responsible. Those are interesting downstream questions, to be sure. But our inability to answer them does not negate our ability to infer design as an explanation of how the Beetle came to be there.
Moreover, we all believe that our conscious minds interact with the material world, even though we lack an understanding of how consciousness works. Thus, to postulate that a conscious mind is responsible for complex and functionally specific information content, or an engineered system, is a legitimate explanation, even though we currently cannot give an adequate account of how our minds animate our bodies to accomplish engineering tasks.
Theism and Explanation
Lowder quotes Gregory Dawes’s Theism and Explanation, in which he asserts, objecting to Richard Swinburne’s argument for theism,
It is only when you have specified the divine intention in question that we can test your explanation, by asking what else would follow if God did indeed have this intention. And as we have seen, it will not do merely to substitute the explanandum for the posited goal… As we have already seen, this would be a spurious kind of explanation, seriously lacking in empirical content.
P. 119
However, to make a compelling argument for theism, it is not necessary to posit that there is a high probability of God having a particular motivation or intention for creating, for example, complex life. It is enough to posit that it is not immensely implausible that God would have such a purpose for creating. Suppose, for example, that God’s purpose in creating a world containing complex embodied creatures is that they might participate in an arena of moral choice, providing them opportunities to mold and shape their character, developing in morally significant ways. In such a scenario, for actions to have predictable consequences, the universe would have to be governed by fixed natural laws. And it is being physically embodied — in a world of pushes and pulls — that accentuates our ability to engage in moral decision-making. I think most readers can see that such a scenario is not at all wildly implausible on the supposition of classical theism. However, the existence of such a world is rendered absurdly improbable if we assume the falsehood of theism. Therefore, the world we observe constitutes strong (I would say, overwhelming) evidence in favor of theism.
Despite our many disagreements, I sincerely appreciate Lowder’s spirit and intellectual honesty. I hope the next generation of secular thinkers follow his lead.
Darwin corrects JEHOVAH?
Darwin’s “God Wouldn’t Do It This Way” Argument
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present an excerpt from the new book by Dr. Shedinger, Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished. This article is adapted from Chapter 3.
Aside from proposing a naturalistic explanation for the mechanism driving evolution, it is clear that one of Charles Darwin’s main goals in his species work was to put the final nail in the coffin of creationist approaches to the diversity of life. Natural selection was actually subordinated to this latter goal. Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on May 11, 1863, “Personally, of course, I care much about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly unimportant compared to [the] question of Creation or Modification.” As a result, a book widely hailed as proposing a true mechanism for evolution actually reads more like an anti-creationist polemic.
In contrast to the view that species represent ideal types in the mind of God that were created in the form we see them today and placed in the locations where we encounter them today, Darwin argued that the geographical distribution of species in the world represented evidence for a long history of evolutionary development from common ancestors. There are many places in the Origin of Species where Darwin makes explicit that the evidence he is describing makes little sense on the assumption that species were each specially created.
On Oceanic Islands
For example, when discussing the lack of certain species of animals and plants on oceanic islands, Darwin writes, “He who admits the doctrine of the creation of each separate species, will have to admit that a sufficient number of the best adapted plants and animals were not created for oceanic islands.”1 Here Darwin seems to assume that a creator would have no reason to leave oceanic islands devoid of these “best adapted plants and animals,” so their absence stands as evidence against creationism. A few pages later Darwin argues:
As the amount of modification which animals of all kinds undergo partly depends on the lapse of time, and as islands which are separated from each other or from the mainland by shallow channels, are more likely to have been continuously united within a recent period than the islands separated by deeper channels, we can understand how it is that a relation exists between the depth of the sea separating two mammalian faunas, and the degree of their affinity, — a relation which is quite inexplicable on the theory of independent acts of creation.2
That is, because the mammalian fauna on islands close to continents is more like the continental fauna than that found on oceanic islands much farther away from continents, it is reasonable to believe there is a relationship between continental and island fauna rather than to believe that a creator decided to make the fauna of oceanic islands more different from continental fauna.
Doubling Down
Darwin doubles down on this line of argument when discussing the way in which closely allied species can often be found in separate but nearby locations, suggesting a common ancestor that inhabited both places that then diverged into two new species. To illustrate, he again invokes the island/continent relationship. “We see this in the striking relation of nearly all plants and animals of the Galápagos archipelago, of Juan Fernandez, and of the other American islands, to the plants and animals of the neighboring American mainland; and of those of the Cape de Verde archipelago, and of the other African islands to the African mainland,” he writes. “It must be admitted that these facts receive no explanation on the theory of creation.”3
Time after time Darwin discusses some specific observation about the distribution of living organisms and then insists that a theory of independent creation of each species is powerless to explain it. Yet surely it is hazardous to assume one knows what a creator of the natural world would or would not do.
There is also the fact that many of Darwin’s best examples of geographical distribution pointing to evolutionary change involve rather less than dramatic modifications. In light of this, perhaps natural selection can diversify a species into a family of species and no further. The Darwin skeptic could thus contend, why not the special creation of types that then diverged into families of species via natural processes? Or perhaps the diversification fueled by natural selection reaches another rung or two up the taxonomic ladder, to orders or classes. Or perhaps universal common descent is the case, but it proceeded from intelligent input rather than by a purely blind mechanism.
A Classic Fallacy
One searches the Origin in vain for a thoughtful engagement with these other options. Darwin’s theory of descent with modification may indeed be a better explanation than independent creation of each species, but Darwin does not merely declare his explanation better than this one alternative; he implies it is the only possible explanation. Thus one could be forgiven for seeing in Darwin’s argumentation the classic either/or fallacy, wherein the person knocks down one option and declares a second option the clear winner, never mind that there are other live options available.
In Darwin’s defense, he does invoke a more sweeping defeater for any theory of biological origins invoking a creator. We find this in a passage where he is discussing the phenomenon of typology — the structural similarity between many organisms such as the four-limbed pattern found in mammals, birds, and reptiles: “On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that it is so; — that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation.”4
Darwin’s Wider Goal
Darwin’s problem with creationist explanations is not that they are demonstrably false or impossible; it is that they are not, in his view, scientific. Here we find one of Darwin’s wider goals for the Origin: to stamp out creationist explanations and put natural history on a firmly naturalistic (by his lights, scientific) foundation. But it never seems to have occurred to him that his “God wouldn’t do it this way” argument was itself theologically driven, and therefore, on his own accounting, itself not a particularly scientific mode of argument.4
Of course, Darwin knew he would be on firmer ground if he could produce empirical evidence to support his view and overcome various difficulties confronting it. One such difficulty: If all organisms had descended from one or a few common ancestors, how had life spread all over the planet? Certain animals like birds and fish can move over long distances, but what about stationary organisms like plants? How could plants travel over long oceanic distances to colonize islands? Trying to answer this question sent Darwin into a series of experiments related to seed dispersal.
Tuesday, 20 February 2024
The decanonizing of Darwin continues apace?
In Darwin’s Bluff, Robert Shedinger Rightly Forgoes the Hagiographic Tradition
The new book by Robert Shedinger, Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished, is a deeply researched and fascinating volume which, like the author’s previous work (The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms, 2019), digs up facts and figures about Darwin’s work which you won’t find elsewhere. The fact that Shedinger avoids the hagiographic tradition of treating Darwin as an inviolable icon is all to the good, chiming as it does with a tendency post-1985 to look honestly at the disabling empirical deficits which reveal Darwin in retrospect to have been engaged more in some rather idiosyncratic Nature mysticism than in evidence-based science.
The fact that the author is a professor of religion (at Luther College) does not in any way define him as what American linguist S. I. Hayakawa once termed the “snarl word” of creationist. The present reader, in company with a host of agnostic biologists and cosmologists, simply finds in Darwin a complete dearth of convincing scientific evidence. For myself and other scholars, the issue of religion is quite irrelevant, a misleading canard which should never be referenced in a properly scientific debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)