printC-Span broadcast a book forum at the Cato Institute, featuring the author Michael Shermer, Director of the Skeptics Society, with comments by Jonathan Wells, Senior Fellow at the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. Wells is also the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. That tells you all you need to know about his position.
It’s probably safe to say that I come down on Shermer’s side. I’ve always admired his work. However, evolution is one topic I’m agnostic about. Joy! I love a good intellectual debate (although this one was a tad short)—all the more so when I have no dog in the fight.
Both men are extremely bright and cordial. I question Wells’ inability to come up with a theory that’ll fill the lacunae he finds in Darwinism. He claims he is not obliged to fill in the gaps. My knowledge of the theory of science is limited, so I can’t tell you whether the onus is on him to furnish a competing, overarching explanation.
Everyone since Darwin has had to deal with it. It is the only argument that the creationists ( and the ID lot are the same thing) have. Find a portion of evolution we are unsure about, or even that one specific scientist doesn’t know. Since this is _the whole damn history of life on this planet_ you might guess that there are a few. Then throw scientific enquiry, reason and the empirical method out the window and say “Since we don’t know, it’s a Designer”. Nevermind that there is no evidence whatsoever for a designer, never mind that ID lacks any testable predictions, never mind that the evidence for evolution is immense, dwarfing even such titans as relativity and quantum theory (there is a proof of evolution inside _every single nucleate cell_ on the planet, as well as any bacterial or archeal or viral cell that contains genetic material). Never mind all of that. It’s a naked appeal to supernaturalism, superstition and irrationality.
I think that Darwinism is an interesting theory and is probably the best theory available that explains many of the things we see around us. But it is not without its problems and it may be completely wrong. A theory that assumes things are essentially as they have always been seems just as likely, since there is no clear evidence of macro-evolution. And fossil records are not only incomplete or inadequate, but also unreliable.
My understanding of intelligent design is that it’s not a theory but rather a a concept that relies on mathematical probabilities and the idea that form equals function in living things. Therefore, instead of being an alternative to Darwinism, it points out one of the many problems of Darwinism. The mathematical probability of non-living things combining to form living orgranisms in a “big bang” and having those living organisms survive in a miraculously hospitable environment, long enough to evolve into complex creatures is infinitely low – virtually impossible.
Since I’m not religious, I’m in the “I just don’t know” school of thought too. [Ditto]
“The mathematical probability of non-living things combining to form living orgranisms in a “big bang” and having those living organisms survive in a miraculously hospitable environment, long enough to evolve into complex creatures is infinitely low – virtually impossible”
Er, actually, no. First of all, you would be surprised what life can tolerate – the absolute void of space, radiation levels in excess of the Hiroshima bomb, freezing levels of cold, temperatures over boiling, acids of pH 0 and alkalies of over 12. Life is incredibly tenacious.
And this planet was not hospitable, originally. It was pretty hellish when the first life-forms appeared. For a start, their was no oxygen. That came later, and with it, the Ozone layer was developed. Life is essentially self-supporting: each organism gives rise to more niches.
So, the only real requirements are an iron-core planet at a certain distance range from a suitable star. Now, we have had trouble locating these because all planets are so small compared with their stars. However, in recent years my colleagues in the Astronomy department have been finding ever smaller planets. And the trend looks like it will uncover many terrestrial planets. Improvements in telescopy is a wonderful thing.
So much for dealing with that point. And if you want to argue against the Big Bang, please try and learn a little relativity and cosmology, and explain away such minor details as the deep-space images of the early universe, or the microwave background.
“A theory that assumes things are essentially as they have always been seems just as likely, since there is no clear evidence of macro-evolution. And fossil records are not only incomplete or inadequate, but also unreliable.”
And here we note the complete ignoring of the mountains of evidence that I cited. As well as the old canard of the fossil record being incomplete. This is nonsense. There are gaps in the fossil record, true, but what is there is firmly in support of evolution. Curious, isn’t it, that there is _not one fossil_ that disproves evolution? Not one? And then my citing of the biochemical and genetic record was completely ignored.
Shermer is skeptical about everything, except all those orthodoxies about which Good People shouldn’t have the least skepticism.
Why he is the director of something called the Skeptics Society, I have no idea.
Schmidt, the examples of life that you cite are exceptions. Life is extremely delicate. Your claim that “the only real requirements are an iron-core planet at a certain distance range from a suitable star” supports the idea that life is delicate and rare. As far as we know, all living things come from other living things. The question remains, where and how did the first life forms come into existence. Not only does your requirement have to be fulfilled, but the miraculous combination of non-living entities forming the first life forms is also a requirement. Now do you see how astronomically problematic things become?
Some would argue that astronomy is as much a religion as religion these days. If cosmology and relativity explain these things, please share the insights with us. The “go read a book” style of debate is usually a cop out (although I’ll concede that you may not have the time or space for the answer).
What would a fossil have to look like in order to disprove evolution?
What biochemical and genetic records are you referring to? That all living things share biochemical and genetic records or material doesn’t surprise me. After all, they all have the commonality of being living things.
Maybe you’re right. I’m playing the Devil’s Advocate because to date, everything I’ve read seems to indicate that evolution and other theories are nearly equally plausible. But maybe I’m just uninformed or unable to understand the complexities of evolutionary theory.
I will add that there are things that have been proven scientifically, and which I accept, although I haven’t the slightest clue how they work. For example, time dilation. It’s the realization of Einstein’s theory. The passage of time is dependent on your speed. It’s been tested: they flew a plane the opposite direction of the earth rotation and when it landed its atomic clock was slightly different from the clock on land.
I don’t understand how this works (I understand the simple mathematics equation but I cannot wrap my head around the idea that time can actually change for you and me) yet it does and I cannot deny it.
There are an infinity of possible fossil finds that would disprove evolution. For example if a human fossil turned up in rock that was known to be Jurassic. Of course, any single such find might be chalked up as a mistake or anomoly; but if you had enough of them, found widely, they would call into question the theory.
Evolution makes predictions. In this case, it predicts that certain kinds of fossils will only appear in certain places. Evolution is falsifiable.
People have found millions of fossils, and they always conform to what the theory predicts. Any anomoly is news. They do happen, from time to time. Then inevitably they are explained.
Furthermore, evolution predicted, before “missing links” were found between many species, that such fossils would exist. For example, that ape-men fossils would be found; that birdlike dinosaurs would be found; that whales with legs would be found.
An intelligent designer, if it chose to make aquatic mammals, could leave out the legs. And it would seem reasonable to do so. Evolution, being mindless, cannot do that. It simply adapts what came before.
Leonard, in a theory as wide sweeping as Evolution, it’s not difficult to incorporate most findings into some supporting role for it. Regular people and scientists do this every day. Our interpretations and explanations of the world around us conform to our perceptions and beliefs about it, despite evidence that could be used against it. In the majority of academic centers, evolution is accepted as fact, so counter arguments are rarely put forth.
Finding “anomalies” and fossils of “ape-men” or “birdlike dinosaurs” could mean that anomalies exist and so have ape-men and birdlike dinosaurs. It doesn’t mean that we’re related to them or that we evolved from them. If we discovered living organisms on another planet in another galaxy, would it mean that they originated from earth or vice versa, or that we’re related to them? Being that they’re living things, they may share similarities – because it seems that all living things do. This is one reason why I take the “predictions of adaptations” portion of the theory with a grain of salt. But, it could be right. *shrugs*
I don’t know what is or isn’t “reasonable” to an “intelligent designer”, so I cannot comment on the validity of the claim that leaving out “legs” on an aquatic mammal would be preferred.
Evolution tells me that girafes have long necks so they can eat berries from tall trees. Well, they could just as easily have been equipped with longer legs, or made to eat berries on shorter trees. One explanation is no better than the other. I wonder what they ate before their neck evolved in length.
Evolution is a fantastic and ingenius theory. I think it’s the best out there.
Being an atheist and rationalist, I’ve found Darwin’s theory attractive and compelling for years. However, after objectively looking at the evidence of the Creationists I have to acknowledge that there are so many problems with Darwinism that I have to view it with as much suspicion as creationism.
To qualify as scientific a theory must make predictions by which it can be tested. One of the predictions that Darwinism makes is that fossils from a common ancestor to man and apes will be found–a so called “missing link” since Darwinism says that both man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Despite 150 years of looking quite intently none has been found.
Darwinism also predicts that fossil evidence will be found for transitional stages over time for the steps in the change of one species into another. I’m not talking about minor cosmetic changes over time. I’m talking about species change. No such evidence for a series of multiple steps has ever been found for any animal species to species change.
Interestingly, the prophet of the Bahai faith who lived during Darwin’s lifetime said that Darwin had only part of the answer and as evidence of this assertion said that no “missing link” would ever be found. The Bahaulla’s prediction is right so far since no evidence has turned up to prove Darwin’s prediction of the “missing link”.
Ann Coulter in her present book has a chapter on the flaws with Darwinism and I defy any rational person with an open mind (is the second condition necessarily redundant?) to read the chapter and not end up with serious doubts about Darwinism. [It’s a fun chapter, indeed.]
Pointing out the flaws in one theory is not the same as proving another theory. However, after reading the chapter I had to at least reevaluate my opinion of Darwinism.
I’ll start my reply by contrasting two interesting statements in these replies:
“Ann Coulter in her present book has a chapter on the flaws with Darwinism and I defy any rational person with an open mind (is the second condition necessarily redundant?) to read the chapter and not end up with serious doubts about Darwinism. [It’s a fun chapter, indeed.]”
And:
“The “go read a book” style of debate is usually a cop out”
Anyway, I have read the writings of creationists. They are dull as ditchwater, endlessly repetive (the only argument they _ever_ have is the Watchmaker one) and the rest of their books always consists of shutting their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “I can’t hear you” when you point out the actual evidence.
The genetic record I cited was the relationship in the DNA (and RNA, for viruses) sequences between the different members of the evolutionary tree. This is huge. The biochemical evidence includes such things as the fact that, for some reason, we are all (there are a few, exotic exceptions) composed of L-enantiomer amino acids. Or I could describe how the types of cellular structures are remarkable well preserved among cells, which suggests inheritance. The thing is, there _are_ different kinds of structures that would work (researchers have created different genetic codes, alternatives to DNA, and different structures of microtubules and whatnot), but these are not found in nature, because once such a base system is adopted by an evolutionary lineage it can’t be changed. And so on, and so forth.
“Well, they could just as easily have been equipped with longer legs, or made to eat berries on shorter trees. One explanation is no better than the other”
Which ignores the fact that the giraffes did not evolve alone, but in union with the acacias.
As for the question of where the first life came from, what was needed was a catalytic and replicative molecule – RNA. RNA precursors are oft generated by natural processes. This can happen even in space.
“Some would argue that astronomy is as much a religion as religion these days. If cosmology and relativity explain these things, please share the insights with us.”
Some would say alot of nonsense. Try this: we can actually see the early stages of the Universe, because light has a finite range. The galaxies are much closer together, as relativity predicts. The microwave background is the echo of the Big Bang, which has never died away. And so on.
“However, after objectively looking at the evidence of the Creationists ”
Which is what, exactly? I observed in my initial post, and I have been proved correct, that there is _not one single testable prediction of Creationism_. Not _one single piece of evidence_. _All_ of it consists of trying – by the most intellectually dishonest means – to pick holes in evolution.
” Darwinism makes is that fossils from a common ancestor to man and apes will be found—“a so called “missing link” since Darwinism says that both man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Despite 150 years of looking quite intently none has been found”
I take it Homo Erectus and so on doesn’t qualify?
“The thing is, there _are_ different kinds of structures that would work (researchers have created different genetic codes, alternatives to DNA, and different structures of microtubules and whatnot)”
Sounds interesting, thought I have my reservations. Can you post references where I can read up on this?
“Which ignores the fact that the giraffes did not evolve alone, but in union with the acacias.”
Why does this mean they developed long necks as opposed to long legs?
“As for the question of where the first life came from, what was needed was a catalytic and replicative molecule – RNA. RNA precursors are oft generated by natural processes. This can happen even in space.”
Does this mean that life forms are coming into existence around us all the time?
“Some would say alot of nonsense. Try this: we can actually see the early stages of the Universe, because light has a finite range. The galaxies are much closer together, as relativity predicts. The microwave background is the echo of the Big Bang, which has never died away. And so on.”
Does space have a size? If so, what’s outside of it?
I agree with you that Creationism is not testable because it is not scientific. It’s faith.
Anyhow, I don’t lose sleep over the issue.
Hugo Schmidt quotes part of my post:
“Darwinism makes is that fossils from a common ancestor to man and apes will be found—a so called “missing link” since Darwinism says that both man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Despite 150 years of looking quite intently none has been found”
And then asks a question:
“I take it Homo Erectus and so on doesn’t qualify?”
The answer is no.
Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, etc. are asserted to be ancestors of modern man but not apes by Darwinists.
I know of no peer respected Darwinist who claims that apes descended from Homo Erectus or Neanderthal or any other ancestor for which a fossil has been found. If Mr. Schmidt has information to the contrary I would be grateful if he would reference the source so that I might correct my thinking.
The “missing link” if it exists would logically have come before Homo Erectus (an ancestor of only man) to have been a common ancestor for both man and ape. A “missing link” is an as yet undiscovered (missing) common ancestor (link).
As to Mr. Schmidt’s comments about the many complex and common structures of life forms he should know that both Darwinists and Creationists use the complexity and commonality to justify their theories.
Creationists for instance argue that the complexity argues for a Creator since they argue it couldn’t be the result of chance.
Examination of that argument leads to a problem for Creationists.
The Creator to conceive of life before creating it, have the resources to create and then exert control over those resources would necessarily be so complex that it would require a Creator as well if complexity can not result by chance or without intent. This Creator of a Creator would in turn be most complex and require a Creator as well. We end up with an endless string of ever more complex Creators–each progressively less likely the first because their complexity contradicts the Creationists premise.
The only argument that I am aware of that solves the endless string of Creators problem is the argument for an evolving Creator that eventually evolves to the point that it can create man.
The problem there is that if the Creator, a very complex and powerful entity, can evolve then why can’t man, a simpler and less powerful entity, evolve?
I submit the positive arguments for a Creator (as opposed to the negative arguments against Darwinism) are ultimately self-contradictory.
I would prefer to be a Darwinist rather than remain on the fence but I can’t justify it.
As far as I am concerned both the Creationists and the Darwinists make many assertions that on closer examination amount to inadequate theories with few predictions (a necessary component of a scientific theory) and little if no evidence. Both the Creationists and the Darwinists have confused their negative arguments against their opponents as definitive proof of their own prejudices.
I submit that the positive arguments and so-called evidence in favor of either belief system are severely inadequate at this time.
Perhaps an as yet unidentified, evolving, less than divine, widely common force in the universe eventually evolved to the point that it could induce a series of discrete steps in the advancement of life that to Darwinists look like evolution.
Or maybe not.
As much as I as an atheist hate to admit it there is no reason that a theoretical all-powerful G-d could not to use as a tool something that looks in retrospect with our limited data like evolution.
In any case my inability to resolve the issue does not oblige me to accept the assertions of others of either persuasion no matter how much their passion distracts them from their own lack of proof.
[Very interesting debate, guys, but keep to the word limit. Thanks–ILANA.]
Here is an excerpt from my book re: Creationism v Darwinism:
What are biological life forms and why are they here? Is it because a god decreed the existence of these life forms or “creatures”? Or is it because they just happened by accident? Both explanations are equally true and false. In other words, both explanations have equal levels of credibility. Surely, biological creatures like these exist by design. We are far too complex and creative to be here for no reason whatsoever. Let me put it this way. If the universe could be anything, why do we happen to be in it? Why isn’t the universe a chaotic mess of entities moving every which way, totally uninhabitable for any life forms that would hope to arise in it? Then again, how could a creator have created us for no reason but to create us? And what would have created the creator? It is true that the universe evolves, but it is false that creatures exist for no reason. And it is true that creatures exist for a reason, but it is false that a god created them. However, you could say that all was created by God, as long as you define God in a radically different way than you normally would. In that case, God would be the universe, and the inevitable course of the universe would be the purpose of the universe. In that case, God is in a continuous state of evolution, because the universe is in a continuous state of evolution.