When "debates" about evolution arise in the popular media, I find myself engaging in a constant fight to right the wrongs — the myths if you will, or more precisely, themisinformation — that are perpetuated by a very vocal and very ignorant crowd of "journalists".
Humans did not evolve from apes. Darwin never conjecturedthat humans descended from apes. He conjectured that humans andapes were co-descended from a missing ancestor — the infamous "missing link".
Evolution is not Darwin's theory. "Evolution" is not somethingthat Darwin came up with. The fact of evolution, which is tied togeology and biology and history and physics, was explained by Darwin in his Origin of Species and in his Descent of Man. His works were theoriesabout the mechanism of evolution. In the same era, other theories of evolution had been developed, for example by Lamarck, whoconjectured that evolution happened as "exercised" traits were passedfrom parent to offspring. His classic example was the giraffe — on Lamarck's analysis, giraffes had long necks because they had to stretch to reach theirfood source. Darwin's theory is very different.
"Fittest" means best adapted, not strongest. To Darwin,what counted as "fitness" involved a creature's ability to survivein its environment. "Fit" does not necessarily mean strong or robust. The phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer, who applied it to economic competition, a closer match to modern misuse, but certainlynot Darwin's intended use. Darwin preferred "natural selection" over thephrase "survival of the fittest", for in natural selection he posited that those species best adapted to their peculiar environmentswould survive to pass on their traits. Were Darwin to restrict "fit" to "athletic" or "strong", as modern mis-interpreterspush, he would have ignored the significance of environment in favorof individual characteristics. His emphasis was onenvironment, which is partly what distinguished his theory so radically from Lamarck's.
Lamarck, as noted, emphasized the role of the individual in developingnew traits. Darwin's theory incorporated data about the species'physical surroundings to explain how traits develop and survive. Thiswas something of a revolutionary break.
Today, Darwin's explanation of the process of evolution is not widelyaccepted. Many more robust competing theories have emerged as biologists and geologists have uncovered further fossil evidenceand developed better genetic theories. For example, Stephen JayGould advanced a theory known as "Punctuated Equilibrium". His theoryaddressed anomalies in the fossil record that could not be explainedby Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory posits a continuous process. Thefossil record does not reflect such continuity. Gould posited thatspecies tend to go through rapid periods of change, followed by long periods with little variation. (There are lots more details,of course. The point is that it's not Darwin or bust.)
Explanations of evolution have changed radically since Darwin's time. This is normal: this is how science moves. Darwin only had access to superficial data, like the shapes of various animals and fossils and other basic physical attributes. Today, evolutionary theory appeals to genetic theory for much of its explanatory power. Today we talk about DNA, carbon dating, genes and so forth when we talk about the process of biological evolution. This is vastly more robust than the superficial explanations that Darwin posited.
There are no "Darwinists" anymore. Maybe there's a crackpot or two out there, but there are no respected biologists or zoologists pushing for Darwin's theory. Today we talk of the "modern synthesis", which incorporates some of Darwin's ideas of selection with modern genetic theory.
Hence, for ID to compete, it must take on genetic theory, and a host of other hard sciences. Proponents of ID, to be taken seriously, must address things like carbon dating, DNA evidence, and so on, because those are the concepts that underlie modern evolutionary theories. However, to challenge something like carbon dating, for example, requires challenging modern particle physics; it will be very difficult to demonstrate that particle physics is bunk. The advances that led to the possibility of carbon dating are the same advances that led to chemotherapy, and were in the family of advances that led to the possibility of computer chips (namely, advances in quantum mechanics.) So, in an important sense, evolutionary theories are intimately intertwined with a wide array of hard sciences. To "compete" on the level that ID appears to want to compete, they have a lot of hard physical science to re-explain. (I will issue a personal challenge to any ID proponent to re-explain particle physics and quantum mechanics in such a way as to tear down carbon dating, yet retain the possibilities of modern computing. And I point out the deep irony of anyone blogging about this.)
The most important point to emphasize is that "evolution" is not atheory. "Evolution" describes trends identified in the fossilrecord — among other things. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection represents one attempt to explain observed variation andto explain geologic / fossil data.
For "Intelligent Design" to compete as an evolutionary theory, it would need to posit a mechanism that explains species variation andexplains the same set of geologic / fossil data that other evolutionary theories attempt to explain. Furthermore, to properlycount as a theory, Intelligent Design should be predictive (much asgeneral relativity or Newton's mechanics can be used to predict outcomes of experiments.) A good theory, generally speaking, is both explanatory and predictive.
The super important point: Intelligent Design, if it wants to be a competing evolutionary theory, must attempt to explain the samedata as other competing evolutionary theories. If proponents of ID want to discredit the fossil record or discredit genetic theoryor discredit physics, biology, and so on (as it sometimes seems), then they cannot reasonably expect to be taught along side withany competing evolutionary theory.
Furthermore, if any teacher in the world teaches "evolution"as a synonym for "Darwinism", I'd like to have a little chat with them.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JELIEL
"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. " -- Darwin
Just had to throw that in there.
How anyone with the slightest education can adopt the ID model is beyond me. To believe so blindly in something that you cannot see what is starring you in the face, is just... well, it's insane.
2 - Duane
Those are some instructive points there, Brian. Thanks for those clarifications.
Maybe one problem is not so much that IDers are unwilling to attack the issues from a scientific standpoint, but that they simply rely on an underlying mistrust of science and scientists. For example, the Piltdown hoax is often cited as a reason to distrust the entire scientific enterprise.
They also spin the self-correcting nature of scientific research as grounds to distrust scientists. "Well, who knows? They might all change their minds tomorrow!"
IDers believe that the scientific "establishment" is dogmatic, closed, and driven by agendas. It is somewhat understandable, seeing as IDers core beliefs arise from static metaphysical dogma. IDers are prepared to ascribe dogmatic attitudes to the practitioners of science, since it fits the world view they have adopted based on their own experience with religious authority.
Finally, in their attempt to put Creationism on equal footing with science, IDers tend to equate confidence in the scientific method with faith.
ID advocacy based on the above criteria is not taken seriously by scientists, of course. However, the sad fact that these criteria are embraced by a vast majority of "anti-evolutionists," who are unprepared to address the issues on non-metaphysical, non-cultural, purely scientific grounds, leads to the endless, wheel-spinning arguments found here at BC, for example.
3 - DrPat
...any ID proponent to re-explain particle physics and quantum mechanics in such a way as to tear down carbon dating, yet retain the possibilities of modern computing. And I point out the deep irony of anyone blogging about this.
Wonderful. Just wonderful. Thanks for this cogent synopsis of the current evolutionary science, Brian. Though evolution WAS "something that Darwin came up with" -- Eramus Darwin, Charles' grandfather, proposed that one type of animal or plant might, over generations, evolve into another. You're right, though, that it was left to Lamarck, Wallace and Eramus' grandson Charles to advance possible mechanisms for that change.
4 - Duane
Some key ideas relevant to Darwin's work arose in antiquity.
Based on the discovery of several marine fossils, Lucretius (1st century B.C.) wrote:
"... this weird assortment earth produced
In vain since nature would not let them grow.
They could not reach to any flourishing,
Find nourishment, be joined in acts of love...
Many attempts were failures; many a kind
Could not survive; whatever we see today
Enjoying the breath of life must from the first
Have found protection in its character."
5 - alethinos59
First: excellent post Brian! Next, a little nag here to Duane - the last thing you can accurately call IDers muddled thought process is "metaphysical". I can't fault you for the use of the term - it got its bad reputation via (primarily) the Vienna Circle. Those materialist "boys" snubbed anything that they thought smacked of the "spiritual". Later on their intellectual descendents thought that Kurt Godel was their central champion. They couldn't have been further from the truth. Godel was a died-in-the-wool Platonist. And Plato was the original Metaphysician! Real metaphysicls is concerned with discovering, as far as possible the nature of the Real. It was only later on -through sloppy, careless "assignment" of damn near any provocative thought TO Plato that metaphysics became a catchall phrase describing anything "spooky".
IDers are NOT interested in actually arguing AGAINST evolution. They simply want to develop a slick PR program, with just enough "sense" to slide past most American's rather lazy minds.
In many ways they are similar to the Nazi Party of the early to mid 1930s. Just enough "connect the dots" to satisfy essentially lazy minds that find Reality too scary anyway.
God, Whom I sincerely believe in - I beg You to protect us against your most ardent servents!
alethinos59
6 - Greyfox
Enjoyed your commentary, but wanted to add a correction. Carbon dating is based on the half-life of carbon-14 (returning to the nitrogen-14 whence it came)of about 5700 years, so the practical limit for carbon dating is about 50,000 years. Evolutionary evidence goes back, of course, to about 3.5 billion years, and is dated by other radioactive decay series like uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc. As a Docent in a major museum of natural history, I often ask the visitors on my tours "why do you believe me when I say this fossil is (e.g.) 520 million year old?" And I'm delighted when someone says "Carbon dating?" and I gently correct them as above.
Greyfox
7 - John Bill
ID is not anymore science than the Flinstones is an accurate historical documentary.
8 - Chris Dunham
Speaking of ignorant journalists, Larry King last week asked Barbara Forrest, author of Creationism's Trojan Horse, the following question:
"Dr. Forrest, . . . how can you out-and-out turn down creationism, since if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?"
BTW, Aristotle argued for a sort of natural selection a few centuries prior to Lucretius--and he took the idea from Empedocles. Of course, his theory was hobbled by his belief in the immutability of species.
9 - Duane
Thanks for the comment alethinos59. No doubt. it's giving IDers too much credit to call their anti-scientific attitude metaphysical. I was trying to be generous.
10 - Kyle
Perhaps greyfox can help me out with this one. For radioactive dating to be an effective method of determining how old fossils are, don't you need to know the amount of the radioactive substance originally present?
11 - DrPat
Kyle, since the products of radioactive decay remain in the fossil or other item being dated, its a simple matter of determining the proportion of original radioactive substance to its decay product, and the normal rate of decay.
12 - Dave
Hi Brian,
Just another slight correction without much bearing on the ID issue. Although Darwin may not have said it, we are in fact descended from apes. If orangutans, gorillas, and chimps are all apes and they split off from the human lineage in that order, then the common ancestor of chimps and humans was also an ape. It's perhaps a technical point and the same argument can be extended to show that we and other mammals (including dolphins!) are all fish. But then, that's why we have systematics and icthyologists tend to use terms like teleost and actinopterygian, so they can be specific.
13 - JudyV
This is probably the most cogent summary I have read on the subject of the theory of evolution, Darwinism, and ID. I copied it to a document file just so I wouldn't lose it.
I am "senior citizen" involved in a process of learning about DNA, genetics, and evolution now that I have passed the age of retirement. Watson and Crick presented the model of the double helix three years before I graduated from high school, probably the very year I was labeling leaves on sheets handed out by the biology teacher. I do not remember hearing about DNA in my one college biology class in 1958, though my geology instructors were very excited about the theory of plate tectonics. Evolution as demonstrated in the fossil record was taken for granted -- although "ontogeny recapitualtes phylogeny" was still a catch phrase.
The point of all this is that most Americans, and particularly those who had their one biology course in the '50's and 60's -- and that includes millions -- have no clue about DNA and only a hazy concept of evolution.
I remember an op-ed article I read not too long ago on the Internet which featured a number of people and their definitions and level of understanding of both evolutionary theory and the theory of intelligent design. From the perspective of one who had immersed herself late in life to try to understand the science underlying evolution -- which has taken me into trying to understand the basic outline of quantum mechanics -- I was stunned at what I saw as a general lack of education in biology, genetics, and evolution.
Is it any wonder that the vast majority of American citizens are attracted to the concept of an intellligent designer? It is so much easier and pleasanter to consider an anthropocentric universe than to face the myriad of questions that have to occur with the reallization that man is not the center of the universe.
14 - Brian Sorrell
Thank you all for your comments. I appreciate the gentle education regarding dating fossils -- I will have to do further research in this area. And I must say, I'm pleasantly surprised by the discussion of Greek and Roman metaphysics -- I wasn't expecting to have to brush up on that!
The points made here inspire me to expand the piece to include some historical / philosophical perspectives on the notion of evolution and some further technical details on the science behind current theories. My main hope with this piece was to get the message out quickly, generally and accurately so to dislodge some of the misinformation in the mainstream. I'm happy to know that those points seemed relatively clear.
Thank you all for reading and commenting.
Brian.
15 - Victor Lana
Does anyone think Sasquatch is the missing link? Just wondering?
16 - Nancy
!?...you mean he's NOT? That liar; he told me himself he was the missing link and my great-great granduncle 29 to the 10th power removed, so I lent him $10. Damn!
17 - Brian Garrepy
Very nice article Brian... It helps to get the proper knowledge especially when I don't necessarily want to spend a lifetime into the research of things.I take offense to the lazy American comment though. Just because alot of us don't have the time to research all angles of this "theory"(it's still a theory.right?) doesn't make us lazy. Fortunately or Unfortunately, I have spent years playing music and this was my passion. By the looks of it, alot of you can't differenciate between people of faith and ID'ers... From my experience reading the bible, ID goes against my faith. True Christians and Catholics do not judge people...like some of the ID'ers I have met. If you want to believe in Evolution, that's fine but if we have a discussion I would have to disagree because I believe in the Holy Trinity. I do not think scientists are better or worse than anyone else. I definately appreciate their intelligence but I also feel that alot of things can't be taught. There are intangibles in everything. All in All, those are just some of my thoughts... I look forward to expanded piece that Brian puts out.
Peace...
18 - Jay
I'd love to see a cogent, intelligently-designed response to what is proposed at this site
19 - Bennett
Great post Brian, many thanks to you sir!
Jay - I'd like to see an intelligently designed clickable link to the web page you referrence...
20 - Brian Sorrell
Jay, you raise an interesting challenge -- that site is a study in bad reasoning. But the point that it raises is (and perhaps I'll write an article about this someday): How do we evaluate when it's worth engaging in refutation? Blog-land is full of wasted refutation-effort -- effort that could have been better spent on a positive program. In my article above, I try to balance the refuting with positive advancement of useful information. That, I find, is one of the biggest struggles in writing short pieces like these. I wonder if anyone else thinks about these sorts of things?
Anyway, personally I'm not up for bothering with the folks who wrote the "argument" in the link. It's quite amusing though -- especially for someone who trudged through a physics program a dozen years ago :) Thanks for that. I dig it.
Cheers,
Brian.
21 - bill doppes
Where did the soul come from?
22 - Duane
James Brown? On the one, man.
23 - Bennett
Superbad!
24 - Brian Sorrell
Bill "soul" Doppes raises an interesting challenge: how do I resist engaging in frivolous debate and spend my energies in a positive way?
How about this: Bill's question commits a fallacy know as "begging the question". I suggest that Bill reads about that fallacy, then reformulates his question in an answerable way. There, positive energy spent on education about argument (I knew all that philosophy training would pay off someday!)
Or perhaps try this: the soul has nothing to do with the fossil record. You might as well ask "what about garden gnomes?"
25 - Larry in Florida
It is not Doppes who is guilty of begging the question -- or circular reasoning -- but the ID advocates themselves. If they insist that only a very intelligent entity could have "designed" or engineered both our universe and life forms on Planet Earth such as Caligula and Himmler, then their opponents are entitled to respond, "Your Designer is so complex and intelligent that He/She/It must have been created by a superior entity even more intelligent."
So it starts, it never ends, and is thus reduced to absurdity. Why bother with arguing whose science is better? This is at the heart of their claim, but it is being purposely obscured by the fog of so-called controversy.