http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6339

More on the consequences of poor science

BreakPoint Commentaries
WorldviewThe Teflon Naturalist
By Chuck Colson
3/30/2007

Related Audio/Video Downloads


Giving Darwin a Pass


Since its publication in 1859, tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people have been killed in the name of ideologies that cited Darwin

[quote="DrTorch"]http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6339

More on the consequences of poor science

BreakPoint Commentaries
WorldviewThe Teflon Naturalist
By Chuck Colson
3/30/2007

Related Audio/Video Downloads


Giving Darwin a Pass


Since its publication in 1859, tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people have been killed in the name of ideologies that cited Darwin

NIU007 Wrote:So what is your point exactly?

I suppose I had more than one.

1. Just to provide information. I do that often enough, and these articles have abundant references at the end to allow you to look things up on your own.

2. To point out that when ideas are allowed to pass without rigorous examination and scrutiny, they can be exploited for a variety of abhorrant purposes. Darwin's theory even 150 years later, is unsound and does not measure up to scientific scrutiny...but by labeling it "science" it has been allowed to propagate virtually unchecked. The consequences of this have been grave.
On the flip side, it may be that because of the potential consequences that it was passed along so willingly. Obviously there were many "scientists" and academics (Galton obviously, the Huxleys for another example) who promoted this theory because it allowed them to further their personal ambitions. Scientists are not above reproach simply by virtue of their career. They are human, and can yield to the temptation to see what they hope to see within their data set.

Such a warning is worth keeping in mind when considering controversial topics like Climate change, embryonic stem cell research, and others.

3. Similar to #2, it is worth noting that there are many rumors attached to Charles Darwin. These are often circulated among his supporters and detractors. There are also legacies that are worth discussing. It's worth keeping that in mind when reading/reviewing public school textbooks and listening to public school teachers, who often don't do thorough enough research to back their assertions.

DrTorch Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:So what is your point exactly?

I suppose I had more than one.

1. Just to provide information. I do that often enough, and these articles have abundant references at the end to allow you to look things up on your own.

2. To point out that when ideas are allowed to pass without rigorous examination and scrutiny, they can be exploited for a variety of abhorrant purposes. Darwin's theory even 150 years later, is unsound and does not measure up to scientific scrutiny...but by labeling it "science" it has been allowed to propagate virtually unchecked. The consequences of this have been grave.
On the flip side, it may be that because of the potential consequences that it was passed along so willingly. Obviously there were many "scientists" and academics (Galton obviously, the Huxleys for another example) who promoted this theory because it allowed them to further their personal ambitions. Scientists are not above reproach simply by virtue of their career. They are human, and can yield to the temptation to see what they hope to see within their data set.

Such a warning is worth keeping in mind when considering controversial topics like Climate change, embryonic stem cell research, and others.

3. Similar to #2, it is worth noting that there are many rumors attached to Charles Darwin. These are often circulated among his supporters and detractors. There are also legacies that are worth discussing. It's worth keeping that in mind when reading/reviewing public school textbooks and listening to public school teachers, who often don't do thorough enough research to back their assertions.

Okay. On point #2, no question that science can be twisted to provide rationale for some horrible things. Of course, religion is capable of that too, as we've seen in the past, and still today in some areas.

Since you're providing info, in what ways is Darwin's theory unsound? What better theory is there that's backed up by scientific evidence?

NIU007 Wrote:Since you're providing info, in what ways is Darwin's theory unsound?

First and foremost, it doesn't match the evidence. Of course some notions, like puncuated equilibrium, help patch it up a bit, but those don't have empirical support either.

The best answer is that it's unsound because the empirical evidence points elsewhere.

But, for more info you can start here:

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-...0684834936

also include this, while not perfect it provides ample rigorous analysis

http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phill...0830813241

Quote:What better theory is there that's backed up by scientific evidence?

Atomic theory, to start with.

Molecular orbital theory.

Germ theory of disease

Plate tectonics

Black body radiation theory

Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation (although not at the QM level)

Relativistic Dirac theory

(you can kind of tell where my background is)

Atomic theory, to start with.

Molecular orbital theory.

Germ theory of disease

Plate tectonics

Black body radiation theory

Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation (although not at the QM level)

Relativistic Dirac theory

(you can kind of tell where my background is)[/quote]

You know what I meant. Where did we come from? Darwin said we evolved from lower life forms. Are you saying we didn't, that we got created a few thousand years ago? That animals were also created including 1,000,000+ insect species for our enjoyment?

NIU007 Wrote:Atomic theory, to start with.

Molecular orbital theory.

Germ theory of disease

Plate tectonics

Black body radiation theory

Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation (although not at the QM level)

Relativistic Dirac theory

(you can kind of tell where my background is)

You know what I meant.[/quote]

I did?

I thought that's what you asked for.

Quote: Where did we come from?

I was born in Columbus. At least that's what I was told. I was awfully young at the time.

Quote:Darwin said we evolved from lower life forms. Are you saying we didn't, that we got created a few thousand years ago? That animals were also created including 1,000,000+ insect species for our enjoyment?

I tend to believe in an Old Earth. You want more details than that? Do the research...just keep it scientifically sound.

DrTorch Wrote:1. Just to provide information. I do that often enough, and these articles have abundant references at the end to allow you to look things up on your own.

Abundant resources?

So you're telling me that of the (six) abundant resources on '"Darwinism" causing Eugenics' four of them are self referential? Nice.

Quote:

Quote: Where did we come from?

I was born in Columbus. At least that's what I was told. I was awfully young at the time.

So you didn't have any real intention to be serious on this thread? If it wasn't clear to you what he was asking for it should be clear to everyone else that you are not taking NIU's question seriously. If he asked you where the sun came from, would you answer "Over there?"

In the end, I don't see why you feel like you need to drag Darwin's name through the mud. His personal life and points of view have absolutely no effect on the trueness or falseness of his ideas. That's just poisoning the well.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:1. Just to provide information. I do that often enough, and these articles have abundant references at the end to allow you to look things up on your own.

Abundant resources?

So you're telling me that of the (six) abundant resources on '"Darwinism" causing Eugenics' four of them are self referential? Nice.

I believe I said 'references'.

Two points:

1. You're always bitching that I don't give evidence for my position. Then when I do, you complain about that. You just like to whine a lot.

2. The "self referential" ones also contain external references and links. So once again, you're wrong.

Quote:In the end, I don't see why you feel like you need to drag Darwin's name through the mud. His personal life and points of view have absolutely no effect on the trueness or falseness of his ideas.

Wow, you really missed the entire point, didn't you? I will spell it out for you very simply: people's personal life and points of view have an absolutely HUGE effect on whether they choose to see the trueness or falseness of ideas.
That was true for Darwin, Gaston, etc.

BTW, if what was written was true, how am I dragging Darwin's name through the mud? Seems your personal point of view is effecting your perception of trueness or falseness of the idea. Is truth making you uncomfortable again?

DrTorch Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:Atomic theory, to start with.

Molecular orbital theory.

Germ theory of disease

Plate tectonics

Black body radiation theory

Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation (although not at the QM level)

Relativistic Dirac theory

(you can kind of tell where my background is)

You know what I meant.

I did?

I thought that's what you asked for.

Quote: Where did we come from?

I was born in Columbus. At least that's what I was told. I was awfully young at the time.

Quote:Darwin said we evolved from lower life forms. Are you saying we didn't, that we got created a few thousand years ago? That animals were also created including 1,000,000+ insect species for our enjoyment?

I tend to believe in an Old Earth. You want more details than that? Do the research...just keep it scientifically sound.[/quote]

So God created dinosaurs first (plus some other animals and fish), then wiped them out and started over with people? I guess I don't understand the order of events that took place according to those that don't believe in evolution.

As time goes by science discovers explanations for more and more phenomena that used to be considered supernatural. It will continue as more and more gaps in our knowledge are filled in. And it will be harder and harder to say that evolution does not occur because this or that could not possibly have happened naturally. Since your background is apparently scientific I guess you know that already though. Based on your list of theories, are you a physicist or something?

DrTorch Wrote:First and foremost, it doesn't match the evidence. Of course some notions, like puncuated equilibrium, help patch it up a bit, but those don't have empirical support either.

The best answer is that it's unsound because the empirical evidence points elsewhere.)

You can create an experiment that I expect would greatly imply the existence of evolution.

1) Get bacteria and put half in one petri dish, the other half in another petri dish. Let them live several generations to allow random mutations to hold.

2) Put an antibiotic (a bacteria's resistance to which is known to be hereditary) into one of the petri dishes that will kill off many, but not all of the bacteria. Let several generations pass to allow the bacteria to build up their numbers.

3) Repeat step two a dozen times on the same dish with the same antibiotic, without doing anything to the other one.

4) Put the same antibiotic in the same amount in both petri dishes. Observer the percentage of the bacteria that die in each case.

I have not run such an experiment, so I can't tell you the results. However, if the bacteria in the control petri dish survive in the same numbers as in the experimental petri dish, I would be extremely surprised.

One scientist has been running an experiment for nearly a decade on evolution using bacteria: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/. While I admit that I don't understand the experiment completely, it seems to show that the longer a population has been in a particular environment, the more "fit" it is (not sure how fitness is measured).

Do you see any fundamental flaws in either of these experiments?

rice09 Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:First and foremost, it doesn't match the evidence. Of course some notions, like puncuated equilibrium, help patch it up a bit, but those don't have empirical support either.

The best answer is that it's unsound because the empirical evidence points elsewhere.)

You can create an experiment that I expect would greatly imply the existence of evolution.

1) Get bacteria and put half in one petri dish, the other half in another petri dish. Let them live several generations to allow random mutations to hold.

2) Put an antibiotic (a bacteria's resistance to which is known to be hereditary) into one of the petri dishes that will kill off many, but not all of the bacteria. Let several generations pass to allow the bacteria to build up their numbers.

3) Repeat step two a dozen times on the same dish with the same antibiotic, without doing anything to the other one.

4) Put the same antibiotic in the same amount in both petri dishes. Observer the percentage of the bacteria that die in each case.

I have not run such an experiment, so I can't tell you the results. However, if the bacteria in the control petri dish survive in the same numbers as in the experimental petri dish, I would be extremely surprised.

One scientist has been running an experiment for nearly a decade on evolution using bacteria: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/. While I admit that I don't understand the experiment completely, it seems to show that the longer a population has been in a particular environment, the more "fit" it is (not sure how fitness is measured).

Do you see any fundamental flaws in either of these experiments?

Good question. Anybody?

Though I'm far from an expert, quite a bit of reading about wolves and ther effects on prey, it certainly appears that the very young and the less fit adults are the ones that fall prey to wolves. Some of the prey are not obviously unfit until wolves (or other predators) put them to the test. Wolves figure out after a few minutes whether a possible feast is fit or not, and give up the chase. Seems to me that only the fittest prey individuals would survive to carry on the genes. On a number of levels, evolution makes a lot more sense then the religious education I received as a child. But maybe someone can explain things better than I've heard them explained.

rice09 Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:First and foremost, it doesn't match the evidence. Of course some notions, like puncuated equilibrium, help patch it up a bit, but those don't have empirical support either.

The best answer is that it's unsound because the empirical evidence points elsewhere.)

You can create an experiment that I expect would greatly imply the existence of evolution.

1) Get bacteria and put half in one petri dish, the other half in another petri dish. Let them live several generations to allow random mutations to hold.

2) Put an antibiotic (a bacteria's resistance to which is known to be hereditary) into one of the petri dishes that will kill off many, but not all of the bacteria. Let several generations pass to allow the bacteria to build up their numbers.

3) Repeat step two a dozen times on the same dish with the same antibiotic, without doing anything to the other one.

4) Put the same antibiotic in the same amount in both petri dishes. Observer the percentage of the bacteria that die in each case.

I have not run such an experiment, so I can't tell you the results. However, if the bacteria in the control petri dish survive in the same numbers as in the experimental petri dish, I would be extremely surprised.

One scientist has been running an experiment for nearly a decade on evolution using bacteria: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/. While I admit that I don't understand the experiment completely, it seems to show that the longer a population has been in a particular environment, the more "fit" it is (not sure how fitness is measured).

Do you see any fundamental flaws in either of these experiments?

While no flaws with the experiments are obvious, what is this person trying to conclude?

That's where the vigorous debates usually occur.

You rightly point to a good question, what is "fit". One issue is that term is often presented tautologically.

DrTorch Wrote:While no flaws with the experiments are obvious, what is this person trying to conclude?

That's where the vigorous debates usually occur.

You rightly point to a good question, what is "fit". One issue is that term is often presented tautologically.

The experiment has published dozens of papers, so I don't think there is any one thing that can be pointed to as the intended conclusion. However, it seemed that they wanted to be able to see what they call microevolution in action. They concluded that chance has an enormous impact on evolution, based on the fact that the 12 populations that they started with (which were all clones of the each other originally) evolved to different sizes and fitness levels, and the fact that they saw periods of rapid evolutionary change and stasis.

The above conclusions are what I tried to get out of the paper here: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1994,...visano.pdf but it is very possible that I had misinterpreted it.

As far as I can tell, fitness is measured by taking part of the latest generation, mixing it with the starting generation and figuring out the populations' growth rates.

My conclusion from the above paper is that evolution and natural selection do exist. The gradual increase in fitness and cell size meshes really well with what is predicted by evolutionary theory. I will admit that it is not rock solid proof, but when combined with knowledge of breeding practices and evolutionary algorithms, it helps create a compelling case that life evolves and adapts to its environment through a process in which genes that allow an organism to have more offspring eventually become prevalent in the population.

I would like to apologize for derailing the topic. To get back on topic, I feel that the creator of an idea is irrelevant to the truth of the idea. One of the first steps in the scientific method is to create a hypothesis. I would be surprised if Darwin wasn't looking for evidence of evolution and just approached the question without any biases as to the likely answer. However, I don't believe in evolution because Darwin did; I believe in it because the vast majority of the scientific community, representing all biases, political persuasions, and fields, believe in it, and for many, it is essential to their research. Additionally, I find evidence of evolution in many things in the world around me and generally believe that the idea is a fairly logical conclusion from what we know about hereditary.

Of course, if we really want to talk about the creator the idea of evolution, we should be talking about Anaximander. He preceded Darwin by a couple thousand years.

DrTorch Wrote:Wow, you really missed the entire point, didn't you? I will spell it out for you very simply: people's personal life and points of view have an absolutely HUGE effect on whether they choose to see the trueness or falseness of ideas.
That was true for Darwin, Gaston, etc.

But it does not change the trueness/falseness of the idea. Clearly you missed my point.

Quote:BTW, if what was written was true, how am I dragging Darwin's name through the mud? Seems your personal point of view is effecting your perception of trueness or falseness of the idea. Is truth making you uncomfortable again?

Truth is not making me uncomfortable. Anyone that deifies Darwin is just as guilty as those who try to demonize him. He was a man. He made good decision and bad decisions. He had good ideas and bad ideas. No need to make him more than what he was. Like I said before, poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, and I don't think there is any justification for using it. Anyone trying to do so is seemingly the one who is uncomfortable with truth. I'm not the one demonizing people in order to discount their ideas.

rice09 Wrote:My conclusion from the above paper is that evolution and natural selection do exist. The gradual increase in fitness and cell size meshes really well with what is predicted by evolutionary theory.

I would say that is an unfounded, and unwise conclusion. The confines of a petri dish, and a relatively simple organism like bacteria are not a good model the life in general.

It's a legitimate line of research, but it doesn't validate the current theories of evolution.

Moreover, "scaling up" to more complex organisms is a bad assmuption. From things like the correspondance principle to industrial production, scaling up is a tricky business, and assumptions don't generally pan out.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:Wow, you really missed the entire point, didn't you? I will spell it out for you very simply: people's personal life and points of view have an absolutely HUGE effect on whether they choose to see the trueness or falseness of ideas.
That was true for Darwin, Gaston, etc.

But it does not change the trueness/falseness of the idea. Clearly you missed my point.

No, I didn't miss your point. It's a valid one, and I didn't address it directly. However, jumping to the conclusion that a theory is correct doesn't change the trueness/falseness of the idea either. Especially when you jump to that conclusion based on the notion that the theory is "science" and there is something special about that.

Quote:

Quote:BTW, if what was written was true, how am I dragging Darwin's name through the mud? Seems your personal point of view is effecting your perception of trueness or falseness of the idea. Is truth making you uncomfortable again?

Truth is not making me uncomfortable. Anyone that deifies Darwin is just as guilty as those who try to demonize him.

Guilty of what?
Once again, you're claiming to be big on the trueness of ideas, yet you don't like them when they are presented? Not exactly an open free exchange of ideas.

You say I'm trying to poison the well by demonizing Darwin. Yet if you read Skpetic Magazine, Scientific American, or other similar publications you find that Darwin (and his followers) is cannonized b/c he's a "scientist"...that his ideas are the only ones to consider b/c he viewed the world impartially, as all scientists do.
That's patently false.
Ergo, if Darwin's ideas still merit consideration even though he was blatently partial, then other ideas like Intelligent Design, deserve the same consideration. Or, you must throw out Darwinism b/c he violated this requisite. Your choice.
QED.

DrTorch Wrote:Ergo, if Darwin's ideas still merit consideration even though he was blatently partial, then other ideas like Intelligent Design, deserve the same consideration.

One of the greatest fallacies can be the suppression of new ideas. There is no fault in being wrong, this helps us find out what is correct. We shouldn't simply blow off ideas like ID, but we need to look at it with the same scrutiny as everything else. It would be interesting to find evidence of extra-terrestrial involvement on Earth, but we haven't found any conclusive evidence of this.

But trying to correlate fault of the idea of evolution by listing faults of one man isn't helpful.

DrTorch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:Wow, you really missed the entire point, didn't you? I will spell it out for you very simply: people's personal life and points of view have an absolutely HUGE effect on whether they choose to see the trueness or falseness of ideas.
That was true for Darwin, Gaston, etc.

But it does not change the trueness/falseness of the idea. Clearly you missed my point.

No, I didn't miss your point. It's a valid one, and I didn't address it directly. However, jumping to the conclusion that a theory is correct doesn't change the trueness/falseness of the idea either. Especially when you jump to that conclusion based on the notion that the theory is "science" and there is something special about that.

I'm not jumping to conclusions because something is science. I'm just saying that of the theories attempting to explain what is happening in biology, the theory of evolution seems to be the most plausible. My argument is that science, in general, is a good methodology for sorting out what we know and and what we don't know. Assume all that we can observe and throw out too much speculation. That won't always get you to the correct conclusion, but it should get rid of those that are not parsimonious.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:BTW, if what was written was true, how am I dragging Darwin's name through the mud? Seems your personal point of view is effecting your perception of trueness or falseness of the idea. Is truth making you uncomfortable again?

Truth is not making me uncomfortable. Anyone that deifies Darwin is just as guilty as those who try to demonize him.

Guilty of what?
Once again, you're claiming to be big on the trueness of ideas, yet you don't like them when they are presented? Not exactly an open free exchange of ideas.

You say I'm trying to poison the well by demonizing Darwin. Yet if you read Skpetic Magazine, Scientific American, or other similar publications you find that Darwin (and his followers) is cannonized b/c he's a "scientist"...that his ideas are the only ones to consider b/c he viewed the world impartially, as all scientists do.
That's patently false.

I'm saying that anyone that is trying to support evolution using Darwin as a scientific saint is committing the same fallacy as those who wish to demonize him. What are they guilty of? Poisoning the well. It goes both ways. I'm curious, can you show me an example of someone connonizing Darwin? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're describing.

Quote:Ergo, if Darwin's ideas still merit consideration even though he was blatently partial, then other ideas like Intelligent Design, deserve the same consideration. Or, you must throw out Darwinism b/c he violated this requisite. Your choice.
QED.

Darwin being biased has nothing to do with consideration of his ideas. Of course one is going to be an advocate of their own ideas. If you don't defend your ideas, who will? The methodology of science however is designed to be unbiased. Simple double blind test are designed so that neither tester nor tested can know what the results will be until after conclusions are drawn.

As for ID, I've looked into it under your recommendation. So I have not just throw in away out of hand, but ID's idea of Irreducible Complexity (IC) has not presented a convincing argument, yet. The eye, whale evolution, and bacterial flagella, which are all IC points, all have evolutionary explanations. That seems to show that those things are not irreducibly complex. These explanations that came about long after Darwin's time showing that research has continued in this field.