Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I actually already had Pat Buchanan's latest column on my screen to write a response to when a reader emailed me and referred to the column as "Brayton bait." And that is indeed what it is, a column full of discredited nonsense by someone who knows nothing about evolution but is utterly unaware of their own ignorance.
I am always amused when general-topic writers take on this particular issue while knowing nothing about it and think that by reading a few creationist websites or pamphlets they know all they need to know about evolution. This column is a textbook example. It's basically a cliff's notes version of the creationist jokebook.
The first half of the column is dedicated to the silly claims about evolution being responsible for Hitler, Marx, Stalin and every other Big Bad Thing in the last 150 years. I'm not even going to bother refuting those claims for the millionth time for one simple reason: they don't have anything at all to do with whether evolution is true or not. Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive; it explains how life developed on earth. The only relevant question is whether that explanation is accurate or not, not whether it does or does not have some disturbing philosophical implications that we might not like. If it's true, it's true, no matter how much some might wish it wasn't.
On the subject of the validity of evolution, Buchanan basically offers a series of tiny argument fragments, all cribbed from creationist propaganda and all uniformly false. But first, one historical lie:
And here Windchy does his best demolition work.Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection."
This is false. Darwin and Wallace came up with very similar theories entirely separate from one another. Darwin had begun developing his theory two decades before it was published and it was only at the very end, in 1858, that Wallace contacted Darwin and sent him a manuscript. By that time, Darwin's ideas had already been sketched out in great detail but not made public. In the end, both men had their papers presented at the same meeting of the Linnean Society in London (coincidentally, 151 years ago today).
Windchy goes on to relate such scientific hoaxes as "Nebraska Man" - an anthropoid ape ancestor to man, whose tooth turned out to belong to a wild pig - and Piltdown Man, the missing link between monkey and man.Discovered in England in 1912, Piltdown Man was a sensation until exposed by a 1950s investigator as the skull of a Medieval Englishman attached to the jaw of an Asian ape whose teeth had been filed down to look human and whose bones had been stained to look old.
Standard creationist nonsense. Nebraska Man was not a hoax it was a very tentative identification by a very good scientist that was only turned into a "missing link" by a popular publication in England. HF Osborn took a single weathered tooth, very tentatively said that it may be anthropoid in origin and then scheduled a search for more remains to find out for sure. When they found further remains and it turned out to be a peccary tooth that had been weathered to look more anthropoid, that tentative classification was withdrawn and that was the end of it. Far from being some embarrassing moment for science, this illustrates exactly how good science is done.
Piltdown Man, on the other hand, was actually a hoax. But it was suspected to be a hoax precisely because it did not fit at all with other hominid specimens and it was proven to be a hoax by scientists using new dating techniques that were not available at the time the hoax was pulled off. Again, this is a good example of how science works to correct such false claims.
Other myths are demolished. Bird feathers do not come from the scales of reptiles. There are no gills in human embryos.
But of course, no one claims that there are gills in human embryos. The truth, quite undemolished, is human embryos have pharyngeal arches just like fish do. In fish, those structures end up being fashioned into gills and other structures while in humans they end up being fashioned into the structures of our own bodies. But in the embryos, they are identical structures.
For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.
This is the silliest claim of all. I would challenge Pat Buchanan, as I have challenged every other creationist, to explain the patterns found in the fossil record without invoking common descent. It cannot be done, not without invoking miracles and engaging in rampant special pleading to explain away all the logical problems with the alternative explanations.
The fossil record looks exactly how it must look if evolution by common descent is true. It could not possibly look any other way.
Politics
Comments
This evolution controversy is more recent than I'd realized.
Posted by: Dave | July 1, 2009 9:29 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 1, 2009 9:38 AM
Without invoking miracles? I thought that THAT was the whole point of creationism.
Posted by: gary l. day | July 1, 2009 9:47 AM
In a world that is only 6000 years old where Jesus rode dinosaurs, all you need are a few pamphlets. That is the way of the new anti-intellectual psuedo-science. I mean personally, I would trust tarot card readings of the blatherings of these idiots any day.
You dont need no college to be an expert! You just need the bible and a big mouth and a gun.
Posted by: seeing eye chick | July 1, 2009 9:55 AM
Of course, the killer in all attempts set up Wallace against Darwin is that, when Wallace came to to write his own book on evolution, he -- of his own free will-- entitled it Darwinism!
Posted by: Tristram Brelstaff | July 1, 2009 9:56 AM
I would pay extra money to see Rachel Maddow destroy her "Uncle Pat" over this on her show. COME ON RACHEL - BLAST PAT BACK TO THE STONE AGE!!!!
Posted by: J-Dog | July 1, 2009 10:11 AM
Whats funny is that half way through the diatribe, Pat points out himself that the hitler references aren't relevant. Thus invalidating half of his own diatribe and probably half of the book that he is referencing.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 1, 2009 10:15 AM
In his twilight years, Pat is coasting. He can
crank out (heh, heh) columns like this on autopilot,
when he needs some product but doesn't have anything
ready to send in on more important topics. like how
we need to outbreed the Muslims.
Posted by: Bronco Raptor | July 1, 2009 10:18 AM
I had never heard this one before.
Does anyone know the provenance of this?
Posted by: TomS | July 1, 2009 10:33 AM
Why would this matter at all if evolution is false? More to the point, how would this demonstrate that evolution is false?
Posted by: Tulse | July 1, 2009 10:42 AM
Same source as the infamous 500 Ph.D. dissertations, no doubt (ie: exhaust end of the speaker's GI tract).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 1, 2009 10:51 AM
Standard wingnut tactic. Compare someone to satan in the first paragraph and than later say "not that I am really think [insert target here] is satan and is not really relevant to my point anyways". They are betting their target audience won't (or can't) read past the first two paragraphs.
Posted by: yoshi | July 1, 2009 11:19 AM
TomS, that's actually a little complicated. A number of people who worked on Piltdown man were indeed knighted. However no one was knighted specifically for the find, but rather for their general contributions to science.
Buchanan is probably referring Arthur Keith, Arthur Smith Woodward, and Grafton Elliot Smith. All of whom were knighted and worked on Piltdown man. In particular Arthur Keith was, for a time, the lead suspect for who committed the hoax. But today the accumulated evidence points to Charles Dawson as the sole perpetrator. Dawson was never knighted.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 1, 2009 11:19 AM
J-Dog,
Uncle Pat already lives in the stone age or, more correctly, shows the mental abilities of one living then.
Neo-lithic man predates jebus by a good few thousand years - just where Pat belongs. Up to his ass in gods and not a clue what's going on.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 1, 2009 11:51 AM
OK, let's follow this "logic" to its conclusion. If this really is true and this somehow proves that evolution by natural selection didn't happen, then that also means that calculus is false because it's possible that either Leibniz or Newton stole it from the other. Wow, I can't believe that I wasted so many years of college on a mathematical subject that Buchanan has just proven to be false.
Posted by: catgirl | July 1, 2009 12:17 PM
That sure is a thicket of ancient creationist lies that Buchanan regurgitated. Gould even responded to such pathetic quotemines of his work:
Doesn't keep the same pathetic old lie from being repeated by pathetic old liars.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 1, 2009 12:21 PM
Since Pat's Catholic, when he brings up Piltdown man, all you need to do is bring up all the bogus religious relics his faith has venerated for centuries.
Posted by: Jon H | July 1, 2009 12:32 PM
It always cracks me up when creationists mention hoaxes, especially Piltdown Man.
Just who the hell do they think exposed the hoax in the first place? Sure as hell wasn't some revelation from god to some preacher - it was scientists doing actual work in the lab and the field, something creationists seem to be allergic to.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | July 1, 2009 12:39 PM
Oh, I forgot that Buchanan is Catholic. I guess he didn't get the memo that the Pope and the Catholic church now officially hold the position that evolution by natural selection is real and compatible with their beliefs.
Posted by: catgirl | July 1, 2009 12:40 PM
I've always believed the best way to see evolution in action was to watch the development of the human fetus.
Unfortunately, I bet that if you were to bring this up to Pat the argument would hop-skip-and-jump to abortion... they're not very good a listening, are they?
- Enigma
Posted by: TheEngima32 | July 1, 2009 12:48 PM
A college education should enable one to distinguish intellectually reputable sources from morons. We have an obvious failure in this case.
Posted by: Les Lane | July 1, 2009 12:57 PM
Ed stated:
"The fossil record looks exactly how it must look if evolution by common descent is true. It could not possibly look any other way."
Can you explain this in more detail. I have no trouble with evolution being possible logically or biblically. I just have not been convinced in a way I understand. This is mainly due to Scientific illiteracy. But some of it is due to overly technical definitions. I have asked several biologists to explain this and they cannot do it in a simple way.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 1, 2009 1:24 PM
KoI, the fossil record shows a progression from simple structures to ever more complex ones. It shows the accumulated changes in structure leading gradually to new species. For example we don't see in the fossil record birds suddenly appearing out of nowhere. We see a gradual progression of features that eventually end up at a bird. If the fossil record looked differently, with say birds appearing before land animals, common decent could not be true because a gradual progression would not have been possible.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 1, 2009 1:44 PM
I find Buchanan to be a fascinating character. So much so I've read and thoroughly enjoyed some of his books and listen to his views on MSNBC, in spite of my being ardently anti-conservative.
On some subjects he remains intellectually honest and consistent with now antiquated conservative ideals even when they've fallen out of favor with the Republican party, such as his reluctance to instigate military actions abroad including our invasion of Iraq in 2003. This isn't a huge surprise given he's an archetypical paleo-conservative though those days ended for the conservative movement in general with Pearl Harbor and the advent of the Cold War.
A second example is his description of conservative candidates when its clear their character or capabilities are found wanting - Pat is found wanting as an apologist for conservatives which I find engaging. His book trashing W. Bush and the DeLay Republicans relatively early in Bush's presidency was an especially fun read. Often in these cases Buchanan's arguments are honest, cogent, biting, and worthy of consideration even when I strongly disagree with him. For example, Buchanan was quick to note that Sarah Palin, while attractive as a campaign candidate to the base, was in no way ready to be "Commander in Chief" and derided her experience in general to be VP - noting her brief tenure as gov. of Alaska and describing her more in terms of being the mayor of Wasilla.
On the other hand, Pat also has no problem turning on the crazy like we see here. Another example is his promotion of Barton-like historical revisionism of America's founding, which I've always found odd when coming from Catholics given they were some of the biggest benefactors of our ratifying a secular government.
I find his behavior distinctly odd because it's my observation that people that are intellectually dishonest are consistently dishonest across all matters; with Pat it's like hit and miss where he seems to gain no advantage to himself in regards to his inconsistency. He also always appears open-minded on many matters and even occasionally willing to adapt his positions - extremely rare traits amongst conservatives.
Pat would have made a great liberal or moderate if only we'd gotten to him earlier.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 1, 2009 1:55 PM
And virtually all ID/creationist "arguments" are flat-out false, misrepresentations, involve fallacies (false dilemma overwhelmingly so), or twist some fact or other.
Science generally finds and abolishes fakes, like ID happens to be. Pseudoscience blithely repeats and recycles even the most blatant falsehoods.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 1, 2009 2:18 PM
Michael Heath - I've also had some grudging respect for Pat given that he doesn't always toe the right-wing party line. But most of that respect disappeared as a result of his reaction to Sotomayor. This article may have killed it completely.
Posted by: Taz | July 1, 2009 2:34 PM
Abby,
How does that exclude the "Creationist" theory? Is it the order of the way things were recorded in Genesis? My trouble is with understanding how an ape gradually evolves until man appears. I am not saying it did not happen I just do not see how?
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 1, 2009 2:57 PM
Buchanan says Darwin is responsible for Hitler, and thinks that's a bad thing? I would think that tired old canard at least would be a point in Darwin's favor with the raging white supremacist anti-immigrant bastard.
Posted by: Owain Glyn Dwr | July 1, 2009 3:03 PM
King of Ireland:
I'll paste in the challenge I have made to creationists time and time again with no rational response:
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 1, 2009 3:03 PM
@2 and @3:
If the only miracles required to explain the fossil record from a Creationist perspective were miracles listed in the Bible, that would actually be a pretty good piece of evidence for the Creationist view, since the Bible was written well before the fossil record was discovered or understood.
Of course, they need to invoke a lot more and engage in a bunch of special pleading and all that, because my example there was contrafactual. But it is worth realizing that an explanation involving miracles could be scientific, if the miracles were proposed for reasons other than that specific explanation.
@22: There are very very many examples, but I think the most damning might be bird wings.
Bird wings are, fundamentally, structured like forelegs, and fossil birds had wings that looked more like forelegs than modern birds do, and the older the fossil the more leg-like the wings.
Also, modern bird embryos follow a developmental path very similar to that of reptiles, at least for a while. For instance, both types of embryo have very similar structures that eventually develop into wings and legs.
None of that makes much sense from the YEC viewpoint - why would God make wings that look like legs, when He could have given birds wings that were, findamentally, less of a "hack"? Why would He make the embryos of a LOT of VERY different species develop in very similar ways?
There's really no answer to those questions from the viewpoint of special creation - but evolution has simple answers; "it can't really work any other way".
Posted by: Michael Ralston | July 1, 2009 3:38 PM
Dear KoI,
The obsevered "biostratigraphy" excludes the "Creationist" "dogma" (not "theory", but unsupported assertions) because hard core Young Earth Creationism (YEC) states that all current species were created whole and "perfectly formed" all at the same time. YEC does not admit to any "transitional forms" (or even to the "geologic column"), explaining that all such fossils are either hoaxes or are simply misclassified (such that all fossils should be properly classified as belonging to one of the "created kinds" (wiki "baraminology"; think Noah)). The observed biostratigraphy does not support any of this. In fact, it flatly contradicts it. Specifically, observed reality contradicts all substantive YEC claims, therefore excluding this form of "Creationism".
Old Earth Creationism (OEC) admits to the appearance of related but different species, even to full common descent (ala Behe), but cites recurring creation events (or intelligent interventions) to achieve each new species. In the limit case, it is indistinguishable from common descent through natural selection. While observed reality does not excluding these milder forms of OEC, the repeated miracles are unnecessary to obtain what is seen in nature.
Posted by: Scott | July 1, 2009 3:59 PM
Two things,
As Stephen J Gould pointed out a number of times, Darwin was partly influenced in his thinking by Adam Smith, the oft-considered prime philosopher of Capitalism. By the logic of Pat and his sort, would not such an wicked connection reflect negatively on Capitalism?
Secondly, so far as Marx's supposed inspirations from Darwin, so what? Marx was merely a philosopher, not a political leader. His attempts to figure out a science of history may have been bogus (what Popper referred to as "the poverty of Historicism"), but in what way is he or his ideas even remotely "evil" in any possible sense of the word, as Creationists seem to think? He is no more responsible for the subsequent mis-use of his ideas than is Darwin. Even if Marx had dedicated his book to Darwin, who would give a shit?
Posted by: neokortex | July 1, 2009 4:41 PM
KoI, I was attempting to show how the fossil record supports common descent, not refute creationism. I mentioned birds before land animals not because of the biblical account of creation but to demonstrate the meaning of the phrase, "It could not possibly look any other way." Other examples would be if the fossil record showed fish appearing before sponges or multi-celled organisms before single celled. But we don't. We see simple organisms gaining new features and becoming increasing complex, exactly what you'd expect from common descent.
But since you asked, yes the order of appearance is a problem for biblical creation. But that's hardly the only conflict between creation and the fossil record. Of course there are many different versions of creationism and I've neither the time nor inclination to point out all the conflicts. Still, as you asked about the ape to man progression, I'll certainly speak to that.
How could an ape evolve into a man? Lets start with an animal we're both familiar with, the modern chimpanzee. Lets say, due to random mutation, a chimp is born with slightly different pelvis. This allows it to stand taller than the other chimps. It can now see over the tall grass and watch for predators. This allows him forage in places that had previously been too dangerous for chimps. The advantage allows them to thrive and the gene spreads through the local population. Eventually these more successful chimps are the norm for the area.
Now lets say that another mutation causes a chimp to have a slightly larger head. The old pelvis could not have accommodated this and would have killed mother and infant. But with the new pelvis everything works out. The bigger head allows for a bigger brain. With this the chimp figures out that if you smash a bone with a rock there's yummy marrow inside, giving the chimp access to more protein. Again this successful characteristic spreads through the local population.
Now another mutation takes place which causes the chimp to grow smaller muscle cells. These cells aren't as strong as larger muscles cells, but allow for finer manipulation. Without the extra protein the chimp wouldn't have been able to grow enough of them and would have ended up weak and disadvantaged. But with the marrow protein it can build enough extra muscle cells to compete. The trade-off works out and the gene spreads through the local population.
More time and yet another mutation, this time a slight reorientation of the thumb. With the fine manipulation afforded by the smaller muscle cells the chimp is able to take advantage of this for climbing and gathering.
And so on and so on it goes, each change providing an advantage and more importantly opening the door for further modification. For the thumb to be an advantage the chimp needs to be primarily bipedal, have the brain capacity to control it, and the fine muscles to power it. If the thumb had evolved before those elements were in place it would be a disadvantage and the chimp would not survive to breed.
Now that's exactly what we see when we look at the fossil record. We see apes acquiring semi-bipedal locomotion, then bigger brains, then fully bipedal, then better thumbs, etc. At no time do we suddenly see radical changes or the emergence characteristics that don't build on existing structures. It's not as if an ape suddenly gave birth to a modern human. Just the gradual accumulation of traits over time.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 1, 2009 5:10 PM
Michael Heath:
You don't have a problem with the fact that he's, you know, a racist and a misogynist? I'm not disagreeing with your larger point, but I'm curious.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | July 1, 2009 5:16 PM
I have to say that arguing is much easier if you just get to make stuff up. I wish I could convince my boss that making up evidence was okay.
I grew up in a family of liberal lutherans, many of whom are scientists. I never saw faith and science as icompatible. (Of course we are the type who believe that the Bible is word of God after being subject to a several thousand year old game of telephone) It wasn't until we moved to the south as a teenager that I ever met anyone who didn't believe in evolution. I was shocked.
Where did all these people come from and how can me make them go away?
Posted by: Kate | July 1, 2009 5:25 PM
-My trouble is with understanding how an ape gradually evolves until man appears-
There isn't much difference between humans and apes. All the bones, skin and organs are more or less in the right place, you just need to stretch and manipulate things a bit across a few thousand generations. Since there is so much variation across humanity, is it so hard to believe that humanity used to be smaller, hairier and not so intelligent (for a given version of intelligent)
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 1, 2009 5:28 PM
I should also mention that I'm slightly misusing the term "fossil record" as much of the human evolution I was talking about is recent enough that we're dealing with remains instead of fossils. It makes no practical difference for the purposes of this discussion. But I thought it best to be clear.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 1, 2009 5:29 PM
Actually I take it back about the misuse of "fossil record." I ended up deleting a large section of what I originally typed. I had kept going after the thumb. But given what I actually posted that's all fossils. Sorry.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 1, 2009 5:36 PM
KoI,
Abby's description of human evolution is basically solid, what makes it even more logical is the growing knowledge of the climate at the time. In the time period where our common ancestor with the Chimpanzees (and other apes) lived, there was significant drying of the earth leading to the jungles where that ancestor lived dying off and becoming more grassland. An ape that could stand better (and/or higher) than his peers could see both food sources and danger better. At the same time the ancestor of the chimpanzee (etc.) were still living in the remaining forest/jungle areas and weren't under the same pressure.
Slightly upright ape gets access to better food, gets to avoid becoming food itself, passes on those traits. From there the progression continues, slightly taller, with longer legs, is a benefit so the trait is passed on. Those longer legs also make it easier to browse for food, pelvis shape with longer legs continues to develop because the environment favors the offspring of these animals.
Add in the protein, development of bigger brain, cooperative effort, tool use, plus even more protein leads to even bigger brains, and so on and so forth.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 1, 2009 6:31 PM
Sean Michael stated to me:
I never stated or insinuated I accepted anything about the man with the exception that I consider some of his arguments and find him to be a fascinating character. I did read his first book on immigration where he argues we need to defend western civilization from the 'hordes' coming out of Latin American countries. While I didn't and continue to reject his argument, I didn't find it racist so much as I found it elitist and alarmist to a fault, though worthy of anyone's consideration trying to develop a personal position regarding the demographic and cultural affects of mass migrations.
I am aware of the fact people believe he's made racist and misogynist arguments, I have not come across those though that wouldn't change my characterization of him in comment #24, in fact such exposure would serve to amplify the points I posted there.
While I empathize and join those that both reject and refuse to tolerate Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh; I also reject, but do tolerate Pat Buchanan. One way he adds to the debate I didn't mention before is most media conservatives don't provide a conservative perspective if it would directly harm a Republican politician or a current initiative, a major reason most conservative pundit arguments are primarily gibberish. Buchanan has freed himself from the loyalties of party to the point he does provide a somewhat consistent conservative perspective, which amplifies the hypocrisy of the Republican party - something I think Buchanan enjoys doing as much as any committed liberal.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 1, 2009 6:33 PM
Michael,
Buchanan has a long history of comments that are founded upon either racist sentiments or racist stereotypes. Some of that is based on his conservative position, I've heard conservatives who, based on their actions, I knew weren't racist, but their comments could definitely be seen to be racist or at least racially insensitive. For example you have his comment related to the reverend Wright flap from last year:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25634
To argue that slavery was a good thing because it brought African Americans to Christianity and that they have it better here than they ever have in the history of Africans is really, a pretty shitty thing to say. He goes on to make statements about welfare that are founded upon the wrong assumption that welfare is a purely black institution that purely benefits black people. He continues to argue conservative talking points (which makes sense) but does so on an issue where the conservative point of view is a rather racist one. He refers to affirmative action as discrimination against whites, which it isn't, and decries the incarceration and crime rate amongst African Americans while ignoring the mountains of research that show why those numbers are so skewed and largely lead to the understanding that a major part of it is continued racism.
Really he looks at all of the problems facing the African American community, ignores all of the studies, ignores all of the disadvantages, and then blames African Americans for it. Over the years he has:
Waxed nostalgic about the "good old days" of segregation.
Argued against integration because it would cause "friction."
Actively opposed Civil Rights and openly published smearing editorials of Civil Rights leaders.
Came out in support of David Duke and spoke of Hitler's "great courage" while denying (at least) aspects of the holocaust.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 1, 2009 6:54 PM
There was one contemporary of Darwin, a noted scientist, who did claim that terrestrial vertebrates, including humans, had functioning gills as embryos.
Louis Agassiz.
Agassiz (an old earth creationist) is the only scientist I've ever read that made this claim. On the other hand I have read people (both creationists and mainstream scientists) accusing Ernst Haeckel of having claimed this when the truth is he specifically wrote the exact opposite.
But who cares about little things like the facts...?
Posted by: Troy Britain | July 1, 2009 10:00 PM
God "accounts" for the patterns in the fossil record in precisely the same way God "accounts" for the physical constants of the universe being life-friendly. God is simply defined to have the desire and ability to obtain the pattern in nature one is seeking to explain. Therefore, that pattern in nature is likely, given God. This tailor-defining method trivializes the problem and can be done with any object of explanadum by simply defining it to have a property that mysteriously causes that which you are seeking to explain.
Posted by: Jason S. | July 1, 2009 10:36 PM
King of Ireland:
This picture may help.
The first skull is a chimpanzee's. The rest are fossil hominids, ending with a modern human. Run your eye to the right and you can see, the brain gets bigger and the jaw recedes.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | July 2, 2009 12:30 AM
Michael Heath:
Weeelll, I guess I can see where you're coming from, but I'm more inclinded to agree with dogmeatib: He has certain intellectual bona fides, but I find it hard to look past his flaws (and I didn't mean to imply that you were endorsing his past offensive statements, sorry if I did).
Posted by: Sean Micheal | July 2, 2009 12:51 AM
Ed: Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive; it explains how life developed on earth.
In the sense that the biological Theory of Evolution explains how life developed, yes, it is prescriptive; and yes, the assorted evils attributed to Evolution are usually the result of sloppy application of consequent reasoning via taking it prescriptively; however, I'm not 100% convinced it is accurate to say "evolution is not prescriptive" without making explicit what demarcation you're using for "evolution".
Unfortunately, finding philosophy professors who also can handle set theory and statistical mechanics is non-trivial.
Posted by: abb3w | July 2, 2009 2:53 AM
MikeMa @14
Uncle Pat already lives in the stone age or, more correctly, shows the mental abilities of one living then.
Neo-lithic man predates jebus by a good few thousand years - just where Pat belongs. Up to his ass in gods and not a clue what's going on.
Paleolithic man predates neolithic and jebus by a quite a few thousand more years, and I feel I have to point you that neolithic humans has the same mental abilities as modern day humans, they just didn't have the knowledge we do.
the difference is that this guy has the knowledge and refuses to accept it and makes himself look a bit thick in the process
(sorry if I come across as a bit of a jerk, I'm an archaeologist and feel that I have to point these things out :p)
XxX
Posted by: Kim | July 2, 2009 5:44 AM
Michael Heath:
I'm not sure what else has been offered re: Buchanan's racism and anti-semitism, but this link:
http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8110:what-would-pat-buchanan-have-to-say-to-get-himself-fired-from-msnbc&catid=88888972:analysis&Itemid=88889782
offers some information.
Just as a side note it appears that Patsy, who is an amazingly combative individual at times, was not able to serve in the military himself, due to either a bad knee or a diagnosis of "reactive arthritis"--from two different sources. This did not keep him from being an outspoken supporter of the Vietnam War.
Posted by: democommie | July 2, 2009 7:30 AM
Re: Heath's comment #24: The most charitable response I can muster is "You're kidding, right?" You actually thought Pat Buchanan was "intellectually honest" just because he said something libertarian-y once upon a time? Pat Buchanan was a Cold-Warrior from the get-go, and (starting as a Nixon supporter) ardently supported Republican anti-Communist foreign policies all the way to the end of the Cold War. He only became a non-interventionist when the Cold War ended, his precious boogeyman the USSR disappeared, and the world suddenly became too complex for his brittle bigoted mind to comprehend.
Pat Buchanan is nothing more than a shop-window fake-libertarian. When people like him recite libertarian talking-points, they do it for one of three purposes: a) attack a liberal foreign policy that makes sense; b) wash their hands of a right-wing foreign policy after it fails; or c) make libertarians think the Republicans still care about them regardless of their ever-more-anti-liberty radical right mindset. Anyone gullible enough to take Buchanan seriously, as anything other than a backward bigot who never learns, deserves what Buchanan would give him.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 2, 2009 11:29 AM
Pat does the Gish Gallop. Pictures at 11.
Posted by: ??? | July 2, 2009 11:43 AM
Abby, Ed, and others,
Thanks for the lesson. It is starting to make more sense. This whole subject reminds me of the unit I taught this year on the guy who first discovered the heliocentric universe. The church hated him. Why? He contradicted church tradition, But not really anything in the Bible. I would certainly term Creationist thought as dogma.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 2, 2009 2:11 PM
Kim @ 47
I once entertained archaeology as a career and still find it fascinating. I was not sure of the brain size transitions but we live in a world where if you do not stand on the shoulders of other's achievements, you cannot compete. I meant no disrespect to neo- or paleo- lithic man as they had way fewer shoulders to stand on. Pat, however, ignores much of what has been learned and would have fared poorly long ago where there was no support system for morons, ie modern conservative and religious groups.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 2, 2009 2:54 PM
"Darwin also lied in "The Origin of Species" about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family. "
Are you kidding me? Neither Windchy nor Buchanan know what "agnostic" means? REALLY?
Posted by: Drew | July 3, 2009 9:58 AM
Do we really need any more proof Buchanan hasn't evolved?
People with character remain quiet on things they know nothing about.
Posted by: Michael | July 4, 2009 9:28 AM
Since "stolen" theories are invalid theories and since Buchanan's anti-evolution theories were clearly stolen from fellow Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein. It follows that Buchanan's presentation is an invalid theory.
Posted by: Jules | July 4, 2009 11:13 AM
So Pat Buchanon believes that God "managed" the creation of man, not relying on an unregulated flow of natural forces to create Man, but instead directly taking steps to make his intended creation, Man, how God wanted him.
So, as a "godly" man, I'm sure Mr. Buchanon would believe that to get the economy to work in a manner that actually benefits America (as both an entity AND as individuals) we should follow "God's way of doing things" and manage and regulate our economy and the markets and companies that make up that market to attain our desired result.
To turn away from God's method of "managing for results" would mean that you were following someone else's methods. If you are a "true believer" in "free markets" and "de-regulation", it would seem to me that you are DENYING God's way of doing things, so instead you must be following ... SATAN!!
This would have been more clear if Pat Buchanon had rolled up his sleeves to show his "Satan Is My Economic Advisor" tattoo...
Posted by: Big Time Patriot | July 4, 2009 3:02 PM
King of Ireland
The first guy (that we know of) who thought up and described heliocentrism was Aristarchus of Samos, about 1700 years before Copernicus. This was well understood in the time of Copernicus, whose supporters and detractors where called "Aristarchans" and "anti-Aristarchans".
For a fascinating account of Hellenistic science, its revival in the early modern period, and subsequent oblivion as modern science finally surpassed it, see Lucio Russo's "The Forgotten Revolution".
Silvio Levy
Posted by: Silvio Levy | July 4, 2009 3:57 PM
My favourite line from Buchanan's piece is the following:
"Darwin's examples of natural selection -- such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which to survive -- have been debunked. Giraffes eat grass and bushes".
This is hysterical!
It is backed up by absolutely no studies or data anywhere and, anecdotally, I've lived in South Africa all my life, and on my visits to game reserves have seen probably thousands of giraffes. You rarely see a giraffe that isn't eating from the foliage at the top of a tree! They even have long tongues to reach the highest branches -- tongues that, incidentally, are adapted to resist the tough thorns of the acacia tree. The giraffe is perfectly adapted, and one of the most obvious, straight-forward illustrations of natural selection at work that you could possibly wish for.
Buchanan's zoological shortcomings look downright trivial, though, when placed alongside his inability to distinguish the normative from the descriptive. He continuously, and quite wrongly, equates the Darwinism of the history of life with social Darwinism -- forgetting that for many animals, including humans, cooperation is one of the Selfish Gene's most important weapons. For those of us who would like to see a more peaceful and productive human society, the task is to acknowledge selfish Darwinist impulses and ensure that these are channelled towards the common good -- or at least into social systems that are mutually beneficial. In fact, I would say that, far from being radical ideologues, Darwinists may be some of the most pragmatic, centre-ground political thinkers around. They never lose sight of the importance of free market enterprise as a way of facilitating mutually beneficial, but nonetheless selfish -- Darwinian -- transactions. Yet they also acknowledge that the malevolence of the human condition can, if left to its own devices, lead to gross inequality, and that measures should be put in place to bring about equal opportunities. Buchanan never explains why someone who believes that Darwinism is a descriptively accurate account of the world would be able to legitimise morally malevolent behaviour. His entire piece falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.
Posted by: VL | July 5, 2009 3:32 AM
"To argue that slavery was a good thing because it brought African Americans to Christianity and that they have it better here than they ever have in the history of Africans is really, a pretty shitty thing to say."
If Hell is real and if the only way to avoid an eternity being tortured in it was to be a Christian than it would not be a shitty thing to say that [fill in the blank] was good because less people went to Hell.
The statement was not either insensitive or shitty if one accepts the premise of Hell. What is insensitive, shitty, and rather stupid is believing that a just God would send anyone to Hell for all eternity for the slightest sin (something that no human can possibly avoid doing) and that they only way out is not to try to live a good life but rather to believe in the right religion.
Posted by: a lurker | July 5, 2009 2:23 PM
As the author of The End of Darwinism I wish to rebut a few of the charges here.
It is true that whether Darwin influenced Hitler is not relevant to the validity of Darwin's theory. Buchanan said just that in his review. Buchanan simply was making the point that much evil has come from the theory.
Until recently virtually every public school textbook reported gills in the human embryo. My book mentions a biology textbook published in 2005 by McGraw Hill.
Brayton slides over the feather problem, which is huge. Harvard's Ernst Mayr admitted there was no Darwinian explanation for the feather. Such problem novelties--which are quite common--signal big evolutionary changes.
Nebraska Man began as an error, but the debunking could have been reported much earlier--in time for the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Piltdown Man was a hoax. This crude forgery fooled the world for 40 years. It was exposed very easily when Piltdown Man no longer fitted the latest theory of human evolution, which, ironically, since has been revised.
Buchanan did not say anything about common descent, and I do not see how that subject is relevant to the validity of Darwin's theory. Darwin himself said life has descended from a "few forms" or one.
.
Posted by: Eugene Windchy | July 5, 2009 3:36 PM
Just noticed that wild comment about the giraffe. Darwin's giraffe fantasy indeed has been debunked. Take Stephen Gould's word for it. In the January 1988 issue of Natural History he urged that the giraffe be removed from textbooks and he did so again ("The Tallest Tale") some years later. Gould wanted this "weak and foolish speculatin" removed from the textbooks for fear the creationists would find out how stupid it was and assume all the evidence was like that.
Posted by: Eugene Windchy | July 5, 2009 4:53 PM
"It is true that whether Darwin influenced Hitler is not relevant to the validity of Darwin's theory. Buchanan said just that in his review. Buchanan simply was making the point that much evil has come from the theory."
The problem is that this is a blatant lie. There is no evidence out there connecting Darwin's theory of evolution with Hitler and his thought patterns. The best we get is vague hand-waving about 'Ohhh, well, the idea of survival of the fittest is a LOT LIKE eugenics and therefore eugenics must have been the result of evolutionary theory!' Give me a break. Provide some solid evidence that Hitler was aware of, had read, and was supportive of Darwin's book (and subsequent knowledge gathered on the subject of evolution by scientists after his time) and you will have the beginnings of a case for making that argument. Until you can do this, you're just making up stories.
Posted by: Thomas M. | July 5, 2009 5:10 PM
I notice Mr. Windchy doesn't refute Ed's debunking of his claim that Darwin "stole his theory from Alfred Wallace". Nor the ignorant claim that "For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin." Is this a tacit admission of error? If so, how does he justify such piss-poor scholarship?
Posted by: Taz | July 5, 2009 5:53 PM
Piltdown Man was a hoax. This crude forgery fooled the world for 40 years. It was exposed very easily when Piltdown Man no longer fitted the latest theory of human evolution, which, ironically, since has been revised.
What would be ironic about it? (Assuming that's a "true" statement.) Things are revised all the time. You sound a lot like a creationist with a chip on his shoulder or something.
Oh, and the only people who worship Darwin are creationists. They made themselves a whole new religion called "Darwinism". (It looks a lot like Creationism for some reason. Go figure.)
Posted by: 386sx | July 5, 2009 6:14 PM
@ Eugene Windchy, re the Giraffe:
Eugene you really should read the things you cite. Especially fi you've written about them. I have Gould's "The Tallest Tale" in PDF on my desktop, as it happens. It does NOT "debunk" the canopy feeding hypotheses, which in turn was NOT an explanation that Darwin used.
You miss on nearly every point Eugene.
Anyone who wants, can download it and read it here:
http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182/Giraffe/Tallest%20Tale.pdf
First, Darwin did not cite canopy feeding as the cause for the giraffe's neck - indeed, he shied away from such "just so" stories, as does Gould. The closest he gets to such a just so story with the Giraffe is ONE paragraph about the Giraffe's tail - not the neck. So this was not a debunking of anything Darwin said - and in fact, Gould's essay is specific on that point.
Second, Gould's essay does not debunk the 'canopy feeding' explanation - it simply points out that it is a nice sounding, plausible just so story - but that without supporting evidence for this explanation, either alone or in competition with other possible explanations, it is not justifiable to cite canopy feeding as the reason for the Giraffe's neck. Not that it is wrong, just that it is not adequately supported. Gould points out, for example that the long neck could have been favored by sexual selection, and that canopy feeding would then be a secondary effect or benefit. The canopy hypothesis is still a perfectly valid hypothesis, and people are working on finding ways to test it.
Gould points out that Darwin does mention the Giraffe several times. Darwin points out, for example, that the Giraffe's long neck has the same 7 vertebrae as other mammals, but that they are dramatically elongated and enlarged, using this fact to illustrate the important role of historic constraints on evolution.
Darwin also uses the Giraffe's neck - in his longer and more detailed 1868 edition of Origin - to discuss the objection that a longer neck requires supporting features throughout the animal, and that the likelihood of all this originating at once was slim. Darwin uses this, as Gould point out, "to exemplify the difficult and crucial issue of how gradualistic natural selection can build a complex adaptation of many coordinated parts"
Gould did counsel that the unsupported Giraffe canopy hypothesis be dropped - in favor of other better supported stories.
So no - the ''canopy feeding' hypothesis for the Giraffe's neck has NOT been debunked, by Gould or anyone else. It simply is not adequately supported, and there are good alternative hypotheses, so that it can not be accepted as THE explanation for the Giraffe's neck.
You really should know better than to cite as suport, papers that show you are wrong, Eugene - especially when your audience is likely to be more familiar with the citations that you apparently are.
Posted by: Lee | July 5, 2009 6:18 PM
also, Eugene:
"Until recently virtually every public school textbook reported gills in the human embryo. My book mentions a biology textbook published in 2005 by McGraw Hill."
Which textbook - quote it for us. Most biology textbooks mention pharyngeal arches, often called (admittedly very poor usage) "gill slits." I have ever seen a biology textbook that refers to these as gills. In vertebrates that develop gills, the pharyngeal arches go on to develop into gill structures. In humans, they go on to develop into ear structures. There are several 'transitional' fossils showing parts of the evolutionalry lineage from adult gills in fishes, to adult ears in tetrapod vertebrates.
---
"Harvard's Ernst Mayr admitted there was no Darwinian explanation for the feather. "
When?
There has been tremendous progress on the evolution of feathers over the last decade, including at least two solid evolutionary proposals with testable developmental and possibly molecular predictions, and evidence from analogous structures in extant species. I personally am partial to the follicular papillae hypotheses - but there is still work to be done here. Still, it is simply absurdly ignorant to argue that there are no evolutionary hypothesis or explanations for feathers.
---
Eugene: "I do not see how that subject [common descent] is relevant to the validity of Darwin's theory."
ummm... what?
Posted by: Lee | July 5, 2009 6:39 PM
Awesome take down Lee. Thanks for that information. I hate the fact that folks on the evolution side have to spend time doing the information checking that the creationists should have to do when making arguments. I sometimes wish it was a crime to make claims without checking to see if you are right. Too bad such a situation would do more harm than good.
Posted by: Joshua White | July 6, 2009 10:25 AM
@Thomas M. #62 -
Agreeing with what you said,
Actually, we get some of the precursors of Hitler and some of his followers disparaging Darwin. Hitler likened himself to Koch (and had nothing to say about Darwin), so we might expect the creationists to be telling us about the evil consequences of the germ theory of disease.
And, because the creationists often insist on telling us that they accept "evolution within a kind", this means that any consequences of evolution within "mankind" are consequences that the creationists have to live with, as much as anybody does. There is nothing about the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, the vertebrate eye, or the relationship between birds and dinosaurs, or any other "macro"evolution that has any conceivable relevance to the supposed evil consequences of evolution.
Posted by: TomS | July 6, 2009 10:31 AM
To insure Mr. Windchy realizes it, Ed has created a blog post solely dedicated to fisking a couple of his false claims.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 6, 2009 11:36 AM
From the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"
Protocol 2: Economic Wars.
"3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM."
Posted by: TomS | July 7, 2009 8:16 AM