The Discovery Institute's Media Complaints Division is complaining about a New York Times article on a new study about human evolution. It's a fairly simple article, nothing terribly shocking in it. It says quite openly that the importance of the study is only in combatting an attitude common among social scientists that the human species had become essentially exempt from natural selection because of our ability to adapt externally. Yet the DI wants to criticize the article for not proving what it never set out to prove. How odd.
Along the way they quote a statement from Charles Colson's recent Breakpoint article about the NYT piece, a quote where he engages in his typical ignorant blather about evolution. But take a look at the first line of the second paragraph in this quote:
I hate to throw cold water on the Times's big story, but the fact is that most people are well aware of natural selection and how it works. Whether one believes in Darwinian evolution or not doesn't apply here; it's common knowledge that groups of people and animals routinely experience this kind of change.What this does not mean is that one species ever evolved into another. As Dr. Jay Richards of the Acton Institute explains, "All we're talking about here is the action of natural selection on an already existing population. . . . There's nothing in this story about the emergence of new genes via a mutation merely under selection pressure. . . . At most," says Richards, "it would refer to a tweaking of an already existing gene under selection pressure, which isn't inherently problematic."
Well no kidding. The study never claimed to deal with speciation (the splitting off of new species from already existing species), it only claimed to identify those areas of the human genome that have been most affected by selective pressure between different sub-populations. But is Colson, or the DI here, claiming that we've never observed speciation taking place? It would appear so. Of what use is it to point out that this study doesn't prove that speciation occurs unless they are denying the reality of speciation?
The problem with this, obviously, is that we have in fact observed speciation in both the lab and in the wild. No one these days denies that speciation occurs, not even young earth creationists (indeed, they require speciation at ridiculous rates in order to get from two of each "kind" on the ark 4500 years ago to the diversity of closely related species we see today). If the DI is really implying that speciation is in doubt, they are demonstrating rank ignorance.
- Log in to post comments
Almost hidden by the huge masses of DI research literature, Science for 10 March has yet another item noting an instance of speciation being observed: "It's not often that one witnesses speciation in action, but some birdwatchers in Africa may be having that privelege." (The article deals with speciation occurring without the benefit of geographic barriers.)
Evolution is wrong because of the Bible, as far as Colson is concerned. I read How Now Shall We Live in which he explicity argues that evolution is a lie. If true, then humanity never sinned and corrupted the universe, so God is not just for putting us in a world of suffering. He is unlikely to shift theology, so he can never accept evoluion. The human condition, free will, and the benevolence of the deity require a literal fall.
The article that quotes Colson seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. Evolution is wrong, so any mention of evolution is wrong, even if the Discovery Institute agrees with the concept of micro-evolution.
Oh, they accept some speciation--that which occurs within a baramin, or "created kind."
Can the DI tell us again why they're not creationists?
Don't you get it? They are just using this instance as a chance to push the current PR mem du jour: the current fallback that "no new information can be created" which is itself a sort of internal game of telephone from Dembski's blatherings about information.
"If true, then humanity never sinned and corrupted the universe, so God is not just for putting us in a world of suffering."
If she weighs the same as a duck, then she's made of wood...
Theology is reasoning without actual referents.
BTW, another point I'd like to make.
The book title "How Now Shall We Live" demonstrates the core of metaphysical dread that lies behind the antievolution movement. The antievolution movement is not guided by science or fact but by the realization that if evolution is true and really does explain who and what we are that certain types of theology must be untrue. From this, many people (even some atheists-- check out the Straussians) fear that we will lose the positive aspects of the moral legacy of religion, Christianity in particular. As much as people like to bash it, Christianity did leave some positive legacy behind it that is worthy of preservation.
I have two answers to this personally:
1) It is possible to reason from somewhat flawed premesis and occasionally reach good conclusions. When this occurs, history clearly demonstrates it. There are certain moral conclusions that some Christian thinkers reached that I feel have been clearly demonstrated empirically through history to be good moral conclusions. If we were to look into them carefully, I am sure we could "reverse engineer" their true premesis from nature. Think "the rights of man" and then think about optimal governing rule sets for cooperative systems of autonomous agents with human-like characteristics.
2) While I do agree that Christianity left some positive moral legacy, I think the religionists overstate this case. After all we don't have pagan war celebrations or public tormenting of criminals in the arena any longer... wait a minute... anyone watch the Iraq war "countdown" to "shock and awe"? I thought I was in pagan Rome when I saw that. how about the TV show 'Cops'?
It's remarkable how often you see arguments along the lines of "If x is true then the fall never happened, so Christ's sacrifice was in vain, therefore x is not true". It's such a completely backwards way of reasoning it's hard to say anything in response. The idea that the Bible might contain religious truths but not be literally and absolutely true is petrifying to a huge number of people in America.
If you think Versaille is excessive, visit Herrenchiemsee in Bavaria. It's modelled on Versaille but Ludwig II bankrupted the country trying to build it. He spent a grand total of 10 days in it.
That was weird. I posted that last comment to Chris Mooney's blog.