Niles Eldredge has a fine essay online on what it means to be a Darwinist (not the term as caricatured by creationists, but merely as someone who respects the work of Darwin while acknowledging the vast increase in understanding evolution since his time). It's also useful for explaining how creationists distort the concept of punctuated equilibrium.
The creationists of the day got into the act as well. In a clear demonstration of how thoroughly political the creationist movement has always been in the United States, Ronald Reagan told reporters, after addressing a throng of Christian ministers during the 1980 presidential campaign, that evolution “is a theory, a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed.” The creationist who managed to get to Reagan’s handlers later bragged to me that those scientists in question were none other than Gould and me. The syllogism ran something like this: (1) Darwin said that evolution is slow, steady, and gradual; (2) some scientists say that evolution consists of rapid bursts of change interrupting vastly longer periods of evolutionary stagnation; ergo, (3) some scientists don’t follow Darwin, meaning (4) some scientists oppose evolution. Then, as now, at least in the public domain, “Darwin” is code for “evolution.” The two are virtual synonyms.
Ain't that the truth. Darwin is not synonymous with evolution, however, which is why I reject the term "Darwinist" myself. But even so, I'm with Eldredge on this matter: Darwin was an excellent writer and scientist, and his work was the foundation for modern biology.
But I never thought the fact that Darwin—from where I stand as a paleontologist—got some of his story wrong somehow made me an anti-Darwinian. For I have admired the man ever since I took my paperback copy of the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species to read while waiting for Louis Leakey to show up and give a lecture on human evolution on the Columbia campus. I had arrived early to get a good seat, and Louis was late—so I got my first real chance to sample Darwin’s prose. I was fearful of the complexity of the great man’s mind, and of the alien nature of his Victorian prose. But I needn’t have worried, for Darwin proved accessible to the readers of his day—even lay readers—and he remains so today.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I reject the term Darwinist because it's DUMB. I don't call architects Newtonists for accepting Newton's laws, and I don't call my electrician a Maxwellian for accepting Maxwell's equations.
Naming people after other people seems to happen mostly in the context of philosophy, politics or religion. Though I suppose that's what creationists and IDers think science is all about...
Similarly, "Newton" is not synonymous with gravity. People knew about gravity WAY before Newton's laws, and in the same vein, gravity wasn't "challenged in the world of science" etc. when Einstein's theories ADDED to Newton's.
All I know is that "Newtonian" physics refers to a certain body of knowledge in physics, just as the "Darwinian" label does to a certain body of evolutionary knowledge. There is no "Darwinist" cadre though, just as there is no "Newtonist" cadre either. Just biologists and physicists who work in fields influenced by Darwin and Newton, respectively.
Paul wrote:
"Ain't that the truth."
That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion...
Thanks for the karaoke, Charlie. What the hell...
I have a problem with "Darwinist" because it implies some kind of faith... you're a Christian because you were trained and conditioned to follow the church, not because you think many or all of the same things Christ did about a particular topic. You're a Chomskyite (in non-lingust circles) because you're an American undergraduate who just found out we're not the most popular and lovable country in the world. I mean, who doesn't agree with Jebus about a lot of subjects: being nice, tolerant, respectful, etc. Instead, it implies the sort of narrow institutional allegiance that defines religion and politics.
It's not like there are a bunch of "theories of evolution" and Darwin's is one of them. Our conclusions are derived from the collected observations of the natural world made by countless scientists over decades, not the writings or beliefs of a certain individual or group.
There are different theories on exactly what type of ecological, genetic, molecular, behavioral, developmental, and environmental processes have played the most important roles in evolution. Stupidly, biologists sometimes refer to these as being more or less "Darwinian" than others, as if this made sense or mattered. But evolution is a historical fact. Since there is no disagreement among rational people on this, the rest is, as they say, academic.
Therefore, I conclude, the term "Darwinist" hereby by banished from reasonable discourse, serving only instead as the straw man for which idiots have been using it for years.
Darwin's work 154 years ago is the most extraordinary scientific discovery of all time. Harvey had an actual element to work with. Newton had sunlight and the force of gravity.
Darwin only had an idea and his powers of observation. He connected the disparate information of species and resemblance and design and morphology and embrology, every other bit of information and caught lighting in a bottle!
He had no way to"test' his idea. He had no way to "benchmark" information.Darwin didn't know about hoxgenes etc. but he got 95% of the entire story right!
He just saw all the connections and trusted his concept.
Happy Birthday Charles, as long as man looks to man, Drawin will be first among equals.
P.C.Chapman
miko wrtote:
"Thanks for the karaoke, Charlie. What the hell..."
Well, reading Eldredge's essay reminded me of when I was 16 years old and two years into my rejection of Catholicism. I just couldn't bring myself to tell my parents and my friends the truth.
I think darwinism is a faith. A "leap of faith" based on the belief that small variations can accumulate to the point of generating new highly organized structures, processes and systems. There is no empirical evidence, either observational or experimental that supports this audacious claim.
I reject darwinism on purely scientific grounds. Religion is not an issue and never factors into the equation. Darwin performed an important service by defeating the notion of special creation that was prevalent in his time. For this he deserves credit. He also noticed that variation occurs and natural selection acts on variation. His mistake was in overstating the power of natural selection and he was well aware of this. To this day, it has never been established that variation and selection have the power that is vested in them by evolutionists.
On the other hand, there is compelling evidence that the kinds of structures, processes and systems that have evolved could not have done so by purely random, accidental or unguided occurrences. There is compelling evidence that some intelligent input, not necessarily of a supernatural nature, was involved or some first principle that we are yet to understand.
So, I call anyone who believes in the power of variation and natural selection to create new structures, processes, systems and adaptations a "Darwinist" and frankly, I don't see anything wrong with the characterization at all.
I just don't understand the duplicity of people who want to silence those who question Darwin by having them fired and humiliated and then turning around and claiming not to be a darwinist. It boggles the mind.
"...the belief that small variations can accumulate to the point of generating new highly organized structures, processes and systems. There is no empirical evidence, either observational or experimental that supports this audacious claim."
OMFG dude, go to a library. I don't know where to start. Try the telencephalon to begin with, the gray shit that lets you think.
sorry, that was me, not anonymous.
Darwin's own prose is VERY readable.
Last year, I picked up an original Victorian (1883) copy of "Vegetable Mould and Earthworms" by Chas. - for £60 ( $102US).
You can read it straight through.
Did you realise that until then, no-one realised how essential earthworms were to making soil cultivable?
Miko wrote:
"I don't know where to start."
Start anywhere. Just cite one experiment, one observation, one journal article that supports the belief that small variations can accumulate to the point of generating new highly organized structures, processes and systems.
Just one....
I'm not sure about this, having never conclusively investigated it, but it strikes me that the use of "Darwinist" and "Darwinian" is more a feature of British English, as opposed to US.
Charlie, in regards to your claim that "...it has never been established that variation and selection have the power that is vested in them by evolutionists," I refer you to last weeks Pharangula entry Evolution of a polyphenism, which states:
The scientific study can be found in Science Magazine. (Suzuki Y, Nijhout HF (2006) Evolution of a polyphenism by genetic accommodation. Science 311:650-652.)
I think this neatly refutes your assertion above. In your second assertion, you state "...there is compelling evidence that the kinds of structures, processes and systems that have evolved could not have done so by purely random, accidental or unguided occurrences. There is compelling evidence that some intelligent input, not necessarily of a supernatural nature, was involved or some first principle that we are yet to understand." Care to provide a link or reference to a scientifically valid study that supports this claim? This is not a rhetorical question, and by "scientifically valid," I mean a study that has not been roundly discredited in scientific journals.
Oops... "Pharyngula", not "Pharangula." My mistake.
Re G. Tingey's comment- I suspect that few non-biologists realize that Darwin would be remembered as one of of the most outstanding naturalists of his time even if he had never published the Origin. The earthworm book is a great example- it's only a small coda to his life's work, yet it was a sufficiently new and important discovery that I believe that all by itself it would have been enough to make his name known to biologists today.
"Start anywhere. Just cite one experiment, one observation, one journal article that supports the belief that small variations can accumulate to the point of generating new highly organized structures, processes and systems.
Just one...."
OK - here's a well-known classic ...
A ring species.
In Britain there is the Lesser Black-Backed Gull - which can breed with the Siberian Lesser Balck-Backed gull, which can breed with Heuglins' gull, which can bredd with ... until you come to the American Herring gull, and the European Herring Gull - which is infertile, and cannot breed with the Lesser B-B in Britain.
The small genetic differences between and across each species' add up to complete separation and infertility when the extremes meet again, having gone all the way around.
OK?
Anonymous wrote:
"I refer you to last weeks Pharangula entry Evolution of a polyphenism, which states:..."
If you read this thread you will notice that I already responded to this article. I wrote:
"Indeed.
The genome is actively responsive to environmental changes and has the hardware and software already on board to deal with these perturbations. In other words, the intelligence is aleady there that allows existing highly organized structures, processes and systems to respond to changes in environment. The regulatory switches are being reset by the molecular machinery of the genome.
The question is not "did evolution occur (it did), the question is "what is the mechanism that causes this to happen and what is the origin of that mechanism?"
While environmental stresses, changes and perturbations are random, the hardware and software already present in the genome is clearly the product of intelligent input."
There is nothing in this article that supports the view that this highly organized system of structures and processes that responds to heat stress evolved by random mutations and natural selection.
Religious conservatives live in a world where the only possible truth comes from an inerrant authority that one believes in absolutely. This leads them to the belief that science must work the same way (despite protestations to the contrary from scientists.) Since Darwin is popularly percieved as the "patriarch" of evolution, he must be that authority, his followers must be "Darwinists." If they can point out errors in his work, then in their worldview, the entire edifice built on his work must crumble.
It is entirely alien to them that science requires questioning any "authority" and examining their evidence, that earlier generations of scientists always have more errors than more recent ones because their theories have been refined and the evidence explored further. Science discovers the truth because great intellects are able to formulate theories that fit the evidence and provide a framework for further exploration, not because great intellects convince others they have discovered a great truth that must not be questioned.
How to effectively communicate this to the general public, especially those who are being told for political purposes that this scientific mode of discovery doesn't really exist, is one of the great challenges of our time.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't really make any sense. The responses to environmental stresses aren't just sitting there waiting for their chance. The genetic information (what I guess you're calling the hardware)is generated through random mutations (and recombincation). Even for the heatshock proteins, it's not like they come out of nowhere. Here's a link to an interesting study of the evolution in a frog model. It's a little gnarly.
I'm guessing you're using software in some metaphorical sense?
Two comments:
1. Christian or Darwinist? I absolutely believe that the term is used by the anti-science community to reduce those who observe, measure and study, into those who believe. It is a deliberate attempt to reduce a scientific discipline into a catechism.
2. Charlie never delivers on the challenge to back up his wacky notions with data. He just repeats his opinions over and over and over... For example, here he answers a published observation with what he thought last time he was challenged. Well, at least he gets to quote himself. (Does that make it a masturbatory reply?)
Start anywhere. Just cite one experiment, one observation, one journal article that supports the belief that small variations can accumulate to the point of generating new highly organized structures, processes and systems.
It's easy. Transitional forms exist for so many things...the brain is actually a great example, and it doesn't get much more dramatic than the road from cnidarian nerve nets to our soggy headloads. The relative conservation and modifications among species point the way. Pick up any issue of the Journal of Comparative Neurology for all the data you want. It's a bit dry, but that's the real stuff.
Or how bout the evolution of the eukaryotic microtubule cytoskeleton (which has breathtaking complexity and self-organizing properties) from bacterial tubulin-related molecules? Or check out the evolution of a nifty gizmo called the woronin body in some fungi. The inner ear of mammals / lateral line of fishes. The neural crest and turtle shells.
But I'm not doing your damn homework for you Charlie, you are truly a lazy man. Honestly, read something and then tell us why you disagree.
It's so freaking weird that people like you point to scientists and accuse them of lacking evidence...