Hey Gordon - About That Issue
Mr. Gordon Brumm, in a Lakewood Observer article titled, “Intelligent Design: Skeptical Thoughts about the Skepticism (1)” mentions that he, “...welcome(s) good answers, if any are forthcoming.” We shall see.
Brumm states that he is disappointed in the scientific responses to Intelligent Design Creationism that he has seen. He doesn’t mention what sources he consulted, but I hope he never read “Why Intelligent Design Fails: The Scientific Critique of the New Creationism” published by the Rutgers University Press (2004), because I wrote parts of the book, and I think we avoided the failings Brumm listed. I particularly
want to avoid being accused of “argument by authority.” However, when very basic “beginner” errors are made, we scientists are either accused of “talking down” if we explain in simple language, or we are charged with “arrogantly arguing
from authority” if we don’t. Unfortunately, since Mr. Brumm makes very basic errors of fact and reasoning I will have to take that risk.
The first problem is that Brumm fails to offer a competent definition of “evolution.”
Evolution is not the “parade of the species through time” claimed by Brumm. True, the fossils on display and piled in museum warehouses plus those still buried in rock are facts that demand explanation. These discoveries beginning in the 1700s were even commented on by Thomas Jefferson. More importantly, species diversity that today seems boundless, coupled with our discovery that shared genetic material
is bounded by geography and time are facts that demand explanation. These facts are not “evolution,” they are the facts which evolution explains. The late Steven
Jay Gould once published an essay titled, “Evolution is a fact and a theory” which reading beyond the title clarifies this issue. Evolution is an explanation of what is manifest and observable.
Charles Darwin proposed one hundred and fifty years ago that natural selection
was the major force that shaped the development of new species. As observed by Gert Korthof, “Natural selection as an explanation is too powerful for its own good.” This idea is the most argued about and rigorously tested hypotheses in the history of man. Darwin made some very simple observations such as children don’t look exactly like their parents while family “traits” are quite common. He noted that individuals within large populations could vary greatly from one another and yet still be in the same species. Finally, he pointed out that some physical variations are better suited to some environments than others, and that healthier parents had healthier (and more) offspring.
This is all there is to Darwin’s “natural selection.” As presented by Darwin in 1849, and as attested by thousands of experimental research results, natural selection
is as soundly supported as gravity.
Darwin also proposed the notion of “common descent” which is that over the course of many generations new species had, and would emerge. A modern definition
of evolution is “The change in allele frequencies within breeding populations across generations leading to reproductive isolation.” The Darwinian mechanism of evolution is genetic change (mutation) coupled with differential reproductive success (natural selection).
So we have encountered a big problem. Brumm doesn’t know what evolution is in the first place. Nor does Brumm seem to know that Darwin’s 150 year old theory of natural selection has undergone 150 years of improvement.
Just one example is the discovery of how DNA works to structure cells some fifty years ago. Since then, we have learned a lot about how evolutionary theory needed to be improved. For example, we learned that some genes could have an increased frequency just because they were physically next to an important gene that had a positive mutation. Remember kids wanting to stand in line next to the most popular kid in school? The same principle applies in genetics. These genes are not selected because they are useful or “better,” they are just in the right place at the right time. Some genetic mutations are lethal, and surprisingly this causes no problem to evolutionary theory at all because hardly any organism with a lethal mutation ever is able to reproduce. But, a “good gene” that is next to a deadly gene will be eliminated just because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time. We learned in the 1980s that a giant asteroid struck the Earth 65 million years ago triggering the end of the big dinosaurs. This was not the sort of “natural selection” ever anticipated by Darwin. Each of these new discoveries were promoted by the anti-science crowd as the “end of Darwinism.” Darwin died over one hundred years ago, but biology is still doing just fine.
There are many further errors to cover, unfortunately, correcting errors take far more effort than making errors.
Brumm states that he is disappointed in the scientific responses to Intelligent Design Creationism that he has seen. He doesn’t mention what sources he consulted, but I hope he never read “Why Intelligent Design Fails: The Scientific Critique of the New Creationism” published by the Rutgers University Press (2004), because I wrote parts of the book, and I think we avoided the failings Brumm listed. I particularly
want to avoid being accused of “argument by authority.” However, when very basic “beginner” errors are made, we scientists are either accused of “talking down” if we explain in simple language, or we are charged with “arrogantly arguing
from authority” if we don’t. Unfortunately, since Mr. Brumm makes very basic errors of fact and reasoning I will have to take that risk.
The first problem is that Brumm fails to offer a competent definition of “evolution.”
Evolution is not the “parade of the species through time” claimed by Brumm. True, the fossils on display and piled in museum warehouses plus those still buried in rock are facts that demand explanation. These discoveries beginning in the 1700s were even commented on by Thomas Jefferson. More importantly, species diversity that today seems boundless, coupled with our discovery that shared genetic material
is bounded by geography and time are facts that demand explanation. These facts are not “evolution,” they are the facts which evolution explains. The late Steven
Jay Gould once published an essay titled, “Evolution is a fact and a theory” which reading beyond the title clarifies this issue. Evolution is an explanation of what is manifest and observable.
Charles Darwin proposed one hundred and fifty years ago that natural selection
was the major force that shaped the development of new species. As observed by Gert Korthof, “Natural selection as an explanation is too powerful for its own good.” This idea is the most argued about and rigorously tested hypotheses in the history of man. Darwin made some very simple observations such as children don’t look exactly like their parents while family “traits” are quite common. He noted that individuals within large populations could vary greatly from one another and yet still be in the same species. Finally, he pointed out that some physical variations are better suited to some environments than others, and that healthier parents had healthier (and more) offspring.
This is all there is to Darwin’s “natural selection.” As presented by Darwin in 1849, and as attested by thousands of experimental research results, natural selection
is as soundly supported as gravity.
Darwin also proposed the notion of “common descent” which is that over the course of many generations new species had, and would emerge. A modern definition
of evolution is “The change in allele frequencies within breeding populations across generations leading to reproductive isolation.” The Darwinian mechanism of evolution is genetic change (mutation) coupled with differential reproductive success (natural selection).
So we have encountered a big problem. Brumm doesn’t know what evolution is in the first place. Nor does Brumm seem to know that Darwin’s 150 year old theory of natural selection has undergone 150 years of improvement.
Just one example is the discovery of how DNA works to structure cells some fifty years ago. Since then, we have learned a lot about how evolutionary theory needed to be improved. For example, we learned that some genes could have an increased frequency just because they were physically next to an important gene that had a positive mutation. Remember kids wanting to stand in line next to the most popular kid in school? The same principle applies in genetics. These genes are not selected because they are useful or “better,” they are just in the right place at the right time. Some genetic mutations are lethal, and surprisingly this causes no problem to evolutionary theory at all because hardly any organism with a lethal mutation ever is able to reproduce. But, a “good gene” that is next to a deadly gene will be eliminated just because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time. We learned in the 1980s that a giant asteroid struck the Earth 65 million years ago triggering the end of the big dinosaurs. This was not the sort of “natural selection” ever anticipated by Darwin. Each of these new discoveries were promoted by the anti-science crowd as the “end of Darwinism.” Darwin died over one hundred years ago, but biology is still doing just fine.
There are many further errors to cover, unfortunately, correcting errors take far more effort than making errors.
Volume 2, Issue 2, Posted 09.20 AM / 24th January 2006.
