Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html

by nickb • 17 years ago

16 21 17 years ago

yters2• 17 years ago

The problem is that once they stop calling it Darwinism, what do you call it, to keep it distinct from ID? They can't just call it evolution, since IDers don't all deny common descent, old earth, etc. and can thus claim the evolution label for their theories. It has to be called something like "evolution only by natural selection" or "natural evolution" or somesuch. But then this sounds too restrictive and gives popular credence to the ID rhetoric of "why are evolutionists so cloes minded?"

An added problem is that ID doesn't even have to appeal to a god or aliens. They can just restrict their theory to a more Lamarckian idea, that animals genetically engineer themselves, either intentionally or by happenstance. Once they do this, then the theory fits entirely within a naturalistic paradigm.

So, I'd say the essay is right. Darwinism has a problem of rhetoric on its hands.

DannoHung• 17 years ago

You don't really need to entirely eliminate the idea of ID. You just need to ensure that the accpted mechanism is evolution. If you can convince ID advocates that the mechanism for design was that of evolution, then, who gives a crap? You're just arguing for or against God at that point.

likpok2• 17 years ago

It's not just arguing about god though. ID makes statements of fact which it is unable to back up with experimental evidence. Evolution makes statement of fact which it can back up with experimental evidence. So the two should not be conflated (at least in the scientific realm).

Outside of science (philosophy?) they are nowhere near the most "out-there" of theories.

cchooper• 17 years ago

The 'natural' in natural selection refers to the distinction with artificial selection, rather than 'supernatural selection', and reminds us that what nature does to a species is no different from what breeders are successfully doing. So I think that's the best term.

DanielBMarkham4• 17 years ago

Do we have to associate evolution with Darwinism?

For that matter, why do we keep associating ID with Creationism?

Fuzzy words lead to fuzzy arguments.

likpok2• 17 years ago

At least for the second point, that's because IDH is Creationism. It purports that somethings are irreducibly complex and must have been designed by a creator. Which is basically the same thing (scientifically) as Creationism.

electromagnetic• 17 years ago

Agreed. Personally I see ID as an insult to religion, 'God' created the universe yet apparently he has to interfere 14 billion years later to create mankind because we're just so special, making him just so incompetent and not a true supreme being.

I mean why worship the supernatural if it's just not unbelievable. I mean at least the Greek and the Norse gods knew how to have fun!

DanielBMarkham4• 17 years ago

ID == given any set of conditions, the cause of those conditions may be natural or an external agent (or a combination) ID presumes an external agent.

Arguments for ID include complexity and the watch, etc. Application of ID may mostly be by religious people.

But ID itself is just common sense. You make an observation -- have a perception. You acknowledge that you either 1) believe you understand everything about how that reality occurred, 2) believe you understand a little but one day will understand everything, 3) believe that agencies unknown to you created that perception and the true cause lies in another set of facts unknown to you. (eventually understandable or not)

Maybe I'm missing something, but that's how ID theory looks to me.

To make a factitious example, lizard people from the planet Xypton diverted an asteroid millions of years ago and killed the dinosaurs. The fall of the dinosaurs has an ID basis then. But I doubt we'll see a lot of lizard people churches anytime soon.

It's just basic epistemology.

dan_sim• 17 years ago

We all know an idea is worth nothing until it's turned into a product. Maybe Darwin didn't invent evolution but he turned it into a product (a book) and sell it to people. That's why the unknown farmer who maybe got the idea before him shouldn't be remember and we should remember Darwin forever.

scott_s2• 17 years ago

"We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism."

We do refer to "Newtownian physics" to refer to pre-relativity and pre-quantum mechanics.

I think this is a non-issue. The people who think evolutionary theory stopped with Darwin aren't going to pick up on that because you use a different name.

toodlestech• 17 years ago

I believe the author is referring more so to the people that tend to think that one person came up with, and wrote it since its attached to a persons name. It also makes for a good (read good in their heads) excuse why not to believe it. I know I have experienced that poor logic in conversation before.

scott_s2• 17 years ago

It's not an excuse, it's a rationalization. The difference being that once you address the problem they claim to have, they still won't care.

DavidSJ• 17 years ago

Seems like a straw man to me. I know of no Darwinists who fetishize Darwin.

Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live

Related Stories