"Natural selection alone cannot explain the universe"

[MrDarwin]

I kid you not, this line was in an article in last Saturday's Washington Post titled "Pope Asked to Clarify Position on Evolution in Schools" (sorry, no link--for some reason I can't find the article online, either by searching or browsing):


Intelligent design maintains that natural selection alone cannot explain the universe.

The article's author (Martha Woodall, writing for Knight Ridder Newspapers) manages in one sentence to screw up both evolution and ID. It's sad to think that this is probably a common reflection of the knowledge or most Americans when it comes to anything related to science, and even more sad to think that somebody will read this and take it as an accurate representation of either evolution or ID. (Then again I would place much of the blame on the ID proponents themselves, who have concentrated almost entirely on attacking evolution while simultaneously maintaining the entirely separate, and even less testable, idea that the universe itself shows evidence of design.)

Edited to add that I found the article online (with a slightly different headline):

Catholic schools stay out of evolution fray (http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/12291330.htm)

[Kosmo]

Eh, nobody knows what 'intelligent design' really means, methinks that's the way the DI likes it.

What about this gem?
Schonborn wrote: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

[llDayo]

Intelligent design maintains that natural selection alone cannot explain the universe.

So what's the problem? Does natural selection say how planets are formed or how matter changes to energy?

[Plognark]

Sometimes people are so unconscionably fucking stupid that I really just think I should go live in a cabin a thousand miles from any other people and forget they exist :banghead:

[Godless Dave]

So what's the problem? Does natural selection say how planets are formed or how matter changes to energy?

Well, no. And it doesn't claim to. The statement above is like saying that plate tectonics alone cannot explain the universe.

[llDayo]

Well, no. And it doesn't claim to. The statement above is like saying that plate tectonics alone cannot explain the universe.

Exactly! That's what I don't get about the anger towards the statement since it's not saying anything false. :confused:

[Plognark]

Exactly! That's what I don't get about the anger towards the statement since it's not saying anything false. :confused:

I dunno, deliberate misinformation pisses me off. :banghead:

[Richard Forrest]

I dunno, deliberate misinformation pisses me off. :banghead:

Does pig-ignorance on the part of someone presuming authority piss you off more that deliberate misinformation? It's one of those conudrums I wrestle with....


Richard Forrest

[Godless Dave]

Does pig-ignorance on the part of someone presuming authority piss you off more that deliberate misinformation? It's one of those conudrums I wrestle with....


I've decided to treat the two as if they were identical. My dad was a chemistry professor when I was growing up so in our house being ignorant of something when you're smart enough to know better was as shameful an offense as lying, if not more so.

[Moxy]

Exactly! That's what I don't get about the anger towards the statement since it's not saying anything false. :confused:

While anyone who knows anything about evolution knows this is technically a true statement, the implication is that natural selection is SUPPOSED to or CLAIMS to explain the universe, and somehow falls short. When you try to explain to someone who doesn't really understand that, yes, technically the statement is correct, they can easily interpret that as evidence that evolution is flawed.

[Worldtraveller]

So saying tha the bible doesn't explain germ theory or quantum physics also a valid argument, by that 'logic'. :D And therefore, the bible can not be of any use (which is the implied result).

...works for me.

Cheers,
Lane

[MrDarwin]

No, the sentence is not correct because this is not what "intelligent design" maintains. It is an example of sloppy writing and/or reporting because according to both evolutionary biologists and intelligent design proponents, biological evolution in general, and natural selection in particular, has (or should have) nothing whatsoever to say about questions about the origin of the universe, the laws of physics, or the origin of the solar system or the earth, but this sentence suggests otherwise. It certainly suggests that the writer understands neither evolution nor ID.

The sentence as it stands is a non sequitur. It would be more correct to say either "Intelligent design maintains that natural selection alone cannot explain the diversity and history of life" or "Intelligent design maintains that naturalistic assumptions alone cannot explain the universe." (I happen to agree with the second sentence, not because I'm a theist, but because I don't think we have any clue yet how or why the universe came into being.) Unfortunately creationists, and even ID proponents who should know better, frequently conflate the two different ideas (intelligent design of life and intelligent design of the universe) although they are distinctly different topics.

[Plognark]

Does pig-ignorance on the part of someone presuming authority piss you off more that deliberate misinformation? It's one of those conudrums I wrestle with....


Richard Forrest

UUUUUUuuuuhhhhhhhh....I too wrestle with this conundrum. They both enrage me in different but equally sleep-killing ways. :p

[MrDarwin]

Gah. Another article that makes basically the same mistake:

Kansas moves to stem role of evolution in teaching (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001236.html)

Intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as products of a considered intent as opposed to a process of natural selection.

[Moxy]

To clarify, I meant the statement was technically true in regards to what evolution "claims." Natural selection cannot explain the universe. There is still the implication that it should, and merely fails to do so effectively. That is why there is so statements like this are so frustrating.

[the_cave]

I have read actual scientists use the word "evolution" to describe the long-term development of the universe. I agree that contextually he obviously means something besides the mechanics of biological evolution, but this is precisely why this debate is happening--words are being used in different contexts, and many (even most) people don't understand what they mean. For their part, either scientists need to be more careful, and/or they need to do a better job of explaining to the public what they're talking about and what they mean.

[josephpalazzo]

I kid you not, this line was in an article in last Saturday's Washington Post titled "Pope Asked to Clarify Position on Evolution in Schools" (sorry, no link--for some reason I can't find the article online, either by searching or browsing):



The article's author (Martha Woodall, writing for Knight Ridder Newspapers) manages in one sentence to screw up both evolution and ID. It's sad to think that this is probably a common reflection of the knowledge or most Americans when it comes to anything related to science, and even more sad to think that somebody will read this and take it as an accurate representation of either evolution or ID. (Then again I would place much of the blame on the ID proponents themselves, who have concentrated almost entirely on attacking evolution while simultaneously maintaining the entirely separate, and even less testable, idea that the universe itself shows evidence of design.)

Edited to add that I found the article online (with a slightly different headline):

Catholic schools stay out of evolution fray (http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/12291330.htm)

Heck, the Big Bang Theory can't explain fully the universe, certainly natural selection won't.

[ninewands]

Sometimes people are so unconscionably fucking stupid that I really just think I should go live in a cabin a thousand miles from any other people and forget they exist :banghead:
To a certain extent, I have to agree ... if stupidity was a crime, Schonborn's attitude would be a first degree (maybe even capital) felony. :banghead: :Cheeky:

[Aegeri]

I have read actual scientists use the word "evolution" to describe the long-term development of the universe.

I think this is just using a general non-biology specific meaning of the word. Here just to indicate a change over time, but not directly meaning anything to do with the evolution of living animals.

[ninewands]

From the linked article in #14:
The new science standards would not eliminate the teaching of evolution entirely, nor would they require that religious views, also known as creationism, be taught, but it would encourage teachers to discuss various viewpoints and eliminate core evolution theory as required curriculum.
KS Science Teacher: Okay, students, Intelligent Design claims that there are too many things in the world that are too complex to have evolved, therefore, these things are a product of intentional design by a supernatural "Designer" who cannot be detected by measurement of natural phenomena.

A necessary condition for a "theory" to be accepted as scientific is that it must be both testable and capable of being proved false by evidence. The so-called "Intelligent Design Theory" cannot be used to make testable predictions about nature because it states no principles of HOW it works. Furthermore, it cannot be proven false by evidence taken solely from the natural world because the supernatural "Designer" can do anything, even violate the laws of nature.

For this reason, Intelligent Design falls outside the scope of science and it is outside the scope of this course.

On the other hand, we have the Theory of Evolution, which was stated by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Some of you may have religious qualms about the Theory of Evolution. I say to you "Good," you do not have to accept or believe what I am about to teach you. On the other hand, you DO have to learn and understand it because you WILL be tested on it. Please bear in mind that the Theory of Evolution is not controversial anywhere in the world outside the United States. Among scientists, it is not truly controversial within the United States. If you do not like this fact, I am sorry. I was hired to teach science and I am GOING to teach VALID science.

Think of it this way. I am saving you from someday displaying your total ignorance when you decide to go trolling on The Internet Infidels Discussion Board. :D

[Nice Squirrel]

Exactly! That's what I don't get about the anger towards the statement since it's not saying anything false. :confused:

Are any of these statements do not say anything false either:

The mountains on Mars do not cause corn blister rust.
Natural Selection alone cannot explain my toilet being clogged.
Intelligent dessign cannot explain my mother's lung cancer.
Crayfish walking patterns do not explain the workings of a internal combustion engine.


Q.) What do these things have in common with your assertion?

A.) they are all fallacies called hasty generalizations.

[ecco]

From the linked article: "Evolution should be taught as one of many theories," said Louis P. DeAngelo, who oversees curriculum for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. "But the one true principle above all is there's one creator."

Emphasis mine. I wonder which ONE god they are referring to.

[ecco]

From the linked article: "Evolution should be taught as one of many theories," said Louis P. DeAngelo, who oversees curriculum for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. "But the one true principle above all is there's one creator."

Emphasis mine. I wonder which ONE god they are referring to.

[ecco]

From the linked article: "Evolution should be taught as one of many theories," said Louis P. DeAngelo, who oversees curriculum for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. "But the one true principle above all is there's one creator."

Emphasis mine. I wonder which ONE god they are referring to.

[show_no_mercy]

"Natural selection alone cannot explain natural selection"

:huh:

[the_cave]

I think this is just using a general non-biology specific meaning of the word. Here just to indicate a change over time, but not directly meaning anything to do with the evolution of living animals.
Yes, I know, but many will not understand this.