Darwinian Dissonance? by Paul A. Dernavich

Re: Darwinian Dissonance? by
Paul A. Dernavich

To begin with a quote from the article:
"Besides, who could possibly come up with a rhyme for lepidoptera?"

Alright, if I must... :-)

"Amidst the fluttering and frolicking of Lepidoptera,
I boldly let escape an audible, intrepid, cropped hurrah."

Seriously, now, Mr. Dernavich demands that as scientists we instantaneously shed the very human traits that evolution has bred in us over millions of years. He proposes the impossible: that in order to be consistent we should sterilize all metaphors out of our language of science, that no scientist may retell any of the beauty of nature even as it is perceived through that scientist's unavoidably human eyes, and that somehow a study and understanding of the mechanism of natural selection should by fiat cause the evolutionist to shed any of his or her already deeply inbred sense of morality or compassion for the weak and disadvantaged.

He would also propose, I imagine, that any physiologist with a reasonable grasp of the mechanical and chemical workings of the sexual organs and their interaction with the brain, in order to be perfectly consistent, ought never be able to or even attempt to enjoy or appreciate an orgasm, since the entire process is understood as a physiological and material phenomenon. The presumably contradictory behavior of such a scientist in enjoying what he knows to be merely blind physical processes, along that line of reasonsing, would have to be evidence that it could not be purely physical and natural at all. How does that follow?


Dernavich states, for example, "But if moral reasoning is just a lot of brain matter in motion, where does that leave appreciation for poetry?" I think its obvious that an understanding of the chemistry of G-protein coupled receptors on the tongue, no matter how full and complete, need not affect any researcher's enjoyment of a finely done tiramis. However, according to Dernavich, it would be an unacceptable contradiction if it did not. Because the researcher ought to realize that in order to be consistent he must either refuse to succumb to such pleasure as he has no rational basis for enjoying the tiramisu -- after all, the entire phenomenon is a mere cascade of chemical reactions -- or else, he must accept the idea of an intelligent designer. How odd a view.

Our evolutionary baggage (instinctive behaviors, compassion, physical pleasure responses, sense of humor, use of language, sense of morality, fairness and more) is inextricably intertwined in our very essence as humans. It is neither good nor bad, but it is a part of us, so there is no inconsistency at all in the fact that these unscientific qualities are so prominent among individuals even of a species that has come to understand so much of the nature of the very cosmos in which it lives.

Cheers,
Michael Savoia
Hasuda, Japan

[Toto]

What is the point of this essay? Should scientists use less metaphoric language? Or is the claim that there must be a supernatural force oranizing the world because we can't even formulate the question without implying that there is?

Let me provide a counter example: Adam Smith's "invisible hand". Smith claimed that a market, consisting of autonomous individuals, can "self-organize" better than a bureaucratic administrator could. (This is analogous to natural selection in many ways.) But when people talk about the invisible hand, no one believes that there is an actual hand setting prices. (If there is, the Anti-Trust Division can prosecute.)

I feel that this essay and a prior one by David Payne on capitalism were not quite ready for publication. Both would have benefitted from an editor, or from some feedback and rewriting. And both seem to be in love with the sound of their own language.

[stonedpony]

Dernavich's article can be faulted in (at least) two ways:
First, his assessment of what he seems to believe is a subtle hint of the metaphysical in the language and wording of evolutionist dogma is the usual result of thousands of years of myth-making, propaganda and cultural nurturing. Secular evolutionists, on the other hand, have reasoned a position based on observable evidence rather than relying on ancient proverbs and traditional hand-me-down faith. The problem faced by secular evolutionists, therefore, seems to be an inability to find a secular language with which to adequately describe their observations and evidence.
Second, perhaps there is indeed a language, i.e. ancient Greek or Mandarin, that might be less affected by the centuries of various religious and deist traditions and therefore might be more suitable to the purposes of secular evolutionists. Translation, of course, might be a bit of a problem, but many of us have, after all, learned computer-speak remarkably quickly....

Did that article even make an argument? I didn't quite see one. At any rate, the author certainly made no cogent critique of the *concept* of natural selection.

I guess the idea is that by relying on words like "design" to describe Darwinian results, evolutionists betray their *instinctive* understanding that these things really were designed. Well, I guess that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that proper new words have not yet developed to embody the new concepts. Does language lead thought, or thought language?

As for scientists going "beyond their reach" by denying a God, that comment betrays the author's ignorance of what science is supposed to do. It is intrinsic to the scientific process that you can't assume a big deus-ex-machina solution to a problem you want to solve. Besides which the idea of a vague Designer -- defined as a being capable of doing everything we can't otherwise explain -- contains no information content.

I do agree, however, that for secular humanists to say humanity is the "most valuable" species is a meaningless statement. Humans are no more or less valuable than anything else. We just value humans more because we *are* humans.

Mr. Dernavich has pointed out some important problems in evolutionary language which I myself (a red-blooded Darwinian evolutionist) find irritating, unhelpful, and sloppy. Hats off to him for his analysis.

Many popularizers of evolution, perhaps inadvertently, use very teleological language when really they should be using teleonomic language. Dernavich is quite right: evolution properly understood does *not* have a destination. There's nothing linear or progressive about it. There is certainly no such thing as "good design," in evolution. There *is* (most manifestly) fitness to a particular environment, but you can't go beyond that.

Mr. Dernavich suggests that "success" makes no sense as an evolutionary concept. I disagree. Success merely defines those organisms who survived to reproduce offspring in a given environment. "Survival and reproduction" define "success." Any organism with traits enabling more reproduction is more evolutionarily successful, and its descendants will come to dominate the local niche. There is no goal or teleology implied here.

As to "natural selection" as a term, I also fail to see the inherent difficulties. A creature more well-adapted to local conditions (whether as an individual or species) will tend to survive and will tend to reproduce to a greater degree than its niche competitors. It is a better fit to its local environment, so it is selected naturally for success within that environment. Nothing in this description implies any invisible hand doing the selecting, just hum-drum statistical probabilities.

Otherwise, a fine essay which helps clear the decks of the creeping confusions of Lamarckianism and teleological evolution - both of which are dubious at best and plain old bunkola at worst.

Paul Dernavich in his essay "Darwinian Dissonance" makes too big a deal out of the language used by scientists in describing evolution. What is interesting about evolution is the science, the facts, the understanding and synthesis of large bodies of knowledge. Reading a single book on evolution can give the reader an understanding of what evolution is all about, how it works, and whether or not there is any 'design' implied and how the apparent 'design' came about. To those with an elementary education, they can use any words they wish and everyone knows what they are talking about.

Creationists have foolishly jumped on the 'design' language and have tried to say that this somehow proves their case for design. All it proves is that the English language did not develop to accomodate science. We do similar things in physics all the time. The electron wanted to go there, the ball was happier at lower energy, and so on. Only an idiot would complain that the electron really doesn't have desires. Is a hydrophobic chemical really 'afraid' of water?

The universe is a complicated place and human communication about science must vastly oversimplify in order to be useful. If people think that the words somehow truly represent reality, such as in 'design' then they should be sent to their rooms with a book on evolution. The problem is not the words, but the lack of scientific understanding. The word problem will always be there but the scientific confusion can be cleared up quickly with a little education.

I just read mr. Dernavich's article about the language of evolutionists. I found it very interesting, and certainly with some strong points made by him. However, most of his observations arise from the traditional disregard for the descriptive properties of science, and the need for a language to describe new phenomena in science. I would therefore like to comment on his article.

Dernavich argues that the language of Darwinists is "self-defeating" in that it implies a designer, or creator of the processes described by them. This is true, if you take the concepts ("non-conscious creativity", "non-intelligent design", "natural selection" etc.") to hold their literal, "normal" meanings of every-day language. They do not. What one must acknowledge is that what science and evolutionism is doing is to use metaphors. This might immediately seem strange to some, but what science is continually facing is the need to describe, in "normal" language, something which has never been described before. A new way of viewing the world. Concepts which have no way of being communicated, because there quite simply are no words capable of describing them. What happens is that scientists, in order to convince the scientific community and the world, use metaphors from natural, every-day language.

For example, today when talking about weather, we talk about "cold fronts" and "warm fronts". What we really mean are "systems of cold and warm winds and clouds moving across the world, meeting, and evening out their respective temperature differences with various effects". Why do we talk about "fronts"? We talk about "fronts" because, this particular model for predicting metereological behaviour was first invented when the First World War was being fought in the trenches. Between two "fronts". One German, one French, slowly cancelling out each other's strength in a process of attrition. This was a concept people understood, and were able to transfer onto their concept of weather relatively easily. If this metaphor had not been used, maybe that particular model would not have caught on, maybe it would only have been understood by the few scientists who ironed it out. Another example: the "invisible hand" which neither has the characteristics of being invisible, nor a hand, but rather the characteristics of being the transfer of money along certain broad lines: what we today call "market forces".

This is the reason we talk about "design", "selection" and "creativity". Because at the time Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, there quite simply were no conceptual structures available to describe it. Evolutionists who understood the theory tried to use the old, creationist concepts on the new theory in order to make it stick. And it did. Even though it meant a radical rethinking of our view of the natural world, the theory had staying power. I don't think that it is possible for us today to understand the magnitude of this change. It is truly a monument to the power of the metaphor.

The reason we still use these metaphors today, even though some of them do seem a bit weak when you look at them, as Dernavich does, with the original concepts in mind, is that *they work*. They sufficiently describe phenomena that are too difficult to describe in "normal" language without them. You try explaining to someone what chaotic self-organizing phenomena are. It's not an easy feat, unless one uses the metaphor. Therefore, "chaotically self-organizing phenomena" is not similar to saying "triangular circles", as Dernavich claims. Rather, it is a metaphoric way of describing something which, through a process of conflicts described as "chaotic"-i.e. random, arrives at something which is one of the better biological make-ups and behavioural structures for the survival of that group of phenomena, arrived at through a randomized trial-and-error-process. This process, and it's end-product, shares some characteristics with organized structures, so we use this metaphor in order to explain it. This is just using terminology borrowed from everyday life in order to enable people to understand the argument through concepts being transferred from one part of our thought-structure to another.

I would also argue against Dernavich's view of the concept of "natural selection" as a "grammatical gargoyle". Natural selection, is, again, a metaphor. There really is no "selection". But odds are that noone would be able to understand what "natural selection" really stands for unless Darwin had simplified his theory with this metaphor. Natural selection is a metaphor for something else, in the same way that metaphors are used in poetic situations. A part of the ongoing process through which science finds better ways of *describing* the world. Dernavich's comparison to the concept of "cybersex" becomes only partially accurate. The word cybersex is an invention of language to cover a concept which was not there earlier. It is composed of two words: sex; which describes certain physical functions of human beings (and other creatures), and cyber; man-machine interaction. Since both of these factors are involved in "cyber-sex", it becomes a perfectly legit, new word. It doesn't just "come dangerously close to redefining the word which it is supposed to modify". It does redefine it! It is a new word which is using already-existing concepts to describe a new, previously impossible course of action for a human being. Is there anything wrong with that? Doesn't this concept-synthesis help us describe our world better? I, for one, think that this new word should be seen as having been given a new and independent linguistic status. It is being used in our culture as a whole new word, and should therefore be seen as divorced from it's "parent concepts". In much the same way that we don't react when we hear people using the term "atomic bomb" or "homepage". A home page has nothing to do with neither a home nor a page. It's all metaphors.

I must therefore find myself wholly in disagreeance with Dernavich's argument that there is a "fissure in the structure of [evolutionist] though". There is simply the natural use of metaphors which we see in science all the time. It is not, as Dernavich implies, because The Hand of God is the only idea which works for humans, that we must see something divine behind everything. In much the same way, the fact that we talk about "cold fronts" does not imply that a war is taking place above our heads.

If there is a problem with the language of evolutionism, it is not that humans are trying to find God in science, but quite simply that the chosen metaphors which involve conscious evolution because these were the best concepts possible at the time. Maybe these words no longer cover the concepts sufficiently. Whether this is true or not is a whole other discussion. If it is true, then we will probably see our "invisible hand" replaced with "market forces" soon enough. If not, evolutionism marches on nonetheless.

To quote the bard himself: "Oh, what is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

-Martin Grüner Larsen-
Bergen, Norway.



[This message has been edited by Heraclitus (edited January 30, 2001).]

[Richard Carrier]

On Darwinian Dissonance

I am sure feedback here will be furious and some perhaps excessively hostile, but I want to make sure something calm and correct gets said. First, I like this essay. As an analytical philosopher I am always happy to see people calling for more rigor and clarity in the use of terminology. And the mistakes you make, Mr. Dernavich, which I will discuss below, are not so much your fault as that of the multifarious writers you quote: they failed us by not ceing clear. I am sure even I have done this on numerous occasions, and am always thankful when given the chance to correct myself. Moreover, I don't think you chose a biased and selective portion of writers: I think by and large your sample accurately reflects the trends, and thus demonstrates the obscurity and unhelpfulness of much that is said for natural selection. In that respect, without your essay I would never have written the following critique, and thus no progress on this matter would have been made.

I could defend some of Pigliucci's obscure idioms but perhaps he would prefer to do that himself. For example, "chaotic self-organizing" is not a contradiction in terms, but that would not be apparent to anyone who was not already versed in the basics of chaos theory and thus understood things such as "strange attractors" and whatnot. But no one should assume their readers have that background. And I certainly won't defend the sloppy and prosaic quasi-hack journalistic writing of periodicals like Time magazine. Instead, just the key issues that everyone should know:

"Valuable to whom?" To us. Many secularists defend an objective ethical system in which the fact that humans have value is true irregardless of where we came from (evolution or otherwise). But that isn't necessary. Subjectivism does not entail what its critics claim, and is perfectly compatible with moral values being universally true. It is not too hard to agree with the fact that value is mind-dependent: you cannot have values without a valuer, and when we poll human beings, after providing them with all the facts relevant to the matter (and thus not listening to ignorant or misled people), 99% would agree that humans are valuable and the best thing nature has ever produced since the bananna. The other 1% are mainly comprised of suicidally-murderous psychopaths. But the question of the nature and basis for values is the philosophical field called metaethics (or just "ethical theory"), and is not directly related to the issue of natural selection. If you want to say that secularists cannot say these things, then you are debating metaethics, not natural selection or creation, and you might get pounded on that issue. Even though that was the eventual thrust of your argument, the essays we have under Morality and Atheism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/morality-and-atheism.html) already collectively rebut your argument.

"If we cannot confirm a purpose for which life is supposed to have originated, how can we say anything is a success?" Because life is its own "purpose" in this sense: that is, if it can live (as in replicate), then it is a success. If it cannot, then it is a failure. Indeed, this is a self-fulfilling tautology: that which lives reproduces. That which does not live does not reproduce. So this is where life's basic blind "purpose" comes from: from the bare, mindless fact that life reproduces. No intelligence is needed to make this so. That is why so much of nature's products are so astonishingly absurd, from the peacock to the kamakazee ant. Of course, this is all amply explained in a good college-level textbook on evolution. But we cannot expect so much as 5% of the population to have even seen one of those, much less actually read it.

Damn the metaphors! Full speed ahead! I am not one to play Grinch to those who enjoy the artistic use of language. Apt metaphors and analogies can often convey meaning faster and deeper, and more beautifully, than tedious descriptions. But you are right to worry that this is unwise in the present hostile atomosphere, where, as in politics, every word that can be taken out of context or misinterpreted is potentially suicidal. But we should still be intellectually charitable. The rule of intellectual charity is: if there is any sense in which what a writer says can be understood that is consistent with everything else he says, then odds are that is what he meant. Creationists are not charitable people in this respect, and so it is inept to expect them to be, but all reasonable people should be charitable in this way, and that includes you and me. Thus, for example, nature is in fact a "tireless engineer," in that she never ceases to do her work (evolution is constant and unstoppable) and the "work" we are singling out here is not, say, the weather (which is equally tireless), but the production of a machinery of life, which can be said to have been "engineered" (as in arranged and built) by the three central forces of natural selection: reproduction, mutation, and selection. None of the three forces involves or requires intelligence, yet all three together produce wonderful machines. Of course, this is what defenders of natural selection should be explaining, and it is indeed what they try to communicate in books on the subject. Dawkins can perhaps be excused for taking it for granted, when speaking in a brief article, that any would-be critic of his words will take the trouble to read his book on the issue first.

Is "natural selection" a "misleading oxymoron"? Is "metallic hue"? Even though there might be no metal in it? Is "postage stamp" a misleading oxymoron even though it is a sticker? Is "political party" to be impugned for changing the basic meaning of party? After all, drinks and chips and friendly snogging on the couch are not what a political party is supposed to refer to, scandals notwithstanding. One could list endless examples, from "hot dog" to "blow job" (women might agree it is a job, certainly the ones who get paid to do it, but blowing is rarely involved). Science is especially in need of such constructions, from "somatic cell" to "power cell," from "ecological niche" to "architectural niche," even terms that clearly are oxymorons, like "centrifugal force" and "electron orbit." Complaining about this sort of terminological confusion is inappropriate: we need to educate the public on the proper, formal meaning of the terms in their respective contexts, not corrupt scientific vocabulary to suit popular ignorance.

Why this metaphor? You propose the answer "Because that is what is really going on." I propose: "Because our brains weren't built any other way." A great deal of work has been done lately showing how hard it is for humans to think rationally and scientifically: rational and scientific methods are unnatural and counter-intuitive. The only reason we force ourselves against the grain to employ them is that they work a hell of a lot better than the sort of thinking our brains are actually built to do. This is shown quite clearly in books like Alan Cromer's Uncommon Sense (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195096363/InternetInfidelsA/), Stuart Vyse's Believing in Magic (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195078829/InternetInfidelsA/), Michael Shermer's How We Believe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/071673561X/InternetInfidelsA/), and Stew Guthrie's Faces in the Clouds (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195098919/InternetInfidelsA/), as well as a lot of recent papers in scientific journals on the God Module. The point is: our consciousness developed as a means to suss out the intentions of other thinking creatures, and thus to seek out patterns that belie motives and plans and allow us to predict the behavior of others like us. Even our pre-conscious brain development was geared toward recognizing patterns and seeking design: and it was safer to see design where it wasn't, than to miss it when it was really there. Thus, our brains were built to err--but err in a way that is more beneficial to our survival than erring in the other direction.

With self-referential consciousness we can now identify and correct these errors, but it is uphill work. And we will never be able to shake the fact that our brains are still built a certain way and thus will always be readier to understand things when couched in certain primitive metaphors. For instance, it has been shown that people remember and learn better when they are told an interesting story that contains the key material, than if the key material is meticulously explained to them in a rationally-organized lecture. That is not very efficient, but it's the way we are, and complaining about it is an exercise in futility. Thus, do not begrudge humans who understand more easily what nature does by drawing analogies from human life: a storm is "fierce," a winter is "cruel," the stock market is a "bear," electricity "seeks" a path of least resistance. Does any of this entail that we think there is a thinking, feeling intelligence behind these things? No. Is there any better way to express them? Not really. It could be done, but it would require a dull and laborious paraphrasis--which goes against the point of language in the first place: the rapid and efficient communication of ideas.

"B perhaps wins on style points, but the content is the same [as A]." Incorrect. You have violated the law of excluded middle: A contains B as a possible case, but it also contains countless other entirely different cases, and therefore A is a genus and B is a species. This means they are not equivalent and thus do not share all the same content any more than "mammal" and "mouse" share the same content. One would be ill advised to think that "mammal" means "mouse," for an elephant might be around the corner. And one cannot say "I understand what a mammal is, therefore I know what an elephant is." He who understands A does not understand B, only a fractional part of B, and this fact invalidates your use of A and B in your analysis, and in fact this error plagues and thus totally destroys the rest of your argument about morality and values.

The problem is that the physical sciences cannot explain how, much less why, this consciousness emerged. Anyone who says "Science cannot explain..." had better wash their foot--for they will have to put it in their mouth eventually. Indeed, a great deal of work has been done on this very question in just the last ten years, and several comprehensive theoretical research programs have been proposed (I count at least ten books on the subject going to print this year; but for past work see the forthcoming Essential Sources in the Scientific Study of Consciousness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262523027/InternetInfidelsA/)). Indeed, your analysis would be much better informed if you had read even one of them, or something in evolutionary psychology. For example:

And a bigger problem is the strangeness of our consciousness: abstract self-doubt, philosophical curiosity, existential despair. How does an intense awareness of my accidental existence better equip me for battle? As has been well-argued in hundreds of books on the subject in the last two decades, consciousness serves the function of social awareness, not combat. Indeed, a pack of wolves can tactically outsmart the average human, and the strategic genius of ant colonies is much to be admired. Instead, by being able to model human perception and self-awareness in ourselves, we are able to model the thought processes of others and thus predict their interests and behavior with astonishing accuracy. Once this tool met up with language, the brain became a powerhouse for the communication of acquired characteristics (and as anyone versed in the dispute between Lemarckian and Darwinian evolution would know, that is a vast advantage over the ordinary processes of inheriting characteristics which are painfully slow).

Everything peculiar about human thought is the byproduct of these developments, and others like them, whether the byproduct is useful or not (and nature wouldn't know--mere life or death decides, and mercilessly). For every advantage comes at a price. Just think how much energy we waste feeding this absurdly huge brain of ours. The peacock's feathers are a liability in battle and flight, but the advantage in winning a mate outweighs that in terms of differential reproductive success. The kamakazee ant commits suicide so that its colony can prosper--and thus, in effect, it ensures the survival of those genes it shares with its fellow ants that live as a result of its altruistic death. And so on. None of nature's homoncula are perfect, and most, if we were to attribute them to an intelligent creator, would be insane (the platypuss comes to mind, or the guinea worm). Nature's creations are ad hoc, sometimes ridiculous, yet they succeed because they nevertheless work, and nothing better was hit upon, and that is what makes her blind.

In the end, misled by your fallacious exclusion of the middle term, you commit the nefarious "A is just a B" fallacy, which has bred such embarassing arguments like "An animal is just a clump of cells, cells can't walk, therefore animals can't walk." You, likewise, argue that there is an incongruity between scientific knowledge and humanist values because "moral reasoning is just a lot of brain matter in motion," and since brain matter in motion can't produce a justified set of moral values, therefore there is no justified set of moral values. This is the same fallacy as the animals can't walk example. Thus, you fell victim to the very confusion you attributed to scientific humanists.




[This message has been edited by Richard Carrier (edited January 30, 2001).]

I agree with this essay only so far and no farther: "Natural selection" is an imperfect phrase. But it is only an oxymoron because Darwin clearly and explicitly meant it to be an oxymoron of sorts: "Selection" is a conscious process of choosing to breed animals with desired traits (Darwin specifically drew a parallel with pigeon fanciers). The word "natural" added to "selection" indicates a similar process of breeding animals with certain traits, but those traits are determined BY NATURE -- by virtue of reproductive success or failure of organisms with those traits -- and not by the actions or choices of any agent. This is no more an oxymoron than the phrase "involuntary action": "Action" normally implies intent, so we add a qualifying word that contradicts this normal implication in order to specify a certain class of actions, such as reflexive blinking.

Unfortunately, some people with certain kinds of unyielding convictions (and accompanying intellectual dishonesty) refuse to distinguish between a limiting qualifier and a genuine contradiction. For this reason if no other, I think the phrase "reproductive filtration" is superior to "natural selection" -- not because it is any more accurate or descriptive, but simply because it isn't as amenable to deliberate misinterpretation.

I will be the first to admit that Darwinian language falls far short of what is needed to effectively convey the complex nuances of evolutionary theory to the general public. However, unlike Dernavich, I attribute most of the problem to the shortcomings of English--or, perhaps more accurately, to those of human language. Our ancestors had virtually no means of examining or parsing the wandering ways of self-organizing systems ("autopoesis", if Dernavich prefers) and this historical inexperience is reflected in our existing vocabulary.

Take a pair of verbs, "design" and "evolve," and compare lists of synonyms. Here are some compiled in my copy of "Synonym Finder." Note the colorful variety of activities connotated by the former and the rather forced expressions foisted upon the latter:

Design: plan, plot, scheme, organize, arrange, contrive, devise, develop, fashion, fabricate, frame, make, effect, produce, shape, form, mold, forge, construct, build, rear, erect. (This list was derived from only one of many meanings of "design." There were many, many more evocative words listed under the other meanings.)

Evolve: develop, grow, become, turn into, become more complex, derive from, result, emerge, progress, go forward, increase, expand, snowball, produce, construct, formulate, build up, unroll, unfold, uncoil, open.

We can see by comparing these lists that "design" has traditionally been used as a term for human action while "evolve" is used to describe natural tendencies. No wonder "design" gets the juicier synonyms. And even then, "evolve" is stuck with several bland terms for human action.

There is another problem with the word "evolve." In everyday language, it also means moral improvement in human beings. This meaning has nothing to do with biological evolution. For one thing, human beings are able to observe and report on such claims in real time and form coherent opinions about them. No biologist, no matter how outr his metaphorical language, would consider doing the same in reference to biological evolution.

Oh, by the way, "chaotic self-organizing phenomena" refers to systems studied by chaos theoreticians, systems in which complex subsystems grow out of very simple rules, systems such as climate, stock market prices, respiratory systems, and river tributaries. Chaos theory provides us with some tantalizing clues as to ways in which biological evolution may work.

So, commentators have to work with what they've got--which isn't a whole lot in the way of colorful, evocative words reserved to biological evolution with enough connotational potency to do the job. So they raid from the "design" list of synonyms with the resulting confusion noted by Dernavich.

Perhaps as the "evolution of language" continues, scientists and writers will be able to come up with a better selection, permitting the reader to get a sense of evolution as a bundle of trends, tendencies, and emergent characteristics in organisms' lines of descent as they respond to changes in the environment. Or perhaps "design" will pick up connotations of "unplanned efficaciousness" from its continued use over a long period of time in describing evolutionary processes.

Curiously enough, citizens of free societies are used to systems of unplanned efficaciousness--political, economic, and cultural systems which grow out of innumerable human actions, but little in the way of human design. Those who study cultural evolution have learned much from those who study the biological kind and may be able to contribute much in return.

If so, terms such as "natural selection" will become better known for what it is, a term for the survival of the fittest lineage in a world in which "fittest" must always change.

Sally Morem fahayek

(Edited only to remove unnecessary line breaks and personal e-mail address. -DM-)

Why is it always the believers who are victims of centuries of evolutionary baggage? Why isn't the perceived "reasoned position" also due to a brain development mutation?

I suppose, then, that your stereotypical historic Catholic family, sans birth control and with 12 children, would be defined as one of the most successful species on the planet, no?

Of course, we all use anthropomorphic terms to make sense out of otherwise obtuse concepts, but my point was that it is the science that is in error, not the langage. Even the process of debating human origins points to the fact that you do not see yourself as an accidental accumulation of carbon. Either that, or you are an evolutionarily inefficient organism.

Fair enough; all your points are valid and noted. Word meanings do evolve, and as Darwinism has morphed from a science into a philosophy (even a religion, you might say) "natural selection" has morphed from a technical term into something meaning, "how the blind forces of nature are gradually improving us." That may not be the case among the inner circles of science, but that is how it is now commonly understood by the unwashed masses.

I hope you will agree, then, that every time a Darwin-espousing materialist wishes to juice up his text with action words, he makes an error every time he reaches from the list of "design" words, because they generally apply to human actions. It is not the fault of the thesaurus, but of the writer. If a weather reporter said that a hurricane theorized, postulated, and speculated a city to the ground, she would be reaching for some great and effective words, but ones that are horribly wrong in describing what she wanted to describe, revealing a great flaw in her process of thinking. However, in this case I think the Darwinists are on to something, they just don't recognize it.

Richard:

Thanks for the comments. I hope that progress has been made, and not just a lot of vitriolic vein-popping, as is sometimes the case. I have appreciated all of the feedback, criticism included, that has been posted thus far. On most of the above points, I will leave you to the last word. I do, however, have one bone to pick which is vital and foundational, and which cuts across the grain of almost all of the arguments.

You say that metaethics is not directly related to natural selection. I beg to differ! If all that we are is a function of natural selection, then how can it not be? How can we separate ourselves from the processes of our own development to analyze that development? When a person has a panic attack, a heart attack, or an aneurysm, he cannot coolly remove himself from it, and figure out how to cure himself. He is a part of the attack. Same with a dream. We cannot remove our minds from the dream to take notes on it and analyze it. Our brains, and therefore our thoughts, are a direct result of the forces and processes which formed it and govern it. So if everything in the cosmos, including our humble selves, is a result of nothing more than unconscious forces working against physical substances, then how are we any different? This consciousness you speak of is not "awareness," as we understand it, it is just a word that describes how the impersonal forces act upon one certain type of organism. "Awareness," given the above presuppositions, is a delusion - a beneficial one in terms of survival, but still a delusion. And we are not really debating right now, at least not in the ordinary sense of "debate," because there would be no such thing as independent thought.

One of the most tired ideas which is consistently repeated by evolutionists is that religious belief is only the outworking of the self-preservation mechanism; a psychological phenomena that allows creatures to somehow achieve a sense of self-worth and purpose. Wilson is one of the chief offenders in this category, and that is why I mentioned him. It never occurs to anyone that the secularist opinion, that humans are intrinsically special and should agree on some universal moral values, could be explained away by the same logic. Indeed, it makes even more sense. You say that there is 99% agreement among humans that we are valuable: of course there is! A successful species like ourselves could not get far thinking that we were moss to be trampled. But that is only animal self-preservation. You said as much yourself: "our brains were built to err--but err in a way that is more beneficial to our survival than erring in the other direction." But it proves nothing, and it especially does not solve the question of if there is any higher reason, outside of the selfish instinct toward self-preservation, that we are so special, or should observe ethics or morals of any kind.

We are conscious beings, and we are unique creatures in the universe. These things are assumed in the minds of secular Darwinists, because it appears implicitly and explicitly in their writing. The problem is, only the possibility of the existence of an intelligent, conscious designer can account for them. People don't need to come up with new words. They need to come up with new thoughts.

[Richard Carrier]

I don't believe in creating threads here, but I have to note that the bulk of your response seems to ignore my point that all these objections are already met by essays in our Morality and Atheism section, linked in my post above. You continue the same mistake, the same "A is just a B" fallacy, but you are right that even the scientists are making it, and that is--as I said--why I like your essay.

[Toto]

My guess is that Paul A. Dernavich was an English major. He likes to play with words and turns of phrases. But I think he is too much in love with his own language and knows too little about his subject matter.

Dernavich does have some valid points about the use of language by humanists. But for the scientific aspect of his topic, he appears to have read a few articles about evolution, and has picked up some inconsistency in language. But he rejects the attempts of various people with better science backgrounds than he has to explain the use of terms in science. He claims that because he cannot think of a better term than design or selection, that scientists are implicitly agreeing that there must be an intelligent designer behind evolution.

He refers to an article by Robert Wright in the New Yorker, but does not appear to realize that Wright is not a standard evolutionist, but has his own alternative theory of evolution described in his book "Non-Zero: the Logic of Human Destiny". (Dernavich might actually like this book.) He gives no evidence of having read any of the literature on Intelligent Design and its critics, or on the evolutionary aspects of morality. He can cite no evidence for Intelligent Design except that he thinks it is obvious.

Since people who argue for Intelligent Design are implicitly arguing that there is a god of some sort, I am not sure what this article is doing on this site.

A few things: Having skimmed Wright's book and knowing the main thrust of it, I had deemed it not worth my time. Ironically, I met William Dembski personally a few years ago in England, but, due to my ignorance, I had no idea that he was the one whose "Intelligent Design" ideas would make such waves. And I am familiar with most of the pro/con ID arguments, but I am not a scientist (or an English major, for that matter). However: science, you will agree, depends on philosophy (in the form of logic) for its success, and if your philosophy is bad, then your science will be bad, too. If you wrote an 800-page textbook on why reading is unhealthy, I wouldn't need to pore over every inch of text to know that there was something suspect about your conclusions.

You say he "can cite no evidence for Intelligent Design except that he thinks it is obvious." Not exactly. I think it is self-evident, which is far more important. You cannot prove that we have "consciousness," you can only assume it. Indeed, in trying to convince me that I was unconscious, you would have to assume I was conscious enough to understand you. And the scientists I quoted also hold as self-evident that we are conscious, aware, intelligent beings who possess some sort of transcendent purpose and should observe some code of ethics. The problem is that materialistic evolution, which describes how matter originated and changes over time, cannot account for any of it. I am all for the use of rich, paradoxical, contradictory word couplets. I use them all the time, and they are innocent. But I do not hold two contradictory dogmas.

_Darwinian Dissonance_ is perhaps the worst
article you people have posted to this website to date.

Consider the caricature of evolution Dernavich gave us:

"How does an intense awareness of my accidental existence better equip me for battle? Why do we consider compassion for the sick to be a good thing when it can only give us a disadvantage in our vicious eat-or-be-eaten world? Why would these traits emerge so late in the game, when one would think evolution would be turning us into refined, high-tech battle machines?"

It is apparent that Dernavich needs to bury himself in evolutionary psychology so he can understand that human consciousness is the by-product of an evolutionary process whose
main influence is the fact that humans are
social animals. Evolution does not
produce "high-tech battle machines." The vast majority of adaptations relate to things like mate selection, thermoregulation, fighting diseases, etc, not "doing battle." Moral traits are hardly maladaptive. If one depends on one's social group for survival, compassion is a really handy trait. Food sharing is so useful hundreds of species of social animals engage in it. Current research shows that animals behave in ways we would describe as moral, and display emotions. Where do we specify the boundary between humans and animals that would enable Dernavich to maintain that humans are special
enough to suggest the existence of a Designer?

The passage cited above also suffers from the fallacy of teleology: it thinks evolution is tending toward something (refined high-tech battleoids). It is not. Evolution is not "late in the game" because it is not going anywhere and has no cut-off point. It just goes on and on. It isn't moving toward refinement or anything else.

Furthermore, Dernavich falls into the trap of
assuming that evolution must directly account for everything. If I suffer from angst, it must serve some evolutionary function. But of course, this is absurd. The potential for empathy, sadness, anger and so forth is certainly evolved; animals closely related to humans show many similar emotions. But it does not follow that all examples of those feelings serve some adaptive purpose. Evolution equipped me to identify with larger social groups, but rooting for the Browns serves no adaptive function (alas, it is painfully maladaptive.)

Intelligent Design is so ridiculous it is hard to imagine any literate person taking it seriously. God's brilliant handiwork includes cows with four stomachs just to eat grass, eels that swim across half an ocean just to reproduce, and cheetah that fail 95% of the time they hunt. I wouldn't want this brilliant designer heading up my fabrication team. My learning disabled six-year old comes up with better animals than that.

Further, if consciousness is so important,
why did the Great Designer include it in
only a handful of species? Why are the most numerous species (krill, bacteria, cockroaches) entirely free of it? Why do certain humans suffer from congenital impairments of it? Why were other hominids
with consciousness, such as Neandertals, allowed to become extinct? Surely God's grace would not be strained to the limit by the existence of a second fully conscious
homind.

I could go on. It seems that the main purpose of this article was to provoke debate. A much higher level of writing
is needed to attain that goal, however.

Michael A. Turton

Regarding, "Darwinian Dissonance," it seems that if anyone is confused it is our contributor Dernavich. Of course, any attempt to express the ideas regarding evolution of life will be difficult and require the use of metaphor and analogy, and some neo-Darwinian writing certainly falls into the habit stating things as if some purpose were being served and some "intelligence" were hidden behind all the evolutionary happenings. But these problems have been adequately addressed by such pro-Darwinians as Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea) and Richard Dawkins in various books defending Darwinian evolutionary theory. The writing of neo-Darwinians is not at all as misleading and confusing as Dernavich makes it out to be. Moreover, it is the heighth of absurdity to suggest (as Dernavich does) that somehow our understanding of life's evolution will be helped by reference to a supernatural entity. How reference to a vague mystery helps anyone's understanding is beyond me, but maybe Mr. Dernavich can explain.

I am new to this site, but was nevertheless troubled to find this article here!

Dernavich implies the existence of some kind of a "divine or supernatural creator", while simultaneously accusing scientists in general (by referencing a bad one) of being confused and thus unable to clearly communicate their ideas.

But this is like the kettle calling the pot black.

What on earth is "divine or supernatural creator" supposed to mean?? Dernavich fails to clearly define just what on earth he implies by this bazaar collection of words, though at the same time he argues its existence.

Dernavich states "This is innocent embellishment, lazy usage, or a validation of Chomskyesque theories about the inadequacy of language.". Well if he´s going to refer to "divine creators" without any indication as to what he intends with this rather sloppy use of language, and if he´s not going to supply a single suggestion as to how such a being can reasonably contain within ITS existence any kind of a "higher purpose" which he demonstrates to be lacking within the process of evolution, is Dernavich not quite obviously displaying the same "lazy usage" which he accuses of Dr. Massimo Pigliucci??

Chomsky, I suspect, would most certainly agree!

http://warrenpreiss.tripod.com/quaestiophobia/

[This message has been edited by warren (edited February 02, 2001).]

Failure to recognize that the possibility of an intelligent creator answers many of the questions that the sciences are stupified about regarding human evolution is bad philosophy, and therefore bad science.

Unless you have a philosophical presupposition against the existence of a divine or supernatural being (which would make you quite unscientific), the phrase "divine creator" makes beautiful sense. Are you telling me you are unclear on the concept?

Whoa, there! You've got my point 180 degrees wrong: it is not I who thinks evolution is moving towards refinement or improvement, it is the Darwinian materialists. I know that a random and unconscious universe can only spiral into disorder; it is they who see some invisible hand of progress guiding things along.

As for the "current research" in evolutionary psychology: you will pardon me if I am not jumping all over the most recent, and therefore likely-to-be-outdated, trends, in a process that nobody has seen, applied to a field that can hardly be called a science. You are right about one thing, though. If our designer had foreseen that his 21st century humans would fail to see the significant differences between themselves and hookworms, and would think nothing more of their own brains than being a mutation from a pile of cosmic slop, then he may have given consideration to allowing a cockroach to become, let's say, the chair at Princeton University.

Dernavich wrote:
"Whoa, there! You've got my point 180 degrees wrong: it is not I who thinks evolution is moving
towards refinement or improvement, it is the Darwinian materialists. I know that a random and
unconscious universe can only spiral into disorder; it is they who see some invisible hand of
progress guiding things along. "

Turton:
Mr. Dernavich, YOU wrote that evolution is "late in the game." No evolutionist believes that there is a "game" to be late in. YOU wrote that "evolution would be turning us into refined, high-tech battle machines." Those phrases occurred in a series of questions that were attacking evolution, not explaining the viewpoint of its apologists. I apologize for my misunderstanding. Next time I'll read your mind and not your words.

Furthermore, what "random" universe? Evolution is a deterministic process. It does not "guide" things, it merely provides rules that specify how events might occur in the system. And you "KNOW" that it can only spiral into disorder? How do you know that? What great revelation was given to you that was denied to all other humans? Everywhere we look, the unconscious universe builds order through processes accessible and amenable to study by scientists. And nowhere do they find any empirical evidence for a great designer.

Dernavich…..
"You are right about one thing, though. If our designer had foreseen that his 21st century humans would fail to see the significant differences between themselves and hookworms, and would think nothing more of their own brains than being a mutation from a pile of cosmic slop, then he may have given consideration to
allowing a cockroach to become, let's say, the chair at Princeton University."

Turton:
On what objective basis can we claim that a human more unique, or uniquely unique, or more special, or more significant, than a cockroach or a hookworm? We have no objective evidence to conclude that humans are the crown of creation, we just think so. We have no objective evidence to conclude that human uniqueness demands a designer. If that is true, then we run into the problem that all species must demand a designer, since all species are equally unique. So humans are conscious and can talk. I can think of hundreds of plant and animal capabilities that are equally unique to certain species. We can't spontaneously change sex, but some animals can if the conditions are right. Are they more unique than us? If humans vanished from the earth other animals would go right on, unaffected, but if bacteria or krill vanished, the consequences for other species would be grievous. Are they more significant than us?

You keep claiming that humans are especially unique. Show me the objective basis of your reasoning. Tell me why I should regard the
significant differences between hookworms and humans as more important than those between,
say, hookworms and Ultrasaurus.


Michael Turton

OK, you nailed me on the first one. There is no game! And for the second one... have I come across an honest atheist? An honest materialist? An honest Darwinian? All three? If you could argue with a straight face that, because we are mutations from an unconscious and accidental universe, then we are not significant, self-aware, intelligent, or bound to act according to any moral or ethical code, then I would at least have to congratulate you on your refreshing honesty and courage (although I would say, naturally, that you were completely wrong).

Knowledge is contained in language. To speak of "human knowledge" is impossible outside the context of language. Without being able to express ourselves in a linguistic form, how could we even convey the concept of knowledge?

As a Humanist, I subscribe to the notion that human knowledge is not perfect, and one reason it is not perfect is because our language is not perfect. That is, sometimes it is very difficult, via language, to expressly convey what we wish to convey. Thus analogy and metaphor.

Dernavich is correct in his thrust that many scientists, and for that matter academicians of all sorts, are often careless or imprecise or short-falling in some way with the words they use to convey their concepts, but one must be very careful when one then chooses to "read between the lines" as it were, which is the essential error that Dernavich makes, in my opinion. Just because evolutionists may use terms that could be construed as implying an underlying belief in some "intelligent designer", it does not follow that evolutionists in general are masking their deep conviction that this is indeed the case. To me, Darwinian evolutionary theory continues to be the best explanation for how the earth's living creatures came to be as they are today, but nowhere in it do I find any room for "intelligent design". But I admit openly that I am no expert on the subject of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

One gripe I had when I took my first college-level biology course was the instructor's use of terms such as "the frog then developed the defense mechanism of being able to leap longer and longer distances as it's hind legs evolved into even more muscular forms" as if the frog had some conscious part in the evolutionary process. Of course this is not what the instructor meant; it was simply the case that this was the best way he could express it without becoming burdensomely scientific in every utterance. It was nothing more than the common useage of language. It was to be understood that he was referring to the genetic mutational process that was allowing the frogs with better hopping ability to out-survive and out-reproduce those frogs with inferior hopping abilities. He certainly never meant to convey that he thought that the frog itself was consciously assisting this process with some goal of becoming a master hopper. This I know because I asked him about it during his lecture, and he explained himself so.

I'll close with one of my mother's favorite sayings:

Be careful of the words you use,
Keep them soft and sweet.
For you never know, from day to day,
Which ones you'll have to eat.

Dernavich:
"OK, you nailed me on the first one. There is no game! And for the second one... have I come
across an honest atheist? An honest materialist? An honest Darwinian? All three? If you could
argue with a straight face that, because we are mutations from an unconscious and accidental
universe, then we are not significant, self-aware, intelligent, or bound to act according to any
moral or ethical code, then I would at least have to congratulate you on your refreshing honesty
and courage (although I would say, naturally, that you were completely wrong)."

Turton:
Once again you dodge the questions I wrote while simultaneously claiming I meant nonsense
I never said, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink (to quote one of my favorite essays) to cover its
tracks. My only point was on the significance of human beings. I said nothing about morality
and intelligence in my second response.

There is nothing inherently contradictory in lifeless matter producing life, or unconsciousness
producing consciousness. That is the state of affairs as we have it now, after all, with no
evidence of any great designer.

Since there is no evidence of design, if you want to claim that an unconscious universe could not
have evolved a conscious being, then it is incumbent on you to show why that it is impossible. We
KNOW it is possible, we're here and god is not. Bear in mind that if you demonstrate that the
unconscious universe cannot produce a conscious being, you will have demonstrated that it cannot
produce a god as well.

I happen to think humans are the crown of nature, but if aliens showed up and demanded to know
why I thought so, I'd be at a loss to supply an objective justification. I am pretty sure my cat feels
she's the crown of nature, too. How do I argue with her? After all, I'm the one working to keep
her alive.

Once again, I ask:

"On what objective basis can we claim that a human more unique, or uniquely unique, or more
special, or more significant, than a cockroach or a hookworm? ….You keep claiming that humans are especially unique. Show me the objective basis of your reasoning. Tell me why I should regard the
significant differences between hookworms and humans as more important than those between,
say, hookworms and Ultrasaurus."

I am still waiting for the evidence you claim is so obvious it is self-evident. Since it is self-evident,
evidence should be easy to specify.

Michael Turton
turton@ev1.net

You are right. The answers are tremendously easy! Biologically and behaviorally speaking, we are the most complex creatures on the planet, and also the most intelligent. If you don't agree with that, then it is not I who needs to buck up with the science textbooks. However, none of that makes us important. Materially speaking, we are no more significant than a roach, and that was the point of my essay. Why do so many scientists complain about genocides and injustices among humans when they clearly don't hold the other carbon-based life forms to the same standard? Mere composition doesn't make anything important; but more on that later.

As for your assumptions, they are gloriously wrong, and positively unscientific. You can't see a God, but stating as a fact that there isn't one is like stating that it can be proved that there is no animal life anywhere else in the universe. It simply can't. I trust you when you say that you don't believe in a God, but that is hardly the same thing. And I'd like one shred of evidence to prove that life came from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness, self-awareness from a primordial puddle. It violates every rule of logic and causality, no one has ever witnessed it, and the concept is ridiculous. Has your computer keyboard stopped working because of feelings of jealousy? Has a rock from your stone wall stood up and cried "I think, therefore I am?" We know what consciousness is, and what life is, but we do not know how either arose from particles of matter. If anyone could provide any examples of that, then the debate would be over, but they are conspicuously absent. Your belief, then, that thinking beings arose from nothing, is guided not by any empirical observation, but by your philosophical assumption that evolution is true. The tail is wagging the dog, and it is a thin, thin, tail.

If we are to agree that we are conscious, aware, and living beings, and "important" in any degree of transcendency, then those qualities must have originated somewhere else, or more specifically, been created by someone else. If something is "self-evident" then it is assumed to be true, and cannot be proven. You cannot prove to me that we are conscious, but the fact that you are thinking and forming an argument, no matter what the argument is, tells me that you are conscious. You have to use consciousness to prove consciousness; that's why it is self-evident. No more proof is needed, and the same goes for the fact that we are significant in the universal scheme of things.

Theories about our origins are unprovable; they can never be fully verified. Most religious claims are also unprovable; they demand belief in spite of evidence. Science, however, claims to deal with the provable; and yet, all of its ideas about evolution are unproven. It has failed to live up to its own standards. That is why, when Darwinian materialists dare to assert the nonexistence of any intelligent creator, it is lousy science, and they should be ashamed that it takes non-scientists to tell them so. Any questions?

Paul A. Dernavich's essay is amazingly well argued. But he wants us to what? To acknowledge our cosmic Bard? That is just the problem, there is no knowledge of a creator (cosmic Bard) for us to acknowledge. We do have knowledge of how natural selection works. (Dernavich's definition of selection notwithstanding--"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".) If there is a creator (a concept my feeble brain is too weak to comprehend), then to this point in human history at least it has been incapable of making itself known.

I think Dernavich argues quite successfully that there is a problem talking about evolution and design in the same concept, or even assuming there is any path to the evolution. Perhaps the way people talk about these things needs some better thought. But after people agree that evolution caused by random events and mutations cannot by definition (the definition of “random”) have a “design”, I don’t think the rest of the argument holds. Life on this planet is complicated, at least when compared to what human intelligence can understand. But complicated doesn’t necessarily imply purposefully created. The path of a river as it meanders to the ocean is complicated too, but can be understood as the natural result of a whole bunch of pre-existing conditions and some random events. The particular path it takes is, over geological time, is random within some boundary conditions. But that doesn’t preclude the fact that some path will be taken. Evolution doesn’t design animals. It does not necessarily follow that someone or something else therefore did. Perhaps it was just luck after all. Perhaps, by totally random processes, some other creature will replace us as the dominant animal in the future. Perhaps they will be as mystified by our fossils as we are by the dinosaurs. It does not necessarily have to be designed. Something will happen. Something must happen. Who we are just happens to be what did happened. Lucky us.

The metaphysical questions surrounding morality can’t be dismissed as too complicated for evolution (i.e. random processes) to develop either. Although it isn’t known whether most morals are “hard coded” or “socially acquired”, C. S. Lewis (a Christian writer) did argue fairly convincingly that most of them are common to all cultures. But a process that might happen upon the human eye through selecting the “most able to replicate” amongst creatures, may have been able to develop “honor thy father and thy mother” based on selecting the creatures most able to survive childhood. Dad is still too big to make really mad when you are young. Morals can be understood as “constructive to survival”.

Even the rape argument used by Dernavich is not strong. Another way to look at it, I think just as plausible, is that rapists in times past may have been very unlikely to survive. Most alpha males in the animal kingdom consider their mates something like property, at least so far as there might be a concept of property in the animal kingdom. A smaller male thinking to “rape” the mate of a stronger male might find himself considerably unable to mate at all in the future. Thus, adolescent males who do not do such things might have a much higher chance of growing strong enough to acquire and defend their own mates at some point. The argument for morals as a means of survival has not been fully defeated in my opinion. It is possible to think up cases where an individual might not survive due to moral choices, but the survival of the overall gene sample is usually better served by most moral scenarios.

For example, a single male tribe member suffers considerable risk of death if the tribe goes to war. However, if all the males in a tribe refuse to fight out of self preservation, and another tribe is willing to fight, the entire tribe is likely to be eliminated. Thus “defending one’s country”, even at the risk of your own life, can be an evolutionary advantage to the over all gene pool.

As a side note, I was watching a show about cuddle fish, and apparently forced copulation is quite common amongst them. Not sure how that helps…

So, although some of these questions are interesting, I don’t think the idea that things just arrived here by chance has been defeated, or even seriously challenged. Maybe that’s as complicated as it gets.

Speaking of apparent foul play, stating that you, Mr. Dernavich, are merely a ringside observer deserves a toot of the whistle! To the evolutionist or the creationist you fit in the picture perfectly. To the evolutionist you are 'succesfully' fulfilling evolution by the mere fact that you are living. To the creationist you are here to tell others your observation of the evolutionist' use of language and their contradictions. But enough about you. According to your argument, and it is just that, the evolutionist are not adequately explaining their beliefs. But we have not yet heard an adequate explanation from the creationist either. To say that because there is not enough evidence to support sufficiently either belief system is in itself a support of both! So there you have the paradox. How can both be wrong when both are correct. How can either be wrong when they are, in essence, the same thing! When the human race gets over picking which explanation is correct, it may be able to find the 'missing link'. And probably will, if either explanation is correct.

Much of this paper's argument centers around the idea that evolutionists think that humans are "special" or "successful" or "valuable". The author, Dernavich, is astounded by these claims. How can something have "value" without a goal setter? Dernavich is quite right - it can't. Nature has no purpose or agenda. Those are concepts that a fictional anthropomorphic overlord would possess. Naturally, they are also concepts that human beings possess. Therefore, when evolutionists speak of "value" they are couching it terms of human thought. This, I think, would be obvious to anyone not blinded by the antiquated notion of an Objective Value Setter.

Don't get me wrong: I don't buy the rape argument either. I heard them present their evidence and i thought it was weak. All I was suggesting was that from a theoretical point of view it makes sense, and that whet led people to criticize the theory was not initially the evidence, but the instinct that it just wasn't right: the instinct for a transcendent "ought," which Lewis says we have for a reason, and is not something acquired by mutation. Thanks for the feedback.

I wasn't trying to say that they couldn't explain their beliefs, but instead that their beliefs couldn't really be explained. And to say that because I cannot support either view with evidence means that both views are the same thing is not a paradox, it is a misunderstanding of something -- I'm not sure what, exactly. maybe a lot of things. But thanks anyway.

I want to respect Mr. Still's wish that the feedback forum not become a place for debate. However, if we are pointless creatures whose value depends only on our feelings about ourselves (therefore undercutting all talk about ethics or universal morals or respect for individuals, etc.), then why don't more evolutionists come out and admit that that's just what their opinions are: silly, wild, delusional, fantastical feelings?

Im not sure if this post is in the right place, but I'm responding to this, earlier reply by mr. Paul Dernavich:

"I want to respect Mr. Still's wish that the feedback forum not become a place for debate. However, if we are pointless creatures whose value depends only on our feelings about ourselves (therefore undercutting all talk about ethics or universal morals or respect for individuals, etc.), then why don't more evolutionists come out and admit that that's just what their opinions are: silly, wild, delusional, fantastical feelings? "

And why don't creationists?

Answer: because they are human.

What you describe, seeing science and our worldview as just "feelings" is relativism. The idea that humans cannot know objective truth, and that there is no objective morality.

Relativism is a difficult thing for the human mind to accept. We have an almost biological craving for the belief that we can control our world. This despite the fact that it is shown to us, time and time and time again that we can't have, or at least can't be certain that we have, definitive, objective knowledge. Viewpoints that go against your view of the world are hard to accept. This is why relativism is an idea which many people, including many evolutionists, find disturbing or ridiculous, or both.

The question for a relativist isn't "is this *the truth*?". He knows he can never be sure. The question for a relativist is "will this help me lead a better life?". To the relativist, thus, *everything* becomes "silly, wild, delusional, fantastical feelings". And there is *nothing wrong with that*.

The reason a relativist can still think creationism is a fairly outdated and bizarre idea is that it is quite clearly not helping our understanding of the world or helping us lead better, happier lives. Instead, it leads us to hold on to an idea which there is substantial evidence against, thus making our world-view self-conflicting unless we choose: science, or religion. Openness to new ideas is central to relativism, and the creationist view is quite obviously one which is not open for further ideas. The book is closed. This will, most likely, sooner or later bring creationists into trouble with the world.

Next, I must admit I feel extremely provoked at your heaping together of concepts when you say that relativism is "...undercutting all talk about ethics or universal morals or respect for individuals, etc."

1) Relativism does NOT undercut ethics.

Ethics are the study of how and why we act, and the principles on which we choose to do so. We do not stop acting, or deliberating over our actions because we cant have objective knowledge. Nor does Relativism cause you to have a smaller comprehension of ethics than objectivism. (And the same goes for evolutionism and creationism). On the contrary, relativists have the possibility to be much more honest towards themselves as to why they act. To insinuate that a relativist has no ethical awareness is deeply insulting.

2) Relativism does NOT undercut respect for individuals.

True respect for individuals does not, and should not, come from having certain ethical knowledge, or fear of God. It should, and does, come from realizing that other people are like you -individuals. That you should respect them so that they respect you. That you should make them happy, so that you too will be happy. Insinuating that relativists do not respect individuals, is as grave an error as saying that christians don't, because they only respect God.

What relativism does undercut is universal, objective morals. And if they don't help us live better, then good riddance to them.

Heraclitus, my friend: Not only does relativism undercut objective ethics, but it undercuts anything objective or universal, including your own statements. In other words, what you just wrote to me amounts to no more than your silly little feelings, which you contrasted to my silly little feelings, but neither feeling is more true --or closer to any objective truth, since you say there is no such thing -- than the other. You are not being a good relativist, either, by saying that creationism doesn't make people happy. If it does, then what is that to you? If there is no truth, then there is no error, either. Let creationists and evolutionists have their own views.

I doubt that you are a relativist, because the whole point of debating, which you willingly engaged in, is to get closer to some objective truth, by whatever means of proof you can provide. Relativism, by its definition, can only describe what you prefer: you prefer vanilla with chocolate frosting, I prefer chocolate with vanilla frosting. Are you telling me I don't like what I say I like? Can't you see how empty that is?

"Heraclitus, my friend: Not only does relativism undercut objective ethics, but it undercuts anything objective or universal, including your own statements."

Ah, now: you said "ethics". Not "objective ethics". These are two different things. I completely agree with you when you say relativism undercuts *objective* ethics. Ethical awareness without adherence to an *objective* set of ethical rules is perfectly possible. A relativist can be just as ethical as any christian, but for other reasons. I, for instance, am a utilitarianist, and follow a purely subjective ethical code.

As for my statements, I never said they were objective or universal. My statements are, of course, founded in me, a subject. Thus making them "silly" feelings held by myself.

"In other words, what you just wrote to me amounts to no more than your silly little feelings, which you contrasted to my silly little feelings, but neither feeling is more true --or closer to any objective truth, since you say there is no such thing -- than the other. You are not being a good relativist, either, by saying that creationism doesn't make people happy. If it does, then what is that to you? If there is no truth, then there is no error, either. Let creationists and evolutionists have their own views."

Why am I not being a good relativist by saying that creationism doesn't make people happy? You think a relativist should stop making statements because he doesn't feel them to be objectively true statements? Despite having come to the conclusion that relativism is the best world-view for me, I would still like to be able to move about and to do and say things.

Other than that, I completely agree. The point here should not be whether or not creationists or evolutionists are more right. We can argue that one viewpoint is more correct based on this and that piece of evidence or this or that way of viewing that evidence until we are blue in the face. Since the two parties are operating with two different, and mutually exclusive paradigms. The important things here are the subjective arguments and feelings of the debating parties.

What I am arguing is that creationism is a very unhelpful way of viewing the world. It does not help us interact with nature. On the contrary, it is often found to be hindering us. If it is not helpful, then it should be replaced by something more so.

"I doubt that you are a relativist, because the whole point of debating, which you willingly engaged in, is to get closer to some objective truth, by whatever means of proof you can provide."

No, it is not. The point of debating is to find a more useful way of viewing the world. A relativist would, and should, willingly engage in a debate. He would just not think that he was getting nearer anything like objective knowledge. What he would think is that he was, hopefully, making his way towards a more useful and productive world-view.

"Relativism, by its definition, can only describe what you prefer: you prefer vanilla with chocolate frosting, I prefer chocolate with vanilla frosting. Are you telling me I don't like what I say I like? Can't you see how empty that is?"

Yes. I do prefer vanilla with chocolate frosting (how did you know? ;o). If I may expand on your example, I also "prefer" being a relativist. I also "prefer" not living in a country where I can be arbitrarily arrested and tortured. I also "prefer" being an atheist to being a theist. I also "prefer" being a member of Amnesty International to not being a member. I "prefer" everything in life. "Likes" and "dislikes" seem to be petty concepts, but they are vast. Our preferances affect every action in our life, from the most petty (vanilla with chocolate frosting) to the most grave (what political party should I vote for? Is the death penalty a good thing or not? Should I be a christian?) Everything we do depend on our likes and dislikes. They are all we have to make choices with.

And of course I am not saying you don't like what you say you like. That would not only be self-contradictory, it would be quite silly. What I am telling you is that my silly feelings are telling me that creationism is sillier than evolutionism. And if I may say so, that is what all debate is trying to tell us. I feel evolutionism to be more helpful to me than creationism would be. If you feel otherwise, I will not condemn you on that account. I will, however, ask you that you allow me to hold my opinion as I allow you to hold yours, and that you allow me to critizise it as I allow you to critizise mine. That is how better societies are made. Through a debate over which world-views are better for us. If you find that to be empty, wouldn't all of life be "empty"? Wouldn't everything we said, did and thought be "empty"?

Btw: I notice that replies are not allowed in the feedback forum. This puts me in a bit of a spot. Where should I post if this debate is to continue after a reply?

Heraclitus: As far as where to put the post, I will leave that up to the moderators.

I do happen to think that creationism is more useful than evolutionism, and leads to greater happiness, so I am disappointed that you do not share that. As far as the rest of relativism, it works in a coffee shop where two philosophers are going at it, but is not a road-ready philosophy on any terms. It is obviously a poor guide when trying to found any civic culture or establish any ordered society. And although you say that debate is not geared to establish truth but to reveal a useful preference, well... as a relativist, if I decide to adopt a non-useful view, then what would you have to say to challenge that? If I wanted to poison my town's drinking water supply with rancid meat, what could you say to me except that you don't prefer that I do that? Elsewhere on the Secular Web, there are claims that evidence is there to be found and proven true. Relativism pretty much takes the gas out of any of that talk, or perhaps fills it with gas, depending on which metaphor you like.

Paul,

I have read your article entitled "Darwinian Dissonance?", as well as the replies/critiqes/whatever (along with your responses), finding much of interest and perhaps well worthy of discussion. As a (so far as I am aware) first-time visitor to "The Secular Web", and not armed with any sort of formal grounding in philosophy, etc, I shall limit myself to a discussion about something that, to me, is quite odd.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive dissonance.</font>

So, my impression of your article is that you want to show that people have a tendency to write/say things that literally or otherwise imply a different meaning to the one (we shall assume) they intend.

You create an example of two passages of text written in different styles:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">A. Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with each other at a single point in space and time. One cluster dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into its component elements.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">B. A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially motivated attack, according to Thompson County police. Reginald K. Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports, Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun. According to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.</font>

Following that you declare that to a Darwinist (if that is the correct term), the two passages could "absolutely" be about the same thing. At the risk of being self-contradictory in making the following assumption, here goes nothing...

If we assume that A and B are supposed to be about the same thing, and that B is not complete fiction or a transcription of fictitious or inaccurate eyewitness account (ie B is correct as we are led to believe it), then A is incorrect.

Jones and Carter (the "similar clusters of matter") are not so similar, and did not come "into physical contact". If you consider the bullet (and hence also the gun from which it was fired) part of the "Jones cluster", then it is incorrect to state that it remained intact.

Anyhow, what I am getting at is most people say things they don't exactly mean, including yourself (and myself - especially myself!). However, when something is written about how people use or abuse words, one would like to assume that any example offered was better thought out and free from such errors.

Cheers,
George.

George:

Your criticism is not off base, but perhaps you are faulting me on a technicality and missing my point. I am assuming that two humans are essentially the same in terms of their biological & chemical composition, at least more similar than a human and a piece of apple pie would be. And so the presence of a gun ruins that similarity for you. Fair enough; for me it doesn't. I suppose if it was a strangling it would be a technically more accurate comparison. But i don't think it obscures my essential challenge to Darwinists about why they speak in reductionist language about certain things, but refuse to use the same reductionist language in others.

My language is, admittedly, sloppy and often careless. But what I was ultimately trying to highlight, sloppily and carelessly, was not that evolutionists are too imprecise in their own language. It is exactly the opposite: they are very precise, and that precision reveals some significant problems with the concepts behind it. It is not the language I have a problem with; instead, the language is a vehicle that takes me to what I see to be a problematic idea.

After saying that his topic was not a quibble over language, he proceeds to quibble over language. It is true that scientists sometimes (often?) use more colorful imagery in their statements than is mathematically necessary in order to be more accessable to a wider audience. Seeking the "mind of God" for example or describing loosening a head bolt as "twisting this last stubborn guy". The "selection" in "natural selection" no more needs consciousness than does sifting sand or keeping things hot in a thermos bottle. The "purpose" of life is to keep living. It is built into the raw logic of being alive, not some plan of some white bearded guy. Yet we may easily say natrual selection promotes complexity.

[Mikie]

One of the other problems with language is that we tend to redefine meaning at the drop of a hat. I've debated evolutionists that claim that your definintion of evolution is incorrect. One evolutionist even went as far as claiming that evolution means nothing more than "change" and disupted my argument that the term "evolution" necessarily implies "advancement".

It's difficult to discuss a subject that seems to have no real meaning because it means so many different things to many different people.

[Bill Snedden]

It's difficult to discuss a subject that seems to have no real meaning because it means so many different things to many different people.

Yeah, kind of like "god"......

[Nonameyet]

One of the other problems with language is that we tend to redefine meaning at the drop of a hat. I've debated evolutionists that claim that your definintion of evolution is incorrect. One evolutionist even went as far as claiming that evolution means nothing more than "change" and disupted my argument that the term "evolution" necessarily implies "advancement".

And he was right. I challenge you to find one book about evolution that equates evolution with advancement. This is actually a mistake that creationists make all the time. This is due to the fact that in everyday life, the word evolution means advancing towards perfection, but that is not what it means in biology. Today's species are not better, or more advanced than older species. They're just different. Period.

[Chuck Rightmire]

In the most recent discussion I had with a creationist when I remarked that it was a faith-based belief system, the response I got was "so is science." (I was not the best spokesman that day.) But the point I want to make is that evolution is challenged today because people don't seem to understand what science is. They easily dismiss it as "just a theory." I want to ask them, I haven't had the chance yet, how they would like to sit on a nuclear bomb based on Einstein's theories while I triggered it (from some distance away). They do not understand that science is a method, not a belief, and that evolution is a science. And while I'm on the topic, I tend to agree with those who say that evolution does not lead to advancement, but it does seem to be leading to more complex results. The physical evolution of the universe that started with one or two elements is in the third generation stars with between 108 and 110 elements now known and named. Each is more complex in number of atoms and bindings and some are not stable enough to exist for any length of time. It seems to me that the fossil record indicates that living organisms have also grown more complex. And the results that have followed each cataclysm, such as the asteroid collisions, seem to have reached a more complex level than the preceding one. I think most of us who look at where humanity is today, or where the living world is, have to be convinced there is an increase in complexity which does not always seem to be an advance for the world as a whole.