Jonathan Wells (2006) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washington, DC.Amazon
Read the entire series.
By titling his first chapter "Wars and Rumors", Jonathan Wells invokes a snippet of scripture in which Jesus describes the end times
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Matt 24:6
Wells uses such dramatic quotations and general martial language because the struggle between "intelligent design" and science is very much a culture war, at least to him and other creationists. In order to advance his thesis, Wells has to convey the idea that "Darwinism" pits itself against traditional Christianity: to allow pupils to learn it is to give them up to atheism, decadence, liberalism and to lose the culture war.
Note that Wells does not wage war against evolution. In fact, he is at pains to make it (somewhat) clear that he wages war against "Darwinism", which in context might sound like the sort of thing any sensible Christian would want to guard against. Unfortunately, Wells isn't exactly clear what he means by Darwinism as opposed to evolution. In this chapter and chapter fifteen, "Darwinism's War on Traditional Christianity", we find many references to "Darwinism". Assuming that even creationist words have meaning, let us set those invocations in series while adjusting the language only to merge them syntactically. Presumably there is consistency of meaning, and this will hopefully help us gain a greater understanding of what this nasty Darwinism thing is.
"[There] is a fundamental conflict here [but] it is not between religion and science, or even between Christianity and evolution, but between traditional Christianity and Darwinism. Although the latter may allow for the existence of a deity, [that deity would not be] the God of traditional Christianity" (p. 173). Darwinism differs from evolution because it explains "the origin of not just one or a few species, but all species after the first---in short, all the diversity of life on Earth" (p. 3). Wells does not disagree with evolution itself or even its attendant conclusions of descent with modification or even perhaps common descent; his objection is that scientists haven't found any direction to evolution (pp. 2,3,5). It is this failure to perceive direction in evolution that defines Darwinism, which might be considered unguided or undirected evolution (p. 6). This distinction between evolution and "Darwinism" is quite important because at some point after Darwin published his work, "Darwinism declared war on traditional Christianity" (p. 170).
Did You Know?
No scientific society has endorsed "intelligent design" as science.
Most scientists view "intelligent design" as religion.
Under oath "intelligent design" activists believe that ID is at best fringe science.
But Wells also writes, "[Intelligent] design is compatible with some aspects of Darwinian evolution" (p. 8). Note that he did not write "evolution" but "Darwinian evolution", presumably "Darwinism". According to the stated definition on page six, Darwinism requires a component of undirectedness or unguidedness---the idea that any apparent design must be illusory---to distinguish itself from mere evolution. So intelligent design, a philosophical perspective that makes evolution compatible with "Traditional Christianity" by imputing design and direction to its inputs or outcomes, is compatible with perspectives of evolution that declared war on "Traditional Christianity" and considers any perceived design in the outcomes of evolution illusory.
Confused yet?
One gets the distinct impression that, despite the time Wells spent pondering the material in his book, a better working definition for Darwinism would have been, "everything about evolution to which creationists like me object". This definition, unlike the one Wells offers, at least would have made sense in context.
Easily, one of the prominent faults of Wells's screed is a pervasive confusion between terms. Words, like "Darwinism" and "Traditional Christianity", seem to mean whatever Wells wants them to mean for that specific sentence. In many cases words are used without regard for his own stated definitions and usually without regard to usage elsewhere in his book. There are several possible reasons for this confusion in terms. First, Wells confusion may be by design. I have argued elsewhere that
creationists intend to confuse their audiences when they argue. Second, if you review the acknowledgements page, you'll read how Wells used many authors to help him prepare this text. It is possible that Wells's editorship was so insufficient that he allowed a term that makes up part of the book's very title to have a flexible meaning. My suspicion is that there was both disparity between the understanding of key terms by different authors
as well as an intention to confuse.
Wells doesn't spend a great deal of time defining intelligent design. This is in keeping with creationist strategy. As federal Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania noted:
ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Wells does not actually define "intelligent design" and thus does not lock "intelligent design" down into a form that could actually be scrutinized. Instead he chooses to list to list a few things "worth noting" about "intelligent design". Throughout chapters one and fifteen, Wells defends ID creationism as the sort of thing that "traditional Christians" should support. But in this section, presumably in an effort to accommodate the obvious imperfections in biological structures or the lack of justice or beneficence in competing organisms, Wells writes, "ID does not claim that the design must be optimal; something may be designed, even if it is flawed. When automobile manufacturers recall defective vehicles, they are showing that those vehicles were badly designed, not that they were undesigned" (p. 8). We here at the Thumb support Wells's freedom to believe in a God or gods of his choosing, but we aren't so sure that the consideration of God as incompetent is a feature of "Traditional Christian" beliefs. This is yet another example of words meaning whatever Wells wants them to mean.
The real meaning of "intelligent design", for the most part, is left unclear. Again, this is likely by design, since it is in keeping with creationist strategy:
One consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Indeed a popular talking point by creationists is that they need not necessarily have an alternative to "Darwinism" in order to know that "Darwinism" is wrong. (c.f.
Jeremy Paxman's interview with Ann Coulter around 2:00: "I can be a restaurant critic without opening up a restaurant.")
Darwin considered that the evolution that he was noting in organisms affected humans as well and that man had a phylogenetic history just like the beetles he was studying. It is instructive that this is likely Wells's biggest objection against Darwin. Wells quotes Darwin as writing,
There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the winds blow. [Although] I cannot look at the universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed design of any kind, in the details.
The reader will recall Darwin's previous intention to become a country pastor and his schooling in the ministry (short as it was) and impute sorrow to the words Darwin wrote above. Darwin mourned the lack of evidence of design in the evolution he discovered. Like all scientists with the courage to discard a favored hypothesis, Darwin had to admit to himself that which he would have preferred to not: there was no evidence of design in the world he was observing and measuring with the tools of science and what happened to the beetles and orchids was happening and had happened to humans and to our progenitor species as well.
The idea that man is an animal must be offensive to Wells, who appears not to tolerate any view of our specie's emergence other than an immaculate conception. What was Darwin's fault according to Wells? "He set out to explain the origin of not just one or a few species, but all the species after the first." What a scoundrel that Darwin was! One can almost hear Wells saying to himself, "Had Darwin simply stopped at beetles or orchids, that would have been one thing. But to suggest that even humans share a deep kinship with all the living things on the planet or that man is an animal as well? That's just beyond the pale."
Perhaps instead of reading
Genesis 1 so much, Wells should have read
Ecclesiastes 3.
Tune in tomorrow, when PZ Myers deals a mortal blow to Jonathan Wells's thoughts on embryos and development. (How may mortal blows can one hack take?) Those who visit
Pharyngula know that PZ has already posted
this portion of the review over there and the Thumb is poised to simply re-air his essay. Now you know what life is like on the West Coast.
52 Comments
Shalini, BBWAD · 26 August 2006
After being hit left and right when they tried to make a foray into "science", the IDiots are now left out in the cold playing silly word games.
*snicker*
Andrew McClure · 26 August 2006
Steven Carr · 26 August 2006
Should 'traditional Christians' support Wells's advocacy of the Reverend Moon?
Robert O'Brien · 26 August 2006
H. Humbert · 26 August 2006
"Directionless" evolution is objectional to Wells for one reason only: it makes god unnecessary. That's all he wants--one gap for his god to reside in. One momumental puzzler in which every man, woman, and child on the planet must throw up their hands and say "this can only have been caused by god."
Too bad his god, if he exists, left no such trace. God as a hypothesis is irrelevant, and my how that disturbs him so.
Burt Humburg · 26 August 2006
Andrew McClure wrote:
>>Is there anything specific which leads you to conclude that this in particular is the sticking point behind Wells objection to evolution explaining "all the species after the first"?
Yes. Wells knows that even the young earth creationist community supports the idea of descent with modification and natural selection. Even if they didn't, Wells thinks that those aspects of evolution need to be intellectually isolated from the more troubling aspects of evolution because they are more obvious, straightforward, or something. So, Wells goes on about how this or that narrow aspect of evolution is okay, as long as it is within species or limited or whatever. Then he drops the quote about Darwin about how he didn't just try to find the origin of one or two species, but all the species of the world. Horrors! A concept that worked for one organism worked for all of them and sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander!
Stephen Carr wrote:
Should 'traditional Christians' support Wells's advocacy of the Reverend Moon?
Dude, you are so totally scooping my review of Chapter 15: Darwinism's War on Traditional Christianity. (My review has been written for the better part of a week and I'm going to have to wait until we get to Chapter fif-freaking-teen before I can point this out.
But great minds think alike!
H. Humburt wrote:
"Directionless" evolution is objectional to Wells for one reason only: it makes god unnecessary... Too bad his god, if he exists, left no such trace. God as a hypothesis is irrelevant, and my how that disturbs him so."
I disagree with this, unless you're saying the logical and straightforward thing that to science, the God hypothesis is irrelevant. We humans are free to find all kinds of importance in things that may not necessarily be useful in terms of explaining and predicting observations in the natural world, i.e. doing science. John Edwards took his wife to Wendy's on their anniversary and Wendy's is special for them because it was the location of their first date. (Or something.)
k.e. · 26 August 2006
Pete Dunkelberg · 26 August 2006
I recommend to get the book, as I did. It's a great catalog of Disco talking points. Make your own notes on some chapters ahead of The Thumb just to see the comparison.
the pro from dover · 26 August 2006
The first person who used the term "evolution" to describe the progress of a "scala naturae" (geat chain of being) was Charles Bonnet a French neurologist of the early 18th century who was a natural philosopher and concurrent with Leclerc (Comte de Buffon). His complex ladder of progress was highly directional and progressive and very much reflected the original meaning of evolution which implied God intervening movement to preordained perfection. This is why Darwin resisted the use the term preferring the word "transmutation" which I think came originally from Lamarck whose scheme was also progressive but involved environmental mechanisms as well as God-given drives to complexity and spontaneous generation. Since ID advocates are so enamored with the 18th century and believe that American high school children need to be scientifically educated to compete in this century should it ever come back again it is no surprise that their resistance to "evolution" is much less than to "Darwinism".
AnthonyK · 26 August 2006
Although slightly OT, I can recommend the clip of Jeremy Paxton interviewing the hideous Ann Coulter (cited above). First question: "I've read chapter 1 of your book. Does it get any better?" Like Wells, she doesn't see it necessary to provide an alternative to evolution to overthrow it: unfortunately for the creationists that is exactly what they must do before we take them for anything other than the Christian apologists they are.
trrll · 26 August 2006
Seems like a further retreat from saying anything at all specific: They concede that maybe some species evolved from others, but insist that something, we can't say what, was designed, not necessarily very well, and they can't say by whom.
The ironic thing about the history of Creationism/ID is that as it has attempted to take on more and more of the trappings of science, it has become less and less scientific. Young Earth Creationism was actually a real scientific theory---it made all sorts of predictions about things like the age of rocks, the source of fossils, etc. They were wrong predictions, to be sure, but at least they were real predictions. "Scientific" Creationism at least predicted something like perfection of design, but it left them struggling to explain how the panda's thumb and the backwards orientation of the vertebrate retina were really examples of design perfection that we poor humans are just too stupid to appreciate. But with ID, they seem to finally have completed the evolution of Creationism from science to pure propaganda, having finally extirpated the last vestige of scientific content.
Jim Lippard · 26 August 2006
Wells is the member of a cult that believes that Rev. Moon is the Messiah. That also is not compatible with traditional Christianity (though it has apparently been acceptable to evangelical Christians interested in Moon's money, like Tim LaHaye and Jerry Falwell).
Wesley R. Elsberry · 26 August 2006
As I recall, Wells's "second denial" was to join up on Peter Duesberg's list of people who dispute that the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS.
Ken Baggaley · 26 August 2006
"is Augustinian Catholicism thus incompatible with "the God of traditional Christianity"?"
According to literalists, yes. Only THEY have the correct interpretation of scripture - and it's in Jacobean English.
H. Humbert · 26 August 2006
Julia · 26 August 2006
The notion of God as incompetent may not be a feature of "Traditional Christian" beliefs, but it does seem to be a feature of the teachings of Moon. Wells doesn't promote just ID; he promotes a specific view of the Designer that supports his own personal religious views, views that would likely be deeply offensive to most "Traditional Christians" if they understood what he is saying.
Larry Vescera · 26 August 2006
Why do your reviewers find it necessary to resort to so may half truths and distortions to refute his arguments. You would do better to stick with the science. If the facts are on your side stick with the facts and cut out the bullshit.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 27 August 2006
DragonScholar · 27 August 2006
So a guy who's a member of the Unification Church is talking traditional Christianity? Truly rich.
I've wondered if playing up Well's association with Moon would be a useful tactic - to indicate that a man who talks about Christianity doesn't follow what most Americans would consider traditional.
Sir_Toejam · 27 August 2006
Sir_Toejam · 27 August 2006
oops, sorry, that should have gone on the Kennedy thread.
Burt Humburg · 27 August 2006
Larry Vescara wrote:
>>Why do your reviewers find it necessary to resort to so may half truths and distortions to refute his arguments. You would do better to stick with the science. If the facts are on your side stick with the facts and cut out the bullshit.
I'm with Wesley, Larry. Name one.
Because I note that you could have written those words without even reading the essay. There is no indication in your words alone that you were referring to my work and not to, say, Oliver Stone's JFK.
Pick an issue and let's discuss it. Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on.
BCH
Wing|esS · 27 August 2006
"The reader will recall Darwin's previous intention to become a country pastor and his schooling in the ministry (short as it was) and impute sorrow to the words Darwin wrote above. Darwin mourned the lack of evidence of design in the evolution he discovered. Like all scientists with the courage to discard a favored hypothesis, Darwin had to admit to himself that which he would have preferred to not: there was no evidence of design in the world he was observing and measuring with the tools of science and what happened to the beetles and orchids was happening and had happened to humans and to our progenitor species as well."
I think the advances in science after the death of Darwin actually make the design argument harder to refute. Darwin himself was unaware of the difficulties of attributing all design to natural selection. Quoting a 150 year scientist, no matter how renowned, isn't an accurate representation of the state of the evidence today due to the rapidly increasing pool of scientific knowledge. I think the current state of evidence is as what former Atheist Antony Flew observed just a few years ago:
"I think that the most impressive arguments for God's existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. . . I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it...
...It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
We live in a changing world. I think that support of Intelligent Design will get stronger, and may eventually overthrow the current dominating sceintific paradigm of Naturalism. As some people say, "Science is self-correcting". We should just come to whatever conclusion the evidence suggests.
Shalini, BBWAD · 27 August 2006
[We should just come to whatever conclusion the evidence suggests.]
So, where is all your so-called evidence to support your raving gibberish above? Why wasn't there any evidence for 'design' at the trials where the IDiots got their asses publicly kicked over and over again?
Burt Humburg · 27 August 2006
>>We live in a changing world. I think that support of Intelligent Design will get stronger, and may eventually overthrow the current dominating sceintific paradigm of Naturalism.
Naah. With every scientific discovery, we end up with more questions than answers, and that is the beauty and not the curse of science.
Think about fossils. Two organisms, A and C, are known. Creationist says, "How did A become C? Haha!" Then scientist finds fossil B. Then creationist says, "How did A become B or B become C? Haha!"
So it is with ID. Twenty years ago, I guess, we didn't know diddly about the flagellum. Because we didn't know about it, it was design. Then we learned that it has a portion that works well as a hypodermic (well, hypomembranic) needle. Because we didn't know about the origin of *that*, it was design.
Science has a well-recognized history of taking these little creationist challenges and overcoming them. Of note, seldom are these challenges taken on because a creationist challenged them to answer a particular question. Rather, the answers arise in the normal day-to-day business of science. I'm sure the authors who described Pakacetus didn't even know who Behe was, but when they did with his idea that the lack of transitional fossils in whale lineages represents intelligent design what Schwartzkopf did with the Iraq military in Desert Storm, they were just doing their jobs.
Your perspectives that with time and as new mysteries are revealed ID will strengthen is ahistorical. We might salvage your proposition by pointing out that ID creationism does tend to dwell in ignorance. Thus, as we learn more and more about the world, and ask many more questions than we even knew to ask, ID creationism will always exist as an excuse to not do the hard work of science. It will always be more simple to (I'm writing this as a theist) mindlessly invoke GODDIDDIT as your answer.
I think that's unbecoming of scientists who are Christians, at least to the extent they are trying to do science.
BCH
stevaroni · 27 August 2006
Darth Robo · 27 August 2006
Ahh, Wing|esS, ever trying to fly, forever flopping flat on his mush. Maybe if you keep working on that 'natural selection' thingy, you may one day. ;)
"I wish I could fly - right up to the sky, but I can't." - Orville.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/littlebritain/images/gallery/orville.jpg
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 August 2006
Anton Mates · 27 August 2006
Anonymous_Coward · 28 August 2006
Popper's ghost · 28 August 2006
Kristine · 28 August 2006
So evolution is okay, as long as it isn't "directionless"? By what mechanism could evolution be any other way? And why is directionlessness so automatically incompatible with "the God of traditional Christianity"?
Because, Andrew, directionlessness depends upon the contingencies of circumstance (random mutation, time-lag, etc.).
This is, in essence, the bugaboo for the ID advocates. Dembski, upon hearing a statement about randomness by Persi Diaconis ("We know what randomness isn't, not what it is,") had his epiphany that randomness is derivative of design, design being for him the more fundamental concept. Design is all about explaining, or at least putting into a larger context, randomness.
Wells, Dembski, and Behe argue that randomness is only apparent, and that design, which Dawkins argues is only apparent, in fact isn't.
That's the issue. Now, why is this the issue?
I have heard plenty a theologian state that randomness could be built into the universe by a Creator. That apparently is neither emotionally satisfying nor theologically correct (notice how quickly we slip from "science") for Wells & Co., but I can't exactly discern why. I do think, at least in Dembski's case, that ID is a sort of mysticism for him, by which he seeks to understand God's mind, or at least to make neato discoveries, along the lines of chaos theory perhaps.
He's barking up the wrong tree, of course; randomness is no more "derivative" of design than turbulence is derivative of engineering. I see no reason why randomness in mutation or in environmental change should lead to so-called "purposelessness" or "meaninglessness" in one's personal life, but that is how it is articulated for the average reader (for whom this book was written, and who really couldn't care less about science except as a rubber-stamp for personal issues). All of this has nothing to do with the scientific validity (or lack thereof) of Wells' argument, but is shoe-horned in along with their "science" by the fear-mongering/guilt-trip so readily employed by these people.
Cara Lewis · 15 September 2006
"First, Wells confusion may be by design. I have argued elsewhere that creationists intend to confuse their audiences when they argue."
Not unlike yourself, I might add. So far, you have been about as clear as primordial soup.
"We here at the Thumb support Wells's freedom to believe in a God or gods of his choosing, but we aren't so sure that the consideration of God as incompetent is a feature of "Traditional Christian" beliefs. This is yet another example of words meaning whatever Wells wants them to mean."
"Incompetence" is your interpretation primarily b/c your understanding of God and theology is so limited.
"Indeed a popular talking point by creationists is that they need not necessarily have an alternative to "Darwinism" in order to know that "Darwinism" is wrong."
Kind of like the Democrats constant criticisms of the "war on terror" but their utter lack of any substantial solutions and/or alternative defense.
Well, that's about all that I can take this evening.
Steviepinhead · 15 September 2006
Subhash Garg · 23 September 2006
I'm an engineer perpetually rejected as a juror because I'm too logical, with a Ph.D., meaning I am a non-expert but have a passion for science and rational thought. Anyway, my objection to ID is that a super-intelligent being could not have designed a violent, superstitious and cannibalistic species like homo sapiens. Why would God assert herself by purposefully modifying evolution in order to end up with flawed creatures - and then put them at risk with bacteria, viruses, prions etc. ? I think the Christian creationists need to admit that their God is malevolent before they push ID. Either that, or allow the devil equal time in the ID game. The Vatican cleverly sidestepped the issue by allowing scientists to study and draw conclusions freely about the reality created by their God. That's too smart for the ID dummies.
Secondly, I don't understand the singular focus on Christian creationism and ID vs. evolution. There is a pretty detailed creation story in Hinduism as well, but you don't see Hindus getting all worked up over evolution. I think part of the problem is that everyone in the Christian tradition - including the scientists - insists on literal truth of the written word. On both sides (science and ID) there can only be absolute truth, or that lack of it. Why can't there be partial truth in each camp? Or why can't the two approaches be alternate (but not necessarily equally valid or equally useful) explanations of the same thing? That would be a Hindu strategy. Anyway, my point is that I can see merit in mentioning - and debunking - ID in science class.
Nobody · 28 September 2006
Darth Robo · 28 September 2006
"Conflating ID with Creationism."
'cdesign proponentsists.'
Heck, what am I worried about, after all, nobody said it.
Anton Mates · 28 September 2006
highlander · 6 October 2006
It is my persoanl belief that before anyone totally disenvows the idea of creation, he/she should take time to study the bible and its' history. The bible, translated from the deadsea scrolls, was written by 400 men over a period of 1600 years, and here is the kicker. Every part of scripture points to two main ideas. Either looking forward to the coming of the CHRIST or looking back on the life of CHRIST. In each instance by each writer, there is a hint of the creation account.
What is th likelyhood of 400 men, talking about the same (idea) and having it all intertwine to tell the same story? Most scientist can't even do that on carbon dating, which is just a viscious cycle of reasoning. Think about it for a minute. To say that a fossil can be accurately dated by the layer it is found in, and then they say they can know the date of the layer by the fossil found in it. That my friends is circular reasoning if I ever saw it.
But creation is told in the same sequence of events each time you read it in the scriptures. One more thing for those who might be interested. Check out this web site....drdino.com , or creationscienceevangelism.com
Thank you for your time.
highlander · 6 October 2006
It is my persoanl belief that before anyone totally disenvows the idea of creation, he/she should take time to study the bible and its' history. The bible, translated from the deadsea scrolls, was written by 400 men over a period of 1600 years, and here is the kicker. Every part of scripture points to two main ideas. Either looking forward to the coming of the CHRIST or looking back on the life of CHRIST. In each instance by each writer, there is a hint of the creation account.
What is th likelyhood of 400 men, talking about the same (idea) and having it all intertwine to tell the same story? Most scientist can't even do that on carbon dating, which is just a viscious cycle of reasoning. Think about it for a minute. To say that a fossil can be accurately dated by the layer it is found in, and then they say they can know the date of the layer by the fossil found in it. That my friends is circular reasoning if I ever saw it.
But creation is told in the same sequence of events each time you read it in the scriptures. One more thing for those who might be interested. Check out this web site....drdino.com , or creationscienceevangelism.com
Thank you for your time.
alex · 11 October 2006
this site sucks!!!!
Steviepinhead · 11 October 2006
--but only because evolutionary science abhors the vacuous.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 11 October 2006
Michael Suttkus, II · 11 October 2006
Alex has convinced me that evolution makes no sense and creationism is the way to go. Thank you Alex for the clearing that up for me. The depth and precision of your arguments is truly breathtaking.
Anton Mates · 11 October 2006
Joe · 20 October 2006
Haa, you guys make me laugh! One day you'll see the truth. In the words of Malcolm Muggridge, "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future."
and Ernst B. Chain, nobel prize winner in physiology "I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.".
M.A. · 26 December 2006
I preface with: I believe in Evolution! Not only that, I love the idea. It gives me comfort.
Many of people's comments here pretty intellectual, and above my head. Ergo, natural selection... as I won't be able to keep up with any convoluted argument.
My personal viewpoint is that Evolution has direction, just no apparent direction or "end-point" in mind.
It seems that it is Mutation that is directionless. Changes in genetic structure may cause chemical or physical changes that that are Either good or bad in one's environment.
Survival of the Fittest / Natural Selection allows traits to be repeated in subsequent generations that best allow species to survive in one or in numerous environments. Changing environments probably induce the greatest selective pressure.
What makes Evolution appear to have direction... We can see the value of characteristics as selected for in the past, in the same way as the proverbial "Monday-Morning Quarterback".
bill · 31 December 2006
Is it just me...or do most of you take it on faith that evolution is indeed flawless? Or are each and every one of you doctorial candidates in biology? Just wondering...I mean since you have such a dismal view on people who have views other than your own, one would wonder where you yourselves formed your views? certainly not on "faith" in what you've read, right? You've all done actual study into evolutionary theory beyond reading i in a book, yes?
MarkP · 31 December 2006
It's just you.
Richard Simons · 31 December 2006
stevaroni · 31 December 2006
Steviepinhead · 31 December 2006
Well said, stevaroni!
Happy New Year!