Darwin and Social Darwinism
by BradfordJohn West authored There Is No 'Politically Correct' Science which appears at the Forbes website. He explores some offshoots of Darwin's thinking sometimes termed social Darwinism. The article begins:
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has been one of the most politically and culturally consequential ideas of the past 200 years. Yet many defenders of evolution do their best to downplay the connections between Charles Darwin and what might be called social Darwinism. Darwin, they insist, focused simply on the science; he was uninterested in the application of his ideas to society.
The link is here.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I like West’s concluding comments:
It raises a number of interesting questions. For example, why is there so much hostility towards anyone who raises any questions about the sufficiency, not only Darwin’s theory, but any modern naturalistic theory of evolution? And, how do TT’s “resident critics” see themselves? Fair and open minded? Or, absolutely convinced that an unguided and undirected natural evolutionary process is the final explanation of all biological origins?
Is evolutionary theory “proven” or still tentative?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 15, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
February 15th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
JAD:
That is a good question but we are unlikely to get frank answers from sources of the hostility. Talk about religious fundamentalism. The reactions of critics show the earmarks of that phenomenon.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
February 15th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Is that John G. West of Discovery Institute? That think tank famed for its fair and balanced treatment of evolutionary biology?
Comment by olegt — February 15, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
February 15th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
That's funny, here I thought every research biologist out there was busy raising questions about modern naturalistic theory of evolution. Its what they do, find the hard questions and try to answer them. Its just people who jump to a priori conclusions based on religious convictions that bother me.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 15, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
February 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Sure an intelligent designer could have seeded life on Earth, so if there was any shred of evidence to support that conclusion I'd be willing to accept it. So far I've evaluated all the arguments TT supporters have made since I started reading this forum and all I've found is humorous 'arguments'.
All knowledge is tentative, but evolution is perhaps the most strongly supported theory in all of science. Even most ID supporters have accepted evolution and instead focus on origin of life where there is currently no strong scientific theory.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 15, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
February 15th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
More of the usual propaganda and character-assassination from the Dishonesty Institute.
Does this have any bearing on the validity of evolutionary science? On the validity of ID? Is it anything but an attempt to instill the idea "Darwin was an asshole, so his theory probably stinks too"? It's straight out of Goebbels 101.
Comment by Raevmo — February 15, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
February 16th, 2009 at 7:07 am
You are mistaken that there is much hostility at all towards anyone who raises questions about the sufficiency of evolutionary theory. The hostility that some people have specifically towards Creationists and ID proponents is not because of what the Creationists and IDist propose, but because of the Creationists and IDists own hostility towards science.
Yes.
No.
Almost all people qualified to judge agree that it's as established as any scientific theory ever is.
Comment by don provan — February 16, 2009 @ 7:07 am
February 16th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Todd and Don responded to the following question:
“…why is there so much hostility towards anyone who raises any questions about the sufficiency, not only Darwin’s theory, but any modern naturalistic theory of evolution?”
Consider, without prejudice, the following comment:
It appears to me that this scholar (a non-creationist/non- ID’ist, by the way) is further suggesting that a particular philosophical perspective– scientism, materialism, or naturalism etc.– gets smuggled back into science. And that this in turn distorts the way one evaluates the evidence. Is this scholar being hostile toward evolutionary theory? Do you think that he has a hidden religious agenda? IOW does he have a legitimate criticism?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 16, 2009 @ 10:44 am
February 16th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Clever strawman portrait. yes, evolution is strongly supported. Yes most ID supporters have accepted evolution. What you ignore is the fact that most ID supporters don't believe in a purely naturalistic evolutionary process.
All of the pop-evo articles that show up in the New York Times, etc., bashing ID by showing how evolution occurred simply ignore the fact that that does not prove HOW it occurred, which is the entire argument. it's like convicting an accused murder by proving that the victim is dead w/o considering the evidence for the guilt of the defendent.
Comment by uoflcard — February 16, 2009 @ 10:56 am
February 16th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I don't get this out of this passage. It starts with "Philosophy is … infected…", not "science is infected…"
This passage doesn't appear to me to be hostile towards evolutionary theory. It seems more like the complaint is against the philosophical idea that valid scientific study is the only valid source of ideas.
No, I cannot detect a religious agenda, hidden or not, in this passage. One might call it a metaphysical agenda, I suppose.
He has a legitimate point, which is well worth considering. But, as with other things that have come up recently, if we call it a legitimate criticism, the we'd also have to say that it is a legitimate criticism to point out that religious beliefs are based on faith. Some people believe in God, some people believe in science, some people believe in both. I'm not sure being "critical" of anyone simply because they take one of those positions is useful.
Comment by don provan — February 16, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 11:28 am
The author of quote I provided above (“Philosophy is … infected by a broader tendency of contemporary intellectual life; scientism…”)is by NYU Law and Philosophy professor, Thomas Nagel, who openly describes himself as an atheist. It is hard, therefore, to argue that he is motivated by any kind of a religious agenda.
Recently Nagel gave some arguments that are quite supportive of ID, not only philosophically but also scientifically. Here is a brief summary from a Sept. 2, 2008, Evolution News & Views article:
How ironic. It would appear that Nagel strongly disagrees with the claims made by both Todd and Don: (Todd)“evolution is perhaps the most strongly supported theory in all of science.”
(And Don)“Almost all people qualified to judge agree that it's as established as any scientific theory ever is.” Why then is Professor Nagel still unconvinced?
Once again, it is his opinion that nothing comes close to establishing "the sufficiency of standard evolutionary mechanisms to account for the entire evolution of life."
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 17, 2009 @ 11:28 am
February 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
He's a philosopher, not a biologist.
ID does depend on distortion of the evidence and incoherencies in its interpretations.
As the statement refers to the complex historical unfolding of life over billions of years, of course, there are still questions. That's why scientists continue to investigate the details of that history.
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I don't have to distort anything. There are vast streams of data that has yet to filter in. Maintaining an open mind is the prerequisite.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Zachriel:
As a Philosophy and Law professor Nagel is eminently qualified to analyze different kinds of evidence, including scientific evidence. I think he also he is also very qualified to critique a theory in regards to its logical consistency and metaphysical preconceptions. Something that some biologists and zoologists have problems with.
For example, Ed Sisson in his article about Nagel compares the way police and DA’s use forensic evidence from an alleged crime scene to determine who or what might be the cause of the crime, if indeed there was a crime (after all accidents do happen).
Sisson then writes that:
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 17, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I guess he's the exception. Should we accept his verdict over almost all others?
Comment by don provan — February 17, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
JAD:
Being a professor of Law and Philosophy is by no means a sufficient qualification to be an expert on analyzing scientific evidence or scientific theories. Lawyers and philosophers usually know little or nothing about mathematics and statistics. Maybe Nagel is an exception, I don't know.
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
So in other words, Sisson's considerations beg the question. That's why he must pretend Sherlock Holmes has never heard of accidental poisoning in order to portray him as using chemistry to come to a conclusion of intelligent agent.
Perfectly true. And there is no such evidence in biology, which is why science currently rules it out. Present evidence, and everything would change. ("What else could it be?" is not evidence, in case you don't realize that.)
Comment by don provan — February 17, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Excellent point Raevmo. Now you know why it was unwise of lawyer Jones to decide what is science and what is not science.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Bradford:
Thank you. But Jones had a pretty easy job: he had expert witnesses and he only had to rule on the question of whether ID, as presented during the trial, is science or not. The testimony that a creationism textbook was miraculously transformed into an ID textbook simply by doing a (sloppy) search-and-replace made it even easier.
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
How do you evaluate such witnesses without training in "analyzing scientific evidence or scientific theories?" Gotta take their word for it?
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Bradford:
Not quite. You also take into account the answers to cross-examination and the expert witnesses of the other side. And then there are indisputable facts like the failed hoax with the search-and-replace.
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Jones' decision was the correct one. He had narrow grounds but a solid basis for ruling against the board. However he chose to legislate on a broader issue he is not competent to assess. The trouble with your answer is that cross-examinations are conducted by lawyers only on scientists called to appear before the court. Answers are in response to questions posed by lawyers and evaluated by a lawyer. Based on what we know about Nagel (his extensive writings) we can reasonably infer he is familar with expert testimony. Anyone capable of reading and comprehending original research shows an understanding of the work of experts. By the same token in copying to formulate his own decision, Jones' showed no indication that he was personally capable of understanding experts.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Our legal system is not completely broken in such a trivial way.
Comment by don provan — February 17, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Bradford:
Are you competent to assess his assessment? Are you a lawyer and a scientist?
Jones was perfectly correct in assessing that ID is a scam, a dressed-up version of "creation science". How else do you explain the fact that a creationism textbook was converted into an ID textbook simply by search-and-replace? One of your heroes, Behe, was involved with that textbook, wasn't he?
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Jones' decision was the correct one. He had narrow grounds but a solid basis for ruling against the board. However he chose to legislate on a broader issue he is not competent to assess.
Absolutely. The man is an efen plagierist.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Bradford:
That's a serious allegation. Can you back it up?
I'll ask again: how else do you explain the fact that a creationism textbook was converted into an ID textbook simply by search-and-replace? One of your heroes, Behe, was involved with that textbook, wasn't he?
Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
This demonstrates quite clearly that the answer is "no".
Comment by don provan — February 17, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
It's common knowledge that he copied most of his written decision. Sorry you don't like that dp. You can play elsewhere.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Raevmo, Larry Moran is a severe critic of ID and the author of this:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2...
I don't know the Behe answer.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I assume he's just talking about the fact that Jones found the plantiffs so completely right and the defense so completely wrong that large sections of his decision were nothing but the plantiffs' brief copied verbatim.
Comment by don provan — February 17, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
The courthouse janitor could copy verbatim and so could a schoolroom cheat. Real talent required.
It does serve the purpose though of eliminating the presumption that Jones understood the issues discussed.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
In other words, the only people qualified people, to evaluate and discuss evolutionary theory are biologists? People trained in other fields are incapable of understanding it? I presume that you think that you are someone who understands it. Otherwise, how could you even make a comment like that? Why didn’t you tell us you were a genius and only geniuses can understand evolutionary theory? I mean don’t they have special websites for only the mensa types like you? But that brings up another question, why even bother hanging out at TT with a bunch of IDiots in the first place? I mean after all if the IDiots are incapable of even understanding evolutionary theory, why bother?
I’m just following the logic out to it’s logical conclusion.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 17, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Obviously Raevmo does not believe this because he claims lawyers who listen to expert testimony are capable of rendering judgements. But that is exactly what Nagel has done. He is a well read man who reads the expert views of scientists. And he writes his own articles on the subject matter discussed. No need for him to copy.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Bradford is simply demonstrating his ignorance of judicial rulings. When lawyers file their findings their goal is for the judge to accept their statements directly into the final decision. This is just one more concrete example of ID thinking where they ignore reality and stick with their biases instead. Bradford apparently needs to belief this judge is incompetent for some reason. Maybe this is rationalization in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 17, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
That is incorrect. The parties to the lawsuit publicly submitted *proposed* findings of fact. The court determined that the plaintiff's findings should be entered into the record. These findings constitute approximately 16% of the decision and were somewhat modified, including footnotes and references to the witnesses who introduced the findings. It is not the job of the court to write an original text on science, and it would be inappropriate to do so.
plagiarism, to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source, to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
The court did not publish a scientific paper. It was asked by both parties to the case to rule on whether ID was science. After extensive expert testimony, and serious questions about the veracity of the defense witnesses, the court found conclusively that ID is not science. It can't be plagiarism, nor "efen plagierism", when the parties *asked* that the court adopt the proposed findings.
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Todd:
You're demonstrating your own ignorance. Of course attornys would love to have a judge copy verbatim what they write but the practice is frowned upon. A judge who does this forfeits the presumption that he understands the issues involved.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
February 17th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Attorneys always ask a judge to incorporate findings favorable to their client. That's what they get paid for. Good, thoughtful, judges are capable of and willing to write for themselves. Obviously what he did is not illegal but it does indicate that Jones is not the reknown thinker his supporters portray him as being.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
February 18th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Then it wasn't plagerism, as you had claimed.
Comment by Zachriel — February 18, 2009 @ 8:08 am
February 18th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Sorry, I meant "efen plagierism".
Comment by Zachriel — February 18, 2009 @ 8:33 am
February 18th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Bradford
It would be worth your while reading the comments on the post. Moran realises he was quite wrong (and is honest enough to admit it):
Comment by The Pixie Again — February 18, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:38 am
Yet many defenders of evolution do their best to downplay the connections between Charles Darwin and what might be called social Darwinism.
Well of course people don't want you to know about the connections between Darwinians and "social darwinism" aka eugenics. But there are many connections:
http://www.inbredscience.co.cc...
Ponder this way of thinking from Darwin Medalist Karl Pearson (Darwinism, Medical Progress and Eugenics):
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — March 23, 2009 @ 8:38 am