Darwinism, What's the Appeal?
by Steve PetermannApparently there are evolutionists who are now wanting to distance themselves from the term "Darwinism". See Denyse O'Leary's site here and William Dembski's here. Does this bespeak the end times for the label and the paradigm with it? Will it just go quietly into that good night, displaced by some new non-telic flavor of the month? I don't think so. Why? Because it is such an appealing framework for the many who advocate it. But what's the appeal?
The first appeal of Darwinism is that it seems to fit the data. Granted, the sketchiness of fit is extreme, but even with this profound incompleteness it still offers an air of legitimacy for those who adopted it. This is important to proponents for whom scientific theories hold the same categorical importance as scripture does to the literalist.
Once that first appeal is granted then comes the major payoffs. It satisfies the palettes. The first palette to satisfy is a longing for a non-telic and perhaps atheistic or deistic worldview. The notion of random mutations satisfies that palette mightily. No purpose, no goal, just blind forces eventually stumbling on something that can persist. And it is so simple. Who can argue with it? Who can falsify it? Impenetrable, locked in. (Supposedly)
Next comes an even bigger payoff, power. The palette for power is satisfied by the concept of natural selection. This offers Darwinian proponents an infinite power to claim explanation for everything. (Daniel Dennett calls Darwinism the universal acid). Just think, not only has Darwinism locked down a non-teleology, but now it also provides for an unlimited power to explain the emergence of everything from hair color to altruism. How cool is that? What an appeal!
Now there are and will continue to be new non-telic theories on evolution that challenge the Darwinian model, but will they be as appealing? I don't see how. As in parsimony, Darwinism seems the simplest solution to satisfy the non-telic, power hungry palettes. New theories will inevitably be more complex, harder to explain everything, and less of an assumed lock on non-teleology. They just won't be as appealing. Because of that Darwinism won't soon go quietly into that good night.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
A much lower percentage of Darwinists wish to distance themselves from the term "Darwinism" than the percentage of IDists who wish to distance themselves from the term "creationism."
In fact, in absolute numbers, I'll bet those fleeing the creationism label outnumber the biologists, too.
Did you catch the recent court settlement in California? A fellow who was advocating some form of anti-evolution stuff be added to a school district's curriculum sued for slander when he was accused of using creationist material — and he got a settlement! No biologist has claimed it's defamatory to be called "Darwinist," yet, but we know now it's defamatory — that is, akin to being labeled a felon — to be called a "creationist."
Darwinism isn't going away, just as gravity isn't.
Comment by edarrell — July 27, 2005 @ 4:23 pm
July 27th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
Edarrell said:
Please, edarrell, tell us the cause of gravity… please? I've been waiting on that one for a coon's age!
Comment by Joy — July 27, 2005 @ 11:02 pm
July 28th, 2005 at 10:07 am
edarrell, you need to get your facts straight but I suspect, you are actually not interested in what happened in California because you already made up your mind.
Comment by inunison — July 28, 2005 @ 10:07 am
July 28th, 2005 at 11:18 am
edarrell,
I don't know what your point is with the numbers but I would suspect that there are at least two prominent reasons to distance oneself from a label. First, if the label seems to misrepresent the person labeled then that person would more than likely not want it used. Secondly, if the label has a perjorative sense about it then the person might not want it used even if it did accurately characterize them.
I would doubt that there is much mislabeling of scientists as Darwinists, but the seeming carte blanche use of the term "creationist" to anyone friendly to ID certainly mislabels many of them. While there are variations of meaning associated with words, for any given word (label) there is still a predominant meaning within a given culture. There can be no question that the predominant meaning, at least in the US, of "creationist" is the likes found in the dictionary:
That being the case it is no wander that those who do not interpret the creation account of the Bible literally would not want to have that label applied to them.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 28, 2005 @ 11:18 am
July 28th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
"I don't know what your point is with the numbers but I would suspect that there are at least two prominent reasons to distance oneself from a label. "
Agreed, and consider, even if true, how almost rude to say, though deserving, "atheist scientist Richard Dawkins". "Atheist scientist Sean Carrol" wrote a book on evolutionary biology. Would Shanks welcome references to him in peer-reviewed journals as Evolutionary Atheist Niall Shanks who promotes Darwinian Atheism. "
Atheist Scientist Carl Sagan invites you people to see his movie Cosmos where he promotes his Atheist agenda." Or how about: "Ken Miller joins forces with the Christian-hating Dawkins." Indeed, even if the labels are true of these individuals, protocol would demands a little restraint in the usage.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 28, 2005 @ 3:13 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Why not "Christian and scientist Charles Darwin?" Why not "converted Presbyterian Dr. Francis Collins?"
It's not that the labels are unfair, it's that they are generally irrelevant. Creationists are creationists whether they are the diminishingly small group of Christians who cling to the ideas, like ID-guru Phillip Johnson and ID-star Jonathan Wells, or whether they are the odd science bashing sorts who plague science from an Islamic perspective in Turkey.
My point with numbers is that there are few scientists, if any, who "want to distance themselves from Darwinism," as the lead article indicates. In percentages and sheer numbers, there are many more ID creationists who wish to distance themselves from creationism.
The author asks whether the imagined distancing from "Darwinism" "bespeak[s] the end times for the label and the paradigm with it?"
Well, ask not for whom the paradigm tolls. It tolls for thee. It is IDists who are doing the distancing.
Comment by edarrell — July 31, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Joy, gravity is carried on gravitons. Within the past two years it has been determined that gravitons travel at the propagation velocity of all electromagnetic energy in a vacuum (the "speed of light," in colloquial terms).
This information leads to some wonderful questions: Do gravitons have mass? In which direction do gravitons flow? Can gravitons be blocked? If they are blocked, is the effect of gravity also blocked? (Seems to be a "duh" sorta question, don't you think?) How do gravitons relate to gravity waves?
The reality is that we have a lot more information about evolution than we have about gravity — and we can manipulate the "particles" of evolution to change things. We're a long way away from such tricks with gravity. We can directly measure evolution, but we can't directly detect gravity, yet.
It's an exciting area of science. Were we to be consistent, if we teach that there are problems with Darwinian theory and that it may not be true, we should do the same with gravity, don't you think?
Comment by edarrell — July 31, 2005 @ 3:11 pm