No baboons among the family relations
by MikeGeneLet me pick out a little appetizer from Fodor's essay to further confirm one of the points I have argued:
What used to rile Darwin's critics most was his account of the phylogeny of our species. They didn't like our being just one branch among many in the evolutionary tree; and they liked still less having baboons among their family relations. The story of the consequent fracas is legendary, but that argument is over now.
Fodor nails the very reason why so many people are creationists. In fact, I'd bet that most creationists would be willing to embrace abiogenesis, invertebrate-to-vertebrate transitions, fish-to-amphibian transitions, and even reptile-to-mammal transitions, as long as the same science also made it clear that humans did not evolve; that there are no baboons among our family relations.
This is also why the critics are intellectually sloppy when they insist that someone who accepts human evolution is also a creationist.
Well"¦'sloppy' is a nice way of putting it.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Mike - talking of sloppiness:
Who are "the critics" Critics of what? Fodor, ID, Creationism?
Are you saying that some people claim "if you accept human evolution then you are a creationist?" - this seems a bit unlikely
If not, what exactly are you claiming?
Comment by Mark Frank — October 17, 2007 @ 1:36 am
October 17th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Mike's last comment could better be phrased as "they insist that even someone who accepts human evolution can be a creationist."
And this is correct. For years, critics have been calling Behe an "ID creationist", despite the fact that he accepts human evolution. Mike and I are also frequently the target of that accusation, despite our acceptance of human evolution.
Comment by Krauze — October 17, 2007 @ 2:13 am
October 17th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Well that's clearer - thanks.
But surely it is true that "even someone who accepts human evolution can be a creationist"
As I understand it creationism means the believe that God (whatever that is) had an an essential role in the creation of life and in particular humans. This believe is compatible with humans evolving from non-human life forms. In fact it would be sloppy to hold that "X believes that humans evolved, therefore X cannot be a creationist".
Comment by Mark Frank — October 17, 2007 @ 2:42 am
October 17th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Why don't all the creationists just raise their hands so we know who they are once and for all?
But, Rock, maybe they don't know they are creationists.
And maybe they are too embarrassed to admit it!
Look, as an evolutionist, with little sympathy for religion, I am unembarrassed to recognize my (our) indebtedness to the creationists who have made contributions to evolutionary science (and science in general). As a creationist you don't have to apologize to me, or feel embarrassed to admit it. LOL
My question is, What have ya done for me lately?
(It's a rhetorical question. [Insert simian hooting sounds here.])
Comment by Rock — October 17, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Rock:
What has the recognition of molecular sequence similarity, used to infer the history of life, done for you lately? Natural history is not a prerequiste to human progress.
Comment by Bradford — October 17, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I'll assume that is a rhetorical question, Bradford [Insert heavenly choir here.].
What has sequence similarity, used to infer that God created life according to a Master Plan, done for ya lately?
"Natural history" is the invention of creationists, not evolutionists, Bradford. (How's that homework comingalong?) But its fair, evolutionists can be fairly criticized for not recognizing that, maybe in some instances, there is the possibility for true innovation, not dependent upon a past history.
Comment by Rock — October 17, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Nothing and that's the point I made a few years ago when I was new to this stuff. When I wrote that the history of life is unimportant I was taken aback by reactions meant to assure me of the essentiality of evolution to scientific progress.
It's another example of cooption only this one is demonstrable.
If you know nothing of the ancestry of an organism you can understand hypothetical scenarios based on genetics.
Comment by Bradford — October 17, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
October 17th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Hi Mark,
Why would you think that? I have never met a creationist who believes we are genetically related to baboons.
Since I have made it clear (from the Related Reading link above) that this is about attaching labels to other people, your personal understanding isn't all that relevant.
You are not dealing with Fodor's observation. Fodor didn't write, "They didn't like there being no role for God in our branch in the evolutionary tree; and they liked still less that God had no role in having baboons among their family relations." That is not the problem the creationists have. Fodor nails the problem: "They didn't like our being just one branch among many in the evolutionary tree; and they liked still less having baboons among their family relations."
You seem to think that creationists think human evolution is some trivial throw-away point that can be embraced or rejected; all that matters to the creationists is whether God has a role to play. If so, you really don't have a good grasp on creationism. My point demonstrates the better grasp:
Comment by MikeGene — October 17, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Mike
In the end this all comes down to a definition of creationism. Let's leave out my understanding. The Stanford encyclopedia of philiosophy defines it here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...
It differentiates between:
"At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be constantly involved ("˜immanent') in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. "
which makes no mention of a special status for humanity
and a narrower definition
"Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth (Numbers 1992)."
which still doesn't give humanity a special status but probably implies such a special status.
Wikipedia has a table of types of creationism which includes intelligent design and even theistic evolution.
You seem to be imposing your own definition of creationism which makes it necessary to include the belief that humans did not evolve form animals. I don't see why your personal definition is relevant.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 18, 2007 @ 1:43 am
October 18th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Mike
On this thread you suggest Darwin was a creationist, based on quotes where Darwin posits first life being the result of creation, even though Darwin obviously accepted human evolution. Intellectually sloppy?
Comment by The Pixie — October 18, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Mark Frank to Mike Gene:
In the same comment you referred to this definition of creationism:
Knowing Mike's position (made clear in numerous posts and comments), why would you refer to "the belief that humans did not evolve form animals" as Mike's own definition of creationism? It is logically consistent with the definition you supplied. A literal interpretation of Genesis would not allow for the evolution of humans from animals. So Mike is correct in asserting that his own position is not consistent with creation according to a literal Genesis and those who would label Mike and others as creationists are engaged in a dishonest debate through mislabeling.
Comment by Bradford — October 18, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Hi Mark,
You write:
Okay, let's ignore the argument I laid on the table and turn to the definitions.
Yes, this is the definition on a "broad level." In other words, a superficial level. Such a "broad" definition allows us to gloss over details.
We need to remember that we are not talking about defining things for an obscure philosophy or history journal (where responsible scholars would define the term anyway). We are talking about the rhetorical use of this label in the wider public arena. In such context, the broad definition tends to create more confusion than clarity. This makes sense given that a broad definition nicely works for a broad-brushed approach.
What if we had people group Francis Collins, Duane Gish, and Sean Carroll? According to the broad definition, we are supposed to group Collins with Gish instead of grouping Collins with Carroll. While extremists such as PZ Myers and Sam Harris would be happy with the categorization, I'm not sure it would appeal to many beyond such circles.
Nevertheless, as someone who has watched the rhetorical landscape for years, I have come to conclude the broad definition functions primarily as cover for ad hominem attacks. In fact, given its superficial essence, the broad definition is well-suited for such rhetorical moves. There are two indicators which will help others see what I see.
1. With the exception of the hardcore extremists, note that most critics do not label Ken Miller or Francis Collins as Creationists. If the critics were truly relying on the broad definition, what explains their strong reluctance to publicly label people like Miller and Collins as Creationists?
2. The broad definition would mean that close to 40% of scientists are Creationists. Yet why is it that the critics do not acknowledge the existence of so many Creationists and praise them for their on-going contributions to science? Why don't the critics publicly acknowledge that a Creationist played a lead role in sequencing the human genome? Why don't they publicly acknowledge that one of the world's leading experts on the Cambrian explosion is a Creationist paleontologist? Why don't they express gratitude for the fact that it was a Creationist who played a lead role securing the victory in Dover? Or a Creationist who gave us the most powerful theory in biology?
For people who claim to be using a "broad definition," there is an odd reluctance to use it as such.
So what's going on?
Let's consider the other definition that you excluded:
Ah, this definition is more "retricted" because it contains more details and thus better reflects reality. And in this case, we see why it is that critics will not label Collins, Conway Morris, and Miller as Creationists. Are you following? The reason the critics don't label these theistic evolutionists as Creationists, and do not credit Creationists for their on-going contributions to science, is because they have this restricted definition in mind when labeling people. But if caught spreading misinformation (labeling a proponent of human evolution as a Creationist), they can then retreat to the cover of the broad definition (plausible deniability). Shameful.
So let's go to your other definition:
Oh really? Why not list ten examples of Creationists, who take the early chapters of Genesis as literal, true guides to history (including human history), and also embrace and advocate that humans are related to baboons on the evolutionary tree? Your ability or inability to come up with this list is crucial to your case, as it will help us gauge how Creationism is represented and perceived in our social reality.
Wikipedia is some anonymous author on the Internet (and keep in mind that Wikipedia also reports the Wedge document was stamped with "˜Top Secret"). That the author confuses theistic evolution with creationism indicates he/she is not a trustworthy source.
So you say.
Look, you did not deal with Fodor's observation. Fodor didn't write, "They didn't like there being no role for God in our branch in the evolutionary tree; and they liked still less that God had no role in having baboons among their family relations." That is not the problem the creationists have. Fodor nails the problem: "They didn't like our being just one branch among many in the evolutionary tree; and they liked still less having baboons among their family relations."
You seem to think that creationists think human evolution is some trivial throw-away point that can be embraced or rejected; all that matters to the creationists is whether God has a role to play. If so, you really don't have a good grasp on creationism. And if you don't have a good grasp on this, why are you labeling people?
Comment by MikeGene — October 18, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
October 18th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Hi Pixie,
Yes, you are being sloppy, Pixie. I simply quoted several excerpts from a scholarly article that asked that question. The only significant point I added (playfully) was that it would be more accuate to refer to me as a Darwinist than a Creationist.
Comment by MikeGene — October 18, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
October 19th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Mike
Forgive my pedantic approach but I think a number of different issues are getting confused and I find this the best way to disentangle them.
First to respond to what Fodor wrote
"They didn't like our being just one branch among many in the evolutionary tree;"
i.e. it is a statement about what motivates some or most creationists. It is not a statement about what creationism means. Fodor's statement might well be true. The way to find out would be to survey the writings of a wide range of creationists or conduct an opinion survey.
Now to move on to your concern. Actually I am not sure I understand your underlying concern. So I will try to rephrase it in my own words. This is simply a way of checking my understanding. If I am wrong just correct me.
I think you are saying that some people call Behe a creationist knowing that he is only a creationist in a broad sense but hoping that people will associate him with creationism in a narrower sense.
Is that fair statement of your concern?
If this is your concern than I am not sure why this is sloppy thinking. It might be dishonest, but it seems to require rather careful thinking.
What would be sloppy would be to genuinely think that because Behe was creationist-broad he was therefore creationist-narrow. Evidence for this would be observations of people making such deductions. Have you some examples perhaps?
You also seem to suggest that the quote from Fodor identifies the critical factor behind creationism. He is only talking about what motivates creationists but I guess you are suggesting that the belief that humanity is special is necessary for real creationism. As this belief is only found among creationist-narrow people you then deduce that creationist-broad people are not really creationist.
Obviously that belief is an important part of many forms of creationism but it is not the only component. For example, another belief that seems equally important is: a deity has intervened at least once and maybe multiple times in the evolution of life to make the current range of life, including humanity, possible.
I don't believe that Miller holds this view (I don't know anything about Collins). I think Behe does believe it because it appears to be a logical deduction from what he has written.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 19, 2007 @ 11:41 am
October 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Mark Frank:
That is a logical deduction, and Behe's writings support that interpretation.
On the other hand, you have the following odd statement from Bill Dembski (Intelligent Design, section 6.5):
That statement has never made sense to me in light of Behe's writings. And what does it mean to believe "to a lesser extent" that all of the CSI of the universe was present at its start? Does anybody have a plausible interpretation?
P.S. It is, however, a frank admission of the fact that Dembski sees CSI as coming from a transcendent, supernatural source.
Comment by keiths — October 19, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
October 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Mark Frank:
Mark, do you seriously think accusers are parsing different shades of meaning to the term creationism when they bandy about labels? When the same individuals devote great effort to be precise about the significance of scientific meanings and studies don't you think it would be second nature to approach definitions with that kind of rigor? In any case why use a single word that is so ambiguous that it can cover Duane Gish and Francis Collins?
Comment by Bradford — October 19, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
October 19th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
What's this world coming to?:shock:
Comment by Bradford — October 19, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
October 20th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Hi Mark,
It is not the motive that is relevant; it's the effect that is relevant. Whatever the motivation, the fact remains that creationists reject human evolution. In my last reply, I noted:
You failed to come up with a list. Perhaps this was an oversight, so please try again.
Sure. But often times, I think it is more sloppy than that. For example, critics call Behe a creationist because other critics call Behe a creationist. You seem to think people always put great thought into their labels.
You must have missed my ending"¦." Well"¦'sloppy' is a nice way of putting it.
That's one form of sloppiness, but surely you do not think there is only one way to be sloppy. Another form of sloppiness is to believe the two definitions differ in insignificant, trivial ways. Another form of sloppiness is the failure to consider how words are commonly interpreted when used as labels. Another form of sloppiness is to join in on the group think and use labels the way the rest of your tribe does without giving it much thought. I'm sure there are other ways that I cannot think of now.
You are ignoring one of my points. As someone who has watched the rhetorical landscape for years, I have come to conclude the broad definition functions primarily as cover for ad hominem attacks. In fact, given its superficial essence, the broad definition is well-suited for such rhetorical moves. There are two indicators which will help others see what I see.
1. With the exception of the hardcore extremists, note that most critics do not label Ken Miller or Francis Collins as Creationists. If the critics were truly relying on the broad definition, what explains their strong reluctance to publicly label people like Miller and Collins as Creationists?
2. The broad definition would mean that close to 40% of scientists are Creationists. Yet why is it that the critics do not acknowledge the existence of so many Creationists and praise them for their on-going contributions to science? Why don't the critics publicly acknowledge that a Creationist played a lead role in sequencing the human genome? Why don't they publicly acknowledge that one of the world's leading experts on the Cambrian explosion is a Creationist paleontologist? Why don't they express gratitude for the fact that it was a Creationist who played a lead role securing the victory in Dover? Or a Creationist who gave us the most powerful theory in biology?
For people who claim to be using a "broad definition," there is an odd reluctance to use it as such.
No, he is not just talking about motivations, he is identifying the effect.
Exactly. Only a ham-handed or propagandistic approach would label someone who accepts human evolution as a creationist. We need to remember that we are not talking about defining things for an obscure philosophy or history journal (where responsible scholars would define the term anyway). We are talking about the rhetorical use of this label in the wider public arena.
Remember we are talking about the rhetorical use of this label in the wider public arena. As such, it's an important component in all forms of creationism.
Since creationists deny human evolution, of course they invoke divine interventions. But that doesn't mean anyone who invokes divine interventions is a creationist. If one invokes such interventions in the context of a rich, evolutionary past, that person is more properly labeled a theistic evolutionist. I successfully argue this point here.
Miller invokes divine interventions in the form of virgin births and resurrection. He also remains open to it throughout evolutionary history; he argues only that it is situated in quantum reality and thus cannot be scientifically detected. Collins invokes intervention to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of morality.
Comment by MikeGene — October 20, 2007 @ 8:39 am
October 20th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I would struggle to come with a single one. I would also struggle to come up with a creationist who takes the early chapters of Genesis as literal, true guides to history (including human history) and also:
believes the earth was created 4 billion years ago
accepts that morality is a human creation
speaks Serbo-Croat
So what?
I thought the key question was "is it sloppy thinking to call someone a creationist who accepts human evolution". I cannot see that it is relevant that extreme creationists reject this idea. (Which is why I did not respond).
In the end your accusation is about the motivation of people who call Behe creationist. It is really hard to prove what people's motivation is - so I suggest this is a sterile topic and best left.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 20, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
October 21st, 2007 at 11:10 am
Hi Mark,
Extreme creationists? Let me repeat my point a third time - We need to remember that we are not talking about defining things for an obscure philosophy or history journal (where responsible scholars would define the term anyway). We are talking about the rhetorical use of this label in the wider public arena.
Since we are talking about labels, and their rhetorical use, we have to factor the most common way a label is interpreted. For example, pay attention to a claim from Richard Dawkins: "Do his creationist fans know that Behe accepts as "trivial" the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?" Writing for the mainstream NYT, Dawkins is clearly implying that Behe's "creationist fans" would have a problem with this. This is because Dawkins understands the common meaning of the word. But I have established this all before.
You not only would struggle to come up with an example of a Creationist who accept the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish, you failed. In striking contrast, watch how EASY it is for me to provide a list of famous Creationists who reject human evolution. Let's start with Duane Gish, Henry Morris, John Morris, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, James Kennedy, and Jerry Falwell.
There is a simple explanation for both your failure and my easy success "“ creationists reject human evolution. Only a ham-handed or propagandistic approach would label someone who accepts human evolution as a creationist.
Comment by MikeGene — October 21, 2007 @ 11:10 am
October 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Mike
You seem to have changed the requirement. You originally asked me for
now it is simply famous creationists. Now the answer depends on your definition of creationist. If you define creationist to be someone who believes in a literal interpretation of genesis then of course all creationists will reject human evolution (and also reject a lot of established science e.g. the age of the earth). If you define creationist to mean anyone who believes that a deity has designed and is controlling the evolutionary process (for example) then it would include William Dembski and Michael Behe. I am not over familiar with the beliefs of other famous IDers but browsing around the web it seems Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer are ambiguous on the subject - human evolution is not central to their beliefs.
I am dropping out of this topic from now on - I don't see it leading anywhere interesting.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 21, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
October 21st, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I'm not altogether sure it is (or ever was) topical, but history is important, Bradford, as you well know, because we learn from experience.
As to "Natural History" consider (e.g.) Maupertuis' derivation of the laws of motion (and thereby the history of the universe) from an extremum principle. For Maupertuis it is the supreme proof of the existence of the Supreme Being.
In the practice of reconstructing molecular phylogenies Maupertuis' principle is invoked in the derivation of one lineage from another. The obvious difference being that molecular phylogenists hardly ever argue as Maupertuis did. Why not?
You can answer that for yourself.
Comment by Rock — October 21, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
October 21st, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I should point out that molecular phylogenists don't even know they are invoking Maupertuis' principle of least action.
Comment by Rock — October 21, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
October 26th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/ab...
"Creationism is the belief that all living organisms were created according to Genesis in six days by 'intelligent design' and rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution."
This apparently from Dr Klingenberg, leader of the team of "biologists at The University of Manchester [who] say that changes to the shape of the breed's head over the years can only be explained through evolution and natural selection."
Comment by Pez — October 26, 2007 @ 12:57 pm