Alden Swan dot com

As I’ve said before, the whole ID v Darwin debate was never of great concern to me (although the stupidity of some of the statements made on both sides would often irritate me). When I recently became re-interested in the issue, while I was certainly not coming from a philosophical materialist point of view, I was open-minded about evolution; I could have easily accepted the Francis Collins approach, without much thought.

Ay, but there’s the rub: without much thought. The more I read the arguments from both sides, the more I am convinced that Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism) is so full of holes that it would instantly collapse if it were not for all of the hot air being blown into it by its supporters. I don’t think that it even qualifies as a theory. Rather, Darwinism at this point is a collage of hypothesis, data (there is some data), speculations, assumptions and assertions, all pasted onto a foundation of philosophical materialism. It only works if you assume that there is nothing outside of the material world, and therefore the reach of science. As soon as you open the presumed system, it collapses.

Anyone who’s done any reading on the subject at all has encountered the ridicule that the “scientists” heap on the ID community; the ad hominem approach is, I think, their first line of defense. By portraying IDists as fools (i.e. Creationists), so therefore there is no need to even consider the ID position. This is not true of all Darwinians, obviously, but it appears to be the norm for those outspoken on the subject. Other complaints are that they don’t understand the subject matter, they misquote evolutionists, they use selective facts, and so on. What I am often finding, however, is that the evolutionists are the ones guilty of ignorance of the IDist arguments, who misquote IDists, and so on.

As I have complained before, I would really like an evolutionist to seriously consider the various anti-Darwinian arguments, and give serious responses. There are a few out there, but they are very few and far between (more rare than the mythological transitional fossil).

The truth is that macro-evolution, which many Darwinists claim is no different than micro-evolution, is not supported by the evidence (unless, again, you presuppose a materialist, evolutionary world). Instead of ID being a “God of the gaps” argument, neo-Darwinism is very much a “theory of the gaps” argument. Rather than admitting that there are holes in the theory, you hear things like, “we just don’t know enough; when we do, it will make sense.” What is that, science? Hardly. It is nothing more, as someone has said, but the creation myth of Philosophical materialism.

The list of problems with macro-evolution is too long to list here. Things like the inadequacy of the fossil record, the fact that there are no smooth transitions but many jumps like the Cambrian Explosion, and the problem of the Big Bang, are all major problems for Darwinism that have no real answers, just a faith in future science. Even the oft-ridiculed “irreducible complexity” argument has not been disproved, but deserves a good, close review.

Tomorrow, a look at another often-overlooked challenge to evolution.

I have a hypothesis, based on my own recent observations, that thinking too much makes you stupid. This is not necessarily a new or groundbreaking thought; in fact, it fits well with the well-known and generally accepted principle known as Occam’s (or Ockham’s) Razor, which I’ll talk about in a moment. First, take a look at this, from USA Today’s website under Science & Space:

“Scientists, educators and policymakers have long been concerned about American adults’ resistance to certain scientific ideas,” note Yale psychologists Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg in the review published in the current Science magazine. In 2005 for example, the Pew Trust found that 42% of poll respondents think people and animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, a view that is tough to reconcile with evidence from fossils. Many people believe in ghosts, fairies and astrology. “This resistance to science has important social implications because a scientifically ignorant public is unprepared to evaluate policies about global warming, vaccination, genetically modified organisms, stem cell research, and cloning,” the psychologists say.

Okay, let that sink in for a moment.

Occam’s Razor, named after a 4th century Franciscan friar, William of Occam, states that “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” It’s been translated from Latin, but it still may need some interpretation. Isaac Newton restated the rule as “we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” This has been further adapted by scientists today to mean that all things being equal, if you have the option between 2 explanations for something, the simplest one is probably correct.

Now, consider that old William (of Occam) was first of all, a Catholic friar. Furthermore, note that he used this principle to argue, among other things, that the only entity that need exist is God. He also argued that God’s existence cannot be proved exclusively through reason; we will only know that through revelation. For William, the “simplest” explanation would be God. Fast forward a few hundred years, and we have the materialists using the Razor as a basis for dismissing all talk of God; the Razor has evolved to say that if there is a materialistic explanation for something (whether it is “simple” or not), God is the “excess” entity that we don’t need to consider. I suspect that the logic used to turn the razor inside out is flawed, as it is now used to support overly complex and occasionally illogical theories and to exclude more simple and obvious theories.

Now, consider that Occam’s Razor is only a method for deciding between competing theories of equal merit – the key to the rule is “all things being equal.” And, it doesn’t mean that the simplest answer is necessarily true; it’s just a rule based on probability. The more complicated an answer is, the greater the probability that there is some defect in the analysis. It’s like a new car with all the extras vs the old VW bug. The new car has way more things to go wrong, and the chances that you’ll need to take the car to a shop is far greater.

Looking back to the quote above, I have to ask the question, “could it be that people can’t accept some of science because they are asking people to violate Occam’s Razor in order to accept it?” Perhaps the problem isn’t in people’s “resistance” to accept that everything a scientist is true” (the 50’s are over, people!) but is rather that sometimes it just defies common sense? Maybe, for instance, people see a disconnect in being warned against eating genetically altered food, but encouraged to genetically engineer people? Perhaps it’s not the “findings” of science itself, but the fact that there are competing worldviews, and materialism doesn’t cut it? Or, perhaps it’s just that materialism as science can’t see the gaps in what it presents?

Granville Sewell, mathematics professor at the U of Texas El Paso, states:

SCIENCE HAS BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL in explaining natural phenomena that the modern scientist is convinced that it can explain everything, and anything that doesn’t fit into this model is simply ignored. It doesn’t matter that there were no natural causes before Nature came into existence, so he cannot hope to ever explain the sudden creation of time, space, matter and energy and our universe in the Big Bang. It doesn’t matter that quantum mechanics is based on a “principle of indeterminacy”, that tells us that every “natural” phenomenon has a component that is forever beyond the ability of science to explain or predict, he still insists nothing is beyond the reach of his science.
– from A Second Look at the Second Law

So, William of Occam, how would you use your razor here?

It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.

For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other.The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be.

One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values.

The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.

But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends.
– Einstein, Albert, Ideas and Opinions, (Crown Publishers, Inc., New York 1954)