The Ann vs. Susan smackdown
Bookworm on Apr 13 2007 at 7:56 am | Filed under: Free speech, Leftist morality
This is a follow-up to my post a couple of days ago about my decision to read, in order, both Ann Coulter’s Godless : The Church of Liberalism and Susan Estrich’s Soulless : Ann Coulter and the Right Wing Church of Hate, with the latter meant to be a takedown of the former.
I galloped through Ann’s book. She writes the way one should write a good legal brief (although you’re supposed to put all the sarcasm in the first draft and edit it out before it goes to court): She states the premise she intends to prove, marshals the facts necessary for her argument, and then makes her argument, either convincing you or not. Ignoring the snarkiness, which can be alternately amusing or irritating, her arguments are solid. Most of the facts were within my own range of personal knowledge, because I remember the events about which she speaks, so the most I could challenge were her conclusions, not the evidence she adduced to support them. As it happened, I agreed with her ultimate conclusions, which flowed rather effortlessly from the evidence upon which she relied.
The only thing that was entirely new to me fact-wise was her attack on Evolution. From my point of view, that was both her strongest and her weakest argument. Strongest, because she finally explained to me why anti-evolutionists keep insisting that evolution is just a theory. I’d always blithely assumed that the fossil record supported Darwinism — that is, after all, the way it’s taught in our schools. Ann claims — and I don’t know here whether her facts are what she says they are — that the massive recent developments in the hard sciences (DNA studies, physics, etc.) and paleontology (the fossil record ) do not support Darwin’s predictions.
If Ann’s factual claim is correct, it means that Darwinism never morphed from the theory Darwin advanced in the 19th Century to the all-encompassing fact taught now. Ann’s argument is weak to me, though, because Ann takes that to mean Darwinism is wrong. I take it to mean that I’m back in agnostic territory, no longer able to rely on Darwin, but not ready to throw myself into the hands of Gods or aliens.
That I don’t go where Ann goes, though, doesn’t negate the fact that she does a very good job of showing that, despite evidence that exists outside of Evolution’s linear theory, the liberals refuse to acknowledge the existence of those facts. If Ann is correct, that’s shameful, and it is a flat-earth world view, just as bad as that which dominated during the Middle Ages.
Although the evolution section was the most challenging part of the book for me (especially because I have no independent corroboration of her factual claims), I know that the MSM savaged her book most for its section about the Jersey Girls, those 9/11 widows who used their increased visibility to attack the administration. Ann is indeed mean and scathing in her condemnation of these women, but there is context. Her point is that the Left hagiographizes (a made-up word, I admit) people who have achieved a PC victim status, and shrieks down the house when others attempt to challenge, not the victim status, but the ideas emanating from that victim.
It doesn’t take a long memory to remember Maureen Dowd’s fatuous conclusion that Cindy Sheehan spoke with “absolute moral authority” because her son died bravely in Iraq. Within days of that one, every conservative blog in the world had exposed its manifest logical failings. But I’m sure Dowd didn’t care because her point — and the point Ann understands — is that liberals don’t want their ideas challenged, and the most recently devised way to insulate those ideas from challenge is to have them emanate from people who have suffered. And Ann argues that, in the marketplace of ideas, those same ideas are always open to challenge, no matter who utters them. And then, being Ann, she goes utterly overboard and makes that excellent point in the crudest, most offensive way possible.
All of which gets me to Estrich’s book. I have to admit, that while I galloped through Ann’s book, which was factually solid and, for the most part, amusing, Estrich’s book is heavy-going, and I haven’t gotten very far. Part of the problem is one of expectations. Because it’s manifestly a book written in response to Godless (check out those covers), I expected Estrich to take on Ann’s arguments. Foolish me. Estrich did exactly what Ann would have predicted — so far, it’s left the arguments alone, but taken on Ann. I’m at page 52, and it’s been a sustained attack on Ann: Ann is obsessed with her looks; Ann is mean; Ann obviously has an eating disorder; Ann is mean; Ann is too blonde, making her generic; Ann is mean; I (Estrich) am personally nice to Ann; Ann is mean; Ann’s training as a lawyer doesn’t qualify her to argue things; Ann is mean; Ann dates different men every night; etc.
Along the way, Estrich breaks her “Ann is mean” rhythm to tell us that she (Estrich) is Jewish, which I sort of figured out already because of the the Magen David she wears in the cover photo. Estrich believes that this fact utterly refutes Ann’s claim that liberals are Godless. Had Estrich actually read Ann’s argument, while she might not have agreed with it, she wouldn’t have thought that all you need to do to refute it is to announce that you believe in God. Ann’s point is that a simple belief in God is the beginning but that real religion is living your life according to the moral precepts in the Bible — and that liberals, no matter how much they profess belief in a higher being, don’t. More than that, Ann makes the point that liberalism sets up an entirely alternative and comprehensive belief system, often antithetical to traditional religion, that is a religion in and of itself. As I discussed here, she’s got a point, although one that it’s almost impossible for liberals to recognize.
In the first 52 pages, Estrich also makes an almost funnily inept swipe at Ann’s Jersey Girls argument. After pointing out that Ann is mean (I got that bit), Estrich goes on to say that she’s been a victim and that her ideas have been attacked. That’s great. That means that, despite efforts to the contrary, freedom of speech, even mean speech, is still alive in America.
What Estrich totally misses, either accidentally or on purpose, is Ann’s point that, while such speech exists, the Left is working busily to shut it down as to liberal arguments, and that one of the ways the Left does it is to claim that one cannot challenge ideas emanating from sympathetic figures. The Left may not succeed in the shout-down, but that it engages in it in the first place shows a profound inability to separate ideas from identity (which loops back to the main problem with identity politics). That Estrich’s book has been, so far, a sustained attack on Ann personally, rather than her ideas, shows that Estrich cannot escape her own identity politics mindset. It’s all about who you are, not what you say. If you don’t like Ann’s ideas, insult Ann personally. If you have ideas that you want broadcast, shield them in a sympathetic character. Either way, whatever you do, don’t touch the ideas!
UPDATE: Let me clarify something. Regarding my very simplistic, and somewhat inchoate, evolution discussion, I was not trying to argue away evolution. I was just saying that Ann makes a compelling argument, if her facts are true, that there is a shut-down of debate about Darwin’s theory, rather than an expansion of that same debate, despite the availablity of facts that could not possibly be known to Darwin at the time he came up with his theory.
My understand is that it’s the essence of a good scientific debate that, having posited a theory, you expose it to facts — and perhaps adjust it too. My complaint is with the refusal to think beyond the theory, to expand it, modify it, whatever it, based on irrefutable (or at least changing) evidence. And while the hardcore scientists may be making these adjustments, the fact remains that the popular culture — most especially the children’s textbooks — are not.
Please don’t confuse me with those people, ably exposed in Bill Whittle’s essay, who find evidence intrusive and unnecessary for their world view. Rather than being, like me, someone who wants to test facts against theory and who wants to know what facts are out there, Whittle’s conspiracists are the people with their fingers in their ears, yelling “Nyah, nyah, nyah! I can’t hear you.”
UPDATE II: Here’s sort of what I was looking for in the fact area — a series of articles that challenge Ann’s scientific claims in the evolution vs. ID debate. What’s interesting about so many of these articles it is that, aside from actually taking on Ann’s factual claims, which is where I want to learn information and where I think the debate should be, they also insult her roundly; claim she’s advancing God, whereas I read her book as primarily an attack on the prevailing evolutionary zeitgeist informing those not “in the know” that evolution has all the answers to all the questions, going back to primordial ooze; and announce that evolution does in fact have all the answers.
Incidentally, Susan Estrich shies away entirely from the factual side of the debate, preferring instead to attack Ann’s motives, instead of her argument. If Ann’s science is as bad as they all claim, why don’t they attack her there, which is manifestly her weak spot? (Frankly, you should never let a lawyer argue science.)
Email This Post To A Friend
57 Responses to “The Ann vs. Susan smackdown”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Your assessment of Estrich’s “attack the messenger, bury the message” approach doesn’t surprise me. This get’s back to that last scene in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” to which I keep referring – there is no discussion to be had with people like that.
Your observations on evolution on target (speaking as a scientist): evolution is a theory or model (not a fact) that helps to describe a natural process. Coulter is right – the “science” of evolution has sadly been very much a process of force-fitting “facts” (and discounting others) to fit the model, rather than the other way around. Plus, the surest way to get drummed out of scientific academia and be smeared as a heretic(not unlike the academe of the 16th Century) is to question “Evolution” in any small way…kind of like “Global Warming” and other sacred texts of the Secular Humanist religion.
Personally I don’t believe that “Evolution – the Model” in any way discounts the Creator – in fact, I believe that it provides fascinating insights into how the Creator works.
If you (as a professed agnostic, of course) really want to explore this fascinating interface of theology and science, I highly recommend the books of Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jewish physicist and molecular biologist who attempts to tie all these questions together in very lucid prose (see http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html) together with very easy-to-understand explanations of some of today’s most complex theories in biology and physics. Start with “The Hidden Face of God”.
Great analysis. I can’t say I’m surprised. Not that I planned to read Susan’s book, but now I will never have to. Ann is mean. Got it. As stated in an earlier comment, that’s kind of what I like about her
Perhaps one of primary differences between the liberal and conservative groups is a particular type of humor. I’ve been reading political tracks for some time and liberals tend to be deathly serious about everything, especially themselves. You get Gore, Dean, and Hillary screeching quite often. Can you imagine a joke uttered by the likes of Senator Reid and Cindy Sheehan? Whenever a joke’s attempted, you get Kerry’s “botched jokes” about our troops, and Al Gore’s dry attempts at self irony about Bush stealing the election.
The conservatives on the other hand has comics galore. Ann Coulter who’s as funny as she is uncouth. President Bush always joshing reporters; not to mention his comic impersonator showing up at dinners. Now that’s self irony. Guiliani cuts it up every once in a while (in drag even
…
I guess what I’m trying to point out is that conservatives, in the end, can look at themselves and laugh. I haven’t encountered very many liberals that can do that. They take themselves very, very seriously.
It is of course a riot that Estrich, in attempting to refute, fits EXACTLY the predictive model Coulter propounds. Hell will have frozen solid long before she ever sees it, too.
If Ann’s training precludes her from making an argument, then what unspeakable disaster happened with Estrich’s legal training? She never, ever sees the crux of an argument, and she’s incapable of sustaining an argument for longer than a paragraph! (So it figures, doesn’t it: she’s a teacher.)
I’ve read both books, and I do think that, as even lawyers are (relatively) human, someone like Coulter must just destroy someone like Estrich. She’s younger, prettier, funnier (Estrich’s attempts at humor are nails-on-the-blackboard,) argues better, writes better, and is just generally smarter, dammit! How unfair is THAT?
As to Ann being obsessed with her loooks, she perhaps takes it seriously on TV, but that’s a make-up driven subset of society, in which you are supposed to present at your best. When Ann’s wandering down the street in her home town, it’s without much make-up and mostly in ten year old jeans and t-shirts, and if there are a bunch of kids having a pick-up game in the vacant lot on the corner, she’s entirely likely to hop right in. (She does run and swing a bat like a girl, though… sorry.) Yell hi at her from a block away, she yells hi back. She’s pretty down-to-earth.
I didn’t think – and don’t believe you will conclude when you finish it – that Estrich’s book ultimately makes much sense.
I agree completely with Danny – evolution is a theory, and it has been shoved a lot of places where Darwin didn’t intend it to go – and in fact most non-scientist proponents thereof really don’t know what Darwin himself proposed. It is frequently alleged – and all too widely accepted by those who think they know (i.e., just about everybody) – that Darwin taught that humans had descended from early apes. That is in fact NOT what Darwin taught.
In contemporary terms, it could perhaps be said that Darwin himself leaned toward intelligent design. (Perhaps be said – I don’t know, I’ll have to think about that.)
I’d always blithely assumed that the fossil record supported Darwinism — that is, after all, the way it’s taught in our schools.
I’ve had evolution debates before. While I’m not as proficient in my marshalling of evidence and sources as Phileosophos, I do have my own original brand of argument about evolution. It is not against evolution, because the theory is to all intents and purposes, true. In its conclusions, if not its explanations. Obviously species and people do evolve and get better based upon outside stimuli. That’s true. But whether it is true in the sense that evolution claims it is, is a different subject. That’s why I call my argument about evolution, instead of against it.
Darwinism, to all intents and purposes refered to here interchangeably with evolution, postulates that species jump from one form to another through mutations or differentiations or because of isolated geography and what not. What came first, chicken or egg, issue.
We know there were different brands of humans. Cro-Magnon, Homo Sapien, Homo sapien sapiens, Neanderthal (hey they’re still around I hear).
We know some of those strains died off, but the fossil record is still missing the missing link. The “inbetween transformation stage” between humans now, and humans of a more ancient and older model.
Therefore evolution cannot sufficiently explain the process by which new species are created. Our genetic manipulation and creation technologies are not advanced enough for us to conduct experiments, and the fossil record has holes. So the theory itself, has holes and things it cannot account, for now at least. Scientists who try to ignore these holes, are simply blinding themselves in favor of their pet theory.
and I don’t know here whether her facts are what she says they are — that the massive recent developments in the hard sciences (DNA studies, physics, etc.) and paleontology (the fossil record ) do not support Darwin’s predictions.
The facts are true, in my view, but the interpretations are wrong. Look, how is human (intelligent) technologies like physics and DNA studies/manipulations, going to support a natural process like evolution? Genetic engineering is an Intelligent Design Technology! It’s an intelligent force, “creating” and “designing” new life… right? The only argument then is, what was this Intelligent Force. Aliens? God? Luck? Chance? Destiny? Ancient Battle Computers looking to forge the best warriors in the galaxy? *shrugs*
DNA technology does allow you to conduct experiments on the evolutionary paths and processes by which species change, but you can’t accelerate time. Whatever “change” you induce, is due to Intelligent Design. So if you do try to use DNA tech to “prove” or support Evolution, you’re basically proving Intelligent Design more than you are Evolution.
I take it to mean that I’m back in agnostic territory, no longer able to rely on Darwin, but not ready to throw myself into the hands of Gods or aliens.
You thought up aliens too, Book?
That I don’t go where Ann goes, though, doesn’t negate the fact that she does a very good job of showing that, despite evidence that exists outside of Evolution’s linear theory, the liberals refuse to acknowledge the existence of those facts.
That might have more to do with fake liberals being fake liberals, than it has to do with Evolution.
Estrich did exactly what Ann would have predicted — so far, it’s left the arguments alone, but taken on Ann.
That was one of my observations on Estrich back in your original Woman on Woman by a Woman thread (and yes, it is refering to your pr0n comment). It’s interesting that while Ann seems to behave differently in her book than on screen (not concerning meanness perhaps but on the strength of her arguments), while Estrich seems more or less the same throughout. Lack of liberty and freedom amongst the entropy dominated fake liberals, perhaps?
[...] sure you’ve realized by now that Moran is making precisely the same point Estrich belabors in the first 52 pages of her attempted take-down of Ann Coulter: People you don’t like have no rights. Moran makes clear that, in the identity politics [...]
I don’t know how this thread devolved into a discussion of evolution from its Ann v. Susan starting point (I think the fact that both of them exist in the same world proves God has a sense of humor) but I believe in evolution. If you take its basic definition as growth, adaption and change over time, it seems to me self evident. Happens all the time. The problem for me arises when a wholly (excuse the pun) material explanation of existence is posited, when life is regarded simply as an accident of blind physical forces and consciousness as merely an inherent quality of matter, a trick of sensory perception and the electrical patterns of the brain. I can’t live in such a world because one can’t live in something that was never really alive; that’s a stillborn creation.
That’s pretty much Ann’s point. She doesn’t deny evolution within species. (I’m sure she’d be on board with the increasing proof that dinosaurs devolved into birds, something highlighted again in a news story today.) She just the evidence hasn’t yet shown that evolution doesn’t equal creation. I’m now back in limbo, believing nothing. Evolution, while it may still be the ultimate truth, isn’t the proven theory I thought it was, and there’s nothing else out there for me to hang my hat on.
Actually, I guess I’m now going to view evolution pretty much the way I view the big bang. I believe the scientific records supports each up to a point. That is, I believe the Big Bang occurred, but am completely stuck as to what preceded it. Something preceded it. God? More science? I don’t know. I won’t guess. The same for evolution. volution is true so far as the scientific records supports species relationships, developments, etc. I have absolutely no doubt that things change over time and and because of environmental circumstances. I believe in the scientific record. However, I’m now not buying into what started it all. More science? God? Space aliens? I don’t know, and I want more proof before I buy into any given theory as the ultimate truth, the “one theory that proves everything.” As Peter Wimsey and Sherlock Holmes said, it’s a mistake to theorize ahead of your data.
Read Schroeder’s “The Hidden Face of God”, Book. He lays it all out for you, including the “Big Bang”.
Well, I’m not so sure evolution is even valid as a theory. I am no where near convinced. I’ve been writing an essay on it before this post transformed into a discussion of evolution, but I don’t think evolution is self-evident at all… And since Darwinian evolution attempted to overturn the existing paradigm of Creation, the burden of proof lay with evolutionists, not the other way around. And from what I’ve read thus far on the subject, that burden hasn’t been met, nowhere near.
Oh my. When will conservatives stop hurting themselves by assaulting evolution? Incidentally this makes people ignore conservatives’ questioning of man made global warming pseudo-science.
Bookworm, this post of yours should go as a basis of another post about the failure of modern education. Presumably an educated person, all you know about evolution is that it is a ‘fact’ (as if there are facts in science) supported by fossil evidence (as many evolutionary biologists have remarked, even if there weren’t a single fossil in existence, evidence for evolution would have been as strong).
You and many ignorant commenters here should really go to a library and pick some decent books on evolution rather than waste your brain cells on political writings. Please ignore the fact that most such books are written by liberals (though there are exceptions). Ignore the authors politics and concentrate on substance.
Please understand, that, unlike global-warming, biology is a science very much like nuclear physics or astronomy. Your ignorant discussion here is as laughable as if you were to discuss validity of quantum physics here.
[...] sure you’ve realized by now that Moran is making precisely the same point Estrich belabors in the first 52 pages of her attempted take-down of Ann Coulter: People you don’t like have no rights. Moran makes clear that, in the identity politics game, [...]
I don’t know, and I want more proof before I buy into any given theory as the ultimate truth, the “one theory that proves everything.”
I don’t think you want to believe in a theory on ultimate truth, because not only is there NO theory on ultimate theory (theory, law, whatever), but I don’t think that’s your personality, Book. You seem like the questioning sort. You always want more, being more curious than inert. Since no human can become omniscient (know everything there is to know), I tend to think you will be happy with just the quest for knowledge, even if you can’t get to the end journey of everything.
Presumably an educated person, all you know about evolution is that it is a ‘fact’ (as if there are facts in science)
Facts do exist in science. They’re probably called principles though. Like Heisenberg’s UnCertainty Principle. It is true, all of the time, for every time and place.
Please understand, that, unlike global-warming, biology is a science very much like nuclear physics or astronomy.
Hey Marvin, I think you should stop talking about combining 5 species into a new life form in your lab, as if it is the same thing physicists do when they ram particles together in a particle accelerator and when they initiate nuclear chain reactions. Obviously biology is a science very much like nuclear physics, it is just that nuclear physics is obviously a subject you only think you understand, Marvin.
Marvin: are you saying that there’s more out there than is met in public schools or that make the front page of any debate? If you are, I agree. I’m not denying evolution. I’m simply saying it’s a dishonest debate that hides counter evidence without accounting for it. And if there is counter evidence, that’s not making it to those of us learning basic evolutionary theories. I was not espousing Ann’s views, because I don’t know enough to. I was complaining about the fact that there is as much hubris is claiming, as they do at schools, that evolution is the answer to everything, as to claim the opposite.
I was also pointing out, although I did so quite badly, that evolutionists argue as if the opposite is six day Creationism. With that as an opposite, I too would do everything, including hiding the factual ball, to keep my position at the forefront. However, to test and modify Darwin’s 150 year old, observation based hypothesis by comparing it to recent scientific findings he couldn’t have even imagined is real science. And if Ann is correct that the popular debate ignores inconsistent or manifestly missing facts, that’s not science, that’s faith.
I haven’t come out against evolution. I just recent it if, assuming Ann is true, the evolutionary team, instead of addressing the evidence, is sticking its fingers in its collective ears to holler out “nyah, nyah, nyah — I can’t hear you.”
When will conservatives stop hurting themselves by assaulting evolution?
Other people have different preferences, but personally I think it is a good thing ot have people like Book and Neo speak their mind without having to worry about the thought police and the ramifications of what will happen to them.
It is a curious advice though. First Marvin says think about political ambition and benefits, then Marv says don’t write about politics. Doublethink in action, but not very professional Doublethink. It’s only four conflicting thoughts in Marv’s post as I see it.
Ignore the authors politics and concentrate on substance.
When will conservatives stop hurting themselves by assaulting evolution? Incidentally this makes people ignore conservatives’ questioning of man made global warming pseudo-science.
So which came first, the chicken piece about ignoring politics and focusing on substance, or the egg bit about how conservatives need to think on the political ramifications of supporting their beliefs?
That’s pretty funny! I wonder if Einstein ever assaulted the Newtonian Theory of the Universe? Marvin does a very good job of assaulting Scientific Theory, however…which holds that many facts do a “Hypothesis” or Theory make but only one fact does it take to disprove the same. The important thing about “Evolution” (the Faith, not the Theory)is that it is absolutely central to the dogma of Secular Humanism, because it underpins the Secular Humanist existential premise that humans are the natural outcome of totally random events. No deity need apply. Anything counter to this dogma is heresy and must be quashed out of existance, if not by public humiliation, then by academic, social, educational and government blacklisting.
I think it ties in with anarchy in that if humans were randomly created, then our life is random and therefore devoid of meaning. If life is devoid of meaning, then you can eliminate hate and war, by making sure people have nothing to fight or die for. That’s the theory anyways. Like communism, you know how it works.
Book I am not sure what you mean by dishonest debate. Scientists who deal with evolution have very honest debates. The outcome is that no serious scientist envisions any theory that better explains the experimental evidence (that goes way beyond fossils).
If you mean debates in popular culture than I am sure there is plenty of dishonesty there but I can’t bring myself to care. All these armchair philosophers (read people not qualified to have an opinion) who pollute the internet with their ravings on evolution, free will and what not are ridiculous at best.
Again if you want to form an informed opinion about evolution you will have to learn. Just as with everything else in life.
Danny. Evolution is way closer to conservative ideas than to liberal ones. In fact the liberals are the ones that consistently deny evolutionary theory as it applies to humans while paying lip service to it. You might want to read “The blank slate” by Steven Pinker for a great exposure of this. I am pretty sure that Pinker himself is a liberal but this book should be in every conservative’s library.
I won’t bother replying to ymarsakar incomprehensible ravings except to point out that Heisenberg’s principle is not a fact. It is just a theory that can be refuted by an experiment or subsumed by a larger theory. This is just for the benefit of those who like him have no clue what this principle is about.
The only irrefutable facts exist in mathematics (and even there, there are caveats). Sciences about nature are not likely to turn out any irrefutable facts any time soon.
Marvin: you’re right about learning. The fact, though, is that most of us non-scientists learn what we’re taught in public schools and as to that, the lessons taught are conclusory, with evolution taught as “the answer to all things.” I’m not advocating the overthrow of evolution. However, I am saying, though, that when you hit a factual and theoretical wall, you say “I don’t know,” not that the absence of evidence proves the theory. In that regard, I don’t believe the Big Bang proves anything that came before the Big Bang, although religious people are happy to say it proves the existence of God, and non-religious people are happy to say it proves the non-existence of God. It doesn’t prove either. It’s dishonest debate on either side. And to the extent it appears that, outside of academic circles, but inside of education ones, people are drawing conclusions for children irrespective of evidence, that makes me unhappy.
By the way, I think we might be agreeing about central principles, but just skirmishing around the margins of educational approaches.
Thomas, if you’re still there, I’m interested to know what you believe. Do you take a literal approach to Genesis?
Basicly speaking, the second law of thermodynamics states that all of creation is on a downward spiral, condradicting evolution that states we are advancing to the next level of evolution. A good description, with cites, can be found at christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics. This is just a piece of the puzzle in your search for answers.
On the other hand, I’ve never read or heard anyone who absolutely claims that evolution explains everything, either. It explains some things. Other things it doesn’t do so well. This is possibly because it doesn’t hold across the board, or our understanding is incomplete, or there are missing pieces (to go along with missing links) – or perhaps there are even exceptions.
What is has to do with Coulter and Estrich I’m not sure, except it might be fair to say that Coulter is a more highly evolved version than Estrich – but it’s interesting.
But not absolute.
Zhombre,
Yes, I’m still here. I’m still working on that essay, and it’ll come in two parts. Since I’m no scientist, I make no pretensions that what I’m writing is a work of erudition. I’ll probably finish by tomorrow and publish it in full on my blog, but I’ll ping it back to this post in case your still interested.
Basically, the thrust of it will be addressing popular conceptions of evolution and very little of the actual science of it. The first part of the essay will examine pop evolution and the second part will discuss the relevancy of evolution as pertaining to Christianity specified.
As my latter statement suggests, yes, I am a Christian, and as such, I think the popular theory of evolution is contradictory to Christianity. Whether or not the world was literally created in seven days and the last being where God rested, I don’t know. Perhaps that portion of Genesis is metaphor, perhaps not. I wouldn’t know and it doesn’t concern me at the moment. The contradiction between pop evolution and Christianity does not reside there as far as I’m concerned. The contradiction resides in the notion of upward progression…
Anyway, I won’t mount the argument here. Besides, that’ll make the essay I’m writing redundant to me.
I know many will disagree with my take on evolution– most people I’ve met do– but I have yet to encounter compelling information that would suggest the veracity of evolution.
Could be an uphill swim there, Thomas, especially in the light of the 1996 conference of the Papal Academy of Sciences. At which no less than Pope John Paul II unburdened himself of the remark that the theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
I’ll be interested to read your essay, bearing in mind that the story of Adam was not the prerogative of early Hebrew writers; his story and details were set down long before Genesis was compiled. (Adam was pretty much a straightforward steal from Sumer, as was most of what came to be called Genesis.)
“Danny. Evolution is way closer to conservative ideas than to liberal ones.”
Interesting, Marvin. “Evolution” is a scientific theory, supported to various degrees by facts. “Conservative” versus “Liberal” refers to political ideologies and world views. As an (Anglican) Christian, I have no problem with the science of Evolution: to me, the science of Evolution provides wonderful insights into how the Creator works (to JJ’s point).
I have just as much an intellectual disconnect with Fundamentalist Christians that deny the science (although I believe their views to be harmless) as with Left Wing ideologues that invent, suppress or twist the scientific facts to support their existentialist and “Darwinian” ideologies (which, as 20th Century fascination with eugenics, national socialism and communism have amply demonstrated, is extremely harmful).
My criticism of “Evolution” is the degree to which the science has been warped and usurped by political ideologues.
Consequently, to me, your sentence suggests a non sequitur. Please explain.
Perhaps that portion of Genesis is metaphor, perhaps not
I’m not even sure the writers of the Bible could understand how the world was created even if someone told them the truth of it.
Danny, let me try to explain though constraints of this format will make it hard. If you want more details please read the book I mentioned.
First of all as you said “Conservative” versus “Liberal” refers to political ideologies and world views. Evolution is a theory about how the world works. They _are_ therefore connected. Even stronger evolution theory has very grave implications regarding what we as humans are and this is why it is of a very real relevance to political ideology. The very reason that we endlessly discuss evolution rather than big bang or quantum mechanics is that the former is connected to ideology while the others are not.
Second, before continuing, I find it funny (though perfectly understandable) that you lump eugenics and national socialism (which are commonly put on the right) with communism (which is on the left). They have many common features but also some fundamental differences.
To get back to your question one of the main conservative ideas is a belief in unchangeable human nature which has both good and bad in it. The goal of the society is to contain the bad and maximize the good. Liberals believe that human nature is changeable at will. The goal of the society for them is to make people change to the better. (I am of course grossly simplifying here). Evolution theory, when applied to human being predicts that conservatives are correct.
If you find it surprising that evolution predicts such things thank our educational establishment and media. While they have nothing against preaching evolution as it was known to Darwin, they have big problem revealing what modern evolutionary biology has to say about Homo Sapiens.
Book, with regards to education all education is simply a progression of more and more sophisticated “lies to children” (or adults). Pretty much everything you have learnt in high school was a lie or half truth (where ‘truth’ stands for ‘the most comprehensive theory known to mankind as of today’). Evolution is no exception to this. As for big bang I don’t even want to talk about this. Very few physicists (meaning people with PhD in physics) know enough of cosmology and related matters to intelligently discuss it.
Usually this is not a problem. We have finite amount of time and resources so we cannot be experts in every area. We learn enough lies to get a general picture of some area of knowledge and defer to experts to do the rest. Surely you don’t need to understand the physics of a silicon chip to use your computer.
The problems start when laymen for one reason or another get fascinated by some topic and start to debate it among themselves without bothering to learn it. For obvious reasons things that relate to who we are usually cause this fascination.
So going back to evolution here is the situation as of today. Evolution is the best scientific theory of life available. It is supported by lots of evidence from different parts of biological sciences, genetics, mathematics, geology and physics. All reputable biologists support this theory and where they have disagreements they are about details not basic principles.
Creationists and ID people live only in the popular media. Their contribution to biological science is exactly zero (at least as far as their counter-evolution theories are concerned). Were they to produce a single practical result from their ‘theories’ this situation would change but so far their ideas have been completely sterile.
So unless you can propose a better theory, evolution is what you’ve got. You can argue how much and at what level should be taught in schools but whatever you decide you won’t be able to teach all of it and will have to settle on some kind of lie.
It is just a theory that can be refuted by an experiment or subsumed by a larger theory. This is just for the benefit of those who like him have no clue what this principle is about.-M
In science there are specific criteria for principles, laws, theories, and hypothesis. A sort of heirarchy based upon the inductive proofs and logic justifications. In most cases a hypothesis isn’t verified by actual experiments, it is either mathematical in its proofs and explanations or a set of interpretations based upon limited data (other variations could occur, but I can’t think of them at the moment). A law has a rather large amount of empirical evidence to go with it, but it doesn’t mean everything is right at every time. Newton’s Laws are one thing. First, Second laws work, within the limited scope of what it applies to, that is. Theory is sort of between Laws and Hypothesis. Some evidence and experiments are obviously there to support it, but it isn’t nearly enough to make a consistent law. Because science is the way it is, you have things like Quantum Theory overriding Newtonian Laws as being the best explanation of the world of sub-atomic particles. But people still use Newtonian Physics. So it is weird in how theories can actually better explain phenomenon that laws also try to explain, but is less useful because while we can experiment and verify F=ma, it is a little harder to verify quarks and quantum particles. Slower going, less experiments to be peer reviewed.
So now we go to what Rock was refering to. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. But regardless what name people call it, it is in fact a principle. Meaning something that is even more fundamentally true than a Law. A principle literally can never be false. If it is, even once, then you got to throw the whole thing out, cause it is now useless, it might as well be a theory and should be treated as such.
[This is growing to be something I’m going to post on my site, because it’s containing too many links)
The principal energy laws that govern every organization are derived from two famous laws of thermodynamics. The second law, known as Carnot’s principle, is controlled by the concept of entropy.
Today the word entropy is as much a part of the language of the physical sciences as it is of the human sciences. Unfortunately, physicists, engineers, and sociologists use indiscriminately a number of terms that they take to be synonymous with entropy, such as disorder, probability, noise, random mixture, heat; or they use terms they consider synonymous with antientropy, such as information, neguentropy, complexity, organization, order, improbability.
Here, as you can see, people seem to talk about principles and then talks about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Do they use different words to mean the same? That’s not true of science, given its attempt at precision. So I gave you a reason why scientists have different words like hypothesis, theory, law, or principle. If Bookworm or other people want to learn about something that is always true, no ifs buts or what abouts, then they should look up every scientific principle that is touted as a principle. To see what it says and to see whether it is truly a principle or not.
The first law of thermodynamics says that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains constant. This is the principle of the conservation of energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of this energy is degraded irreversibly. This is the principle of the degradation of energy.
This is I think a more accurate and better view than what I said about it the 2nd Law of Thermo being a principle. It explains the point I was trying to make, better.
Let me attempt then an explanation at why it is better concerning the bolded portion. The reason why they call it the “First Law of” is because it is not always true. When and where would it not be true? When you’re not in a closed system. If you’re getting energy from the 90th dimension, then obviously the amount of energy in your universe isn’t constant. What about the principle of the conservation of energy, when is that NOT true? Never. Not supposed to say never, but still, never.
This all goes back to what Marvin claimed, that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is just a theory that can be “subsumed” by a larger theory.
He most probably is refering to this.
Heisenberg and Bohr’s theories were compatible and became known together as the Copenhagen interpretation and accepted as the foundation for quantum theory.
But principles are not the same as theories. As we see with thermodynamics, principles can form the basis for interpretation or a law, but it itself is not the same as those laws and theories.
It is hard to argue that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is always true, without resorting to and explaining the fundamental mathematics that it uses and is itself composed of. I can barely understand some of the conceptual connections to the math, and I surely cannot do the equations and calculations. In fact you can go to wikipedia to see some of the mathematical equations. But, I can and will talk about this paragraph from Wiki.
History and interpretations
Main article: Interpretation of quantum mechanics
The Uncertainty Principle was developed as an answer to the question: How does one measure the location of an electron around a nucleus?
In the summer of 1922 Heisenberg met Niels Bohr, the founding father of quantum mechanics, and in September 1924 Heisenberg went to Copenhagen, where Bohr had invited him as a research associate and later as his assistant. In 1925 Werner Heisenberg laid down the basic principles of a complete quantum mechanics. In his new matrix theory he replaced classical commuting variables with non-commuting ones. Heisenberg’s paper marked a radical departure from previous attempts to solve atomic problems by making use of observable quantities only. He wrote in a 1925 letter, “My entire meagre efforts go toward killing off and suitably replacing the concept of the orbital paths that one cannot observe.” Rather than struggle with the complexities of three-dimensional orbits, Heisenberg dealt with the mechanics of a one-dimensional vibrating system, an anharmonic oscillator. The result was formulae in which quantum numbers were related to observable radiation frequencies and intensities. In March 1926, working in Bohr’s institute, Heisenberg formulated the principle of uncertainty thereby laying the foundation of what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Albert Einstein was not happy with the uncertainty principle, and he challenged Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg with a famous thought experiment (See the Bohr-Einstein debates for more details): we fill a box with a radioactive material which randomly emits radiation. The box has a shutter, which is opened and immediately thereafter shut by a clock at a precise time, thereby allowing some radiation to escape. So the time is already known with precision. We still want to measure the conjugate variable energy precisely. Einstein proposed doing this by weighing the box before and after. The equivalence between mass and energy from special relativity will allow you to determine precisely how much energy was left in the box. Bohr countered as follows: should energy leave, then the now lighter box will rise slightly on the scale. That changes the position of the clock. Thus the clock deviates from our stationary reference frame, and by general relativity, its measurement of time will be different from ours, leading to some unavoidable margin of error. In fact, a detailed analysis shows that the imprecision is correctly given by Heisenberg’s relation.
The term Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was often used interchangeably with and as a synonym for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle by detractors who believed in fate and determinism and saw the common features of the Bohr-Heisenberg theories as a threat. Within the widely but not universally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (i.e., it was not accepted by Einstein or other physicists such as Alfred Lande), the uncertainty principle is taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form — but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials. For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that it cannot be predicted by any method, not even with theoretically infinitely precise measurements.
It is this interpretation that Einstein was questioning when he said “I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe.” Bohr, who was one of the authors of the Copenhagen interpretation responded, “Einstein, don’t tell God what to do.” Niels Bohr himself acknowledged that quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle were counter-intuitive when he stated, “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word.”
The basic debate between Einstein and Bohr (including Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) was that Einstein was in essence saying: “Of course, we can know where something is; we can know the position of a moving particle if we know every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can predict where it will go.” Bohr and Heisenberg were saying the opposite: “There is no way to know where a moving particle is ever even given every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can never predict where it will go.”
Einstein was convinced that this interpretation was in error. His reasoning was that all previously known probability distributions arose from deterministic events. The distribution of a flipped coin or a rolled die can be described with a probability distribution (50% heads, 50% tails), but this does not mean that their physical motions are unpredictable. Ordinary mechanics can be used to calculate exactly how each coin will land, if the forces acting on it are known. And the heads/tails distribution will still line up with the probability distribution (given random initial forces).
Mathematics is an inherently deductive approach to science’s most inductive methods and logic. Either an equation is correct or it is incorrect, either a proof is correct or it has a flaw and mistake. Therefore mathematical equations, because of the identity principles it uses A=B=C therefore A=C, can be easily found to be either right or wrong. There is little uncertainty about this. The uncertainty lies not in whether it is correct or incorrect, but in how you interpret it in relation to the physical world. Interpretations, obviously, can go wrong. The Uncertainty Principle stands apart from the theories and re-interpretations of the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics.
It’s Albert Einstein vs Bohrs and Werner Heisenberg, who will win this infamous deathmatch of geniuses? A little humour bit.
The image of the inexorable death of the universe, as suggested by the second principle, has profoundly influenced our philosophy, our ethics, our vision of the world, and even our art. The thought that by the very nature of entropy the ultimate and only possible future for man is annihilation has infiltrated our culture like a paralysis. This consideration led Leon Brillouin to ask, “How is it possible to understand life when the entire world is ordered by a law such as the second principle of thermodynamics, which points to death and annihilation?”
This bolded quote refers of course to what I was talking about before, concerning entropy. Here as we see, science and philosophy collides, if only because it has a common agent, man, to interface both with science and human philosophy.
The ramifications of entropy and decay was first seen by me in how civilizations degrade historically. But that degradation was not in anyway related to thermodynamics in my mind, because I didn’t exactly know what thermodynamics was at that point. At about the same time Sayet’s nihilism video came out and that I saw on Book’s site, was about the same time I was looking more into entropy and what it was. The two clicked. And obviously the issues I have, would resonate with other people who have studied and understood entropy for what it truly is in relation to humanity.
Just a little sideline discussion.
*****
Personally, I think Marvin needs to learn not to contradict himself before he talks about how other people need to be learned.
to point out that Heisenberg’s principle is not a fact
Followed by
The only irrefutable facts exist in mathematics (and even there, there are caveats).
If a mathematical set of equations is not a fact, then why would he say that facts exist in mathematics right after? A little cognitive dissonance here, it seems.
I wonder if Einstein ever assaulted the Newtonian Theory of the Universe?-Danny
I hope my post answered the question of what Einstein ever assaulted, Danny.
I am pretty sure that Pinker himself is a liberal but this book should be in every conservative’s library.
Evolution is way closer to conservative ideas than to liberal ones.
I simply have to make the point again that being a partisan hack about conservatives vs liberals doesn’t lead to much comprehension of science.
What’s patently insane is that people think they can get more knowledge by being more conservative or more liberal (fake or otherwise). That is not how it works.
*****
I’ve delayed my response to Rock’s post on thermodynamics related to evolution until now.
Let me just say first off that entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is not incompatible with evolution. Anymore than it is incompatible with a Creator that creates energy out of thin air. The reason is rather simple and requires little background. All you have to understand is that the Second Law is a simple mathematical equation that says in a closed system, entropy either increases or stays the same.
Because evolution and biological life forms aren’t evolving in a closed system, they are able to use energy from the sun (or God) to become more organized and better while at the same time expending useful energy and creating useful work.
Whether you believe this external energy to be the sun or god, or gods and space aliens, doesn’t really matter. Evolution doesn’t occur in a closed system. So the Thermodynamic argument against evolution is… fundamentally flawed. And wrong at that. If people want to undermine evolution, they should find something better to do it with.
There was a link I found that said much the same thing as me, but it was rather partisan in its support of evolution against the Intelligent Design people, so I didn’t use it. I just used my own arguments, didn’t need theirs.
Evolution is the best scientific theory of life available. It is supported by lots of evidence from different parts of biological sciences, genetics, mathematics, geology and physics.
I’ll say it again, just to make things obvious. None of this actually matters to Marvin, the lots of evidence that is. What I think matters to Marvin is that evolution proves the conservatives to be correct, it is a political position. Not a scientific one. There are some overlap, but when people are motivated in the “truth” because of their politics, instead of being motivated in seeking out their politics because of the truth, problems will occur.
People know this is true because Marvin himself takes great pains to be abrasive about other people he accuses of finding pet theories to talk about. Nobody else’s pet theories about quantum mechanics and free will is correct or is even worth discussing, only Marvin’s pet theories about evolution justifying his conservative look on human nature, is correct. That seems slightly off kilter to me, but it might not to you.
The problems start when laymen for one reason or another get fascinated by some topic and start to debate it among themselves without bothering to learn it. For obvious reasons things that relate to who we are usually cause this fascination.
It is debatable whether Marv is refering to people he wants to tear down or himself. Could be both even.
So unless you can propose a better theory, evolution is what you’ve got. You can argue how much and at what level should be taught in schools but whatever you decide you won’t be able to teach all of it and will have to settle on some kind of lie.
Comment by Marvin | April 14, 2007
Basically if marv doesn’t give you the patent of approval, you’re telling lies and are talking about things you don’t know anything about.
In reference to better theories, I find that to be a rather interesting and rigged system marv setup here. Because people should intuitively understand that genetic manipulation technologies is actual, factual, and in current existence. But not only that, but genetic manipulation technologies prove Intelligent Design more than it does Evolution.
Were they to produce a single practical result from their ‘theories’ this situation would change but so far their ideas have been completely sterile.
So Marv basically means that his Evolutionary pet theory includes even Genetic Manipulation technologies and advances, as a way that disproves Intelligent Design. How does intelligent people designing life with genetic manipulation, a disproof of Intelligent Design? Marv doesn’t know, and he doesn’t care, all he seems to care about is that Evolution is the right and if you disagree… well.
[...] Filed under: Arguments — ymarsakar @ 9:03 am [An Argument I cut from this post on Ann vs Susan smackdown. The Links are kind of footnoted at the bottom of this post] It is just a theory that can be [...]
Marvin wrote:
“The only irrefutable facts exist in mathematics (and even there, there are caveats).”
I hate to nitpick, but Marvin, you used the word caveat to mean exception and that is not what it means. A caveat is a warning. This missuse suggests that you may be an academic scientist, as they constantly make this mistake. I know this because I am an academic scientist (plant biologist who just made tenure), and this missuse of “caveat” rankles me as much as the missuse of “classical.”
So the Thermodynamic argument against evolution is… fundamentally flawed. And wrong at that. If people want to undermine evolution, they should find something better to do it with.[ymarsakar]
open systems/closed systems: open thermodynamic systems exchange heat, light, or matter with their surroundings, closed systems do not. No outside energy flows into a closed system. Earth is an open system; it receives outside energy from the Sun.
Is Energy the Key?
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun’s energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?
A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun’s energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers – all beginning from a single seed. If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun’s energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)? What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The preceding was taken from the ChristianAnswers.Net website and contains a much more detailed explanation as to why the second law of thermodynamics does apply to evolution theories. One should really read this to gain a fuller understanding.
Marvin – you’ve presented a lot to digest. So, here…in small doses:
“Second, before continuing, I find it funny (though perfectly understandable) that you lump eugenics and national socialism (which are commonly put on the right) with communism (which is on the left)” – uh, yes…Nazis were National Socialists – same gang as Marxist/Bolsheviks, just different gang colors. Read about Hitler’s rise to power to understand how one begat the other-both intellectual movements, products of Rousseau’s Social Contract and the French Revolution, involved the application of state (fascist) power to forcibly create utopian states.
The term “Right” is an indefinite terms that generally means, “not socialist”. Its origin is that non-socialists (or Jacobins)were seated on the “right” side of the post-revolutionary French National Assembly. As Brad (#32) emphasizes, words mean things. A “conservative” in America means something very different than a conservative in Europe or Saudi Arabia.
“Evolution is a theory about how the world works” and “one of the main conservative ideas is a belief in unchangeable human nature which has both good and bad in it”.
Here is where I see the non-sequitur in your proposition.
Evolution is not a theory of how the world works – it is a theory that attempts to link disparate points of information, mostly from the fossil record, into a model for how physical life changes over time. Genetics purports to be the mechanism whereby this occurs. Genetics is a scientifically demonstrated fact. That it has a role to play in evolution is also a fact. How much of a role and whether or not it is the only factor cannot be proven and there are many gaps in the fossil record that cannot be explained. Neither has anyone has been able to prove that the original amino and nucleic acid building components of living systems were created by lightning strikes and thereafter defied entropy by organizing themselves into complex system…contrary to claims that were popular in the science textbooks of my youth. That hasn’t stopped the speculation, of course.
However, when you get to beliefs about the dualism of human nature, this isn’t a question of “conservativism” (see above) as on of philosophy and religion. Science can neither prove or disprove the dualism of human nature, nor can it address Jean Jacques Rousseau’s proposition that human behavior and value-systems were simply Pavlovian-like responses to their “brutish” environments. The dichotomy here is not of competing scientific theories(i.e. evolution) but of two different epistemologies, one based upon empirical science, the other based upon metaphysics. Plato maintained that “truth” embodies both. I happen to agree.
Brad, yes you are right. Still, words change their meanings over time and if the majority of people uses ‘caveat’ as ‘exception’ then I see no problem using it in the same way.
Danny, I am well aware of the undefined meanings of words ‘left’, ‘right’, ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’ and so on. I should have mentioned that I use them in the sense most familiar to modern north American. I am also aware of the history of various -isms in 17th-20th centuries. My point still stands, however. While the influences you mention were certainly there, there are also fundamental differences between Nazim and Communism. In the former ‘vermin’ had to be physically destroyed (since its nature is unchangeable – Hobbes rather than Rousseau), the Aryans are naturally good etc. etc. In the later it is the environment that makes you good or bad. You are not born exploiter or exploited, society makes you one.
As for eugenics (which incidentally is the only one of them that could theoretically work – horrible as it is) it lies in a different plane altogether. It acknowledges human nature and wants to change by breeding. I have no doubts that this will be attempted again once it becomes technologically possible (it isn’t now and wasn’t in the 20s).
“Evolution is not a theory of how the world works – it is a theory that attempts to link disparate points of information, mostly from the fossil record, into a model for how physical life changes over time.”
This is wrong on many counts. To begin with evolution is a mathematical theory about what happens to collections of replicators that are subject to constraints. It applies to human languages, computer algorithms and living organisms among other things. In the case of the later fossil evidence is nice but neither required or necessary to support it. (Incidentally, as a reply to somebody else, evolution of new species have been confirmed ‘in the lab’ when modern ‘circular’ species have been discovered.)
Now we can argue about what ‘how the world works’ means but I think you got my meaning.
“How much of a role and whether or not it is the only factor cannot be proven and there are many gaps in the fossil record that cannot be explained.”
Again, evidence for evolution would be as strong in we had no fossils at all. These ‘gaps in fossil record’ is the most preposterous argument that is currently circulated. To quote Richard Dawkins (whose politics I hate)
“In spite of the fascination of fossils, it is surprising how much we would still know about our evolutionary past without them. If every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary, and that all living creatures are cousins.
Fossils are a bonus.”
Back to your argument: “Neither has anyone has been able to prove that the original amino and nucleic acid building components of living systems were created by lightning strikes and thereafter defied entropy by organizing themselves into complex system…contrary to claims that were popular in the science textbooks of my youth.”
This is a question about how first replicator appeared and it has _nothing_ to do with evolution. As far as I know there isn’t a single convincing theory of life origins and I won’t speculate about it. However, once you get first replicators the inevitable math of evolution starts its work.
“However, when you get to beliefs about the dualism of human nature, this isn’t a question of “conservativism” (see above) as on of philosophy and religion.”
“Conservatives” and “liberals” under different names had existed since the dawn of humankind. You can call them political ideas, religions or philosophies but they still exists. Pinker (following somebody else) calls them ‘the tragic vision’ and ‘the utopian vision’.
Unfortunately for philosophers, who claimed this domain as theirs since the beginning of time, evolutionary biology is finally in the position to produce results on this issue.
We are in the same situation today as were Galileo’s contemporaries. Suddenly something that used to be a province of religion and philosophy was explained by science. The reaction is almost the same today
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?
I understand the distinction between organized and disorganized life (energy), but what does that have to do with violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference
Okay, let’s talk about the ifs.
Basicly speaking, the second law of thermodynamics states that all of creation is on a downward spiral, condradicting evolution that states we are advancing to the next level of evolution
If a person says that the Second Law contradicts evolution, then why does a Law that talks about closed systems contradict itself on an open system? It can’t, because it isn’t a law that says what will or will not happen in an open system.
You seem to be talking about how evolution is a desire for energy to organize itself, but the Laws of Thermodynamics simply says two things, that the quantity of energy in a system remains constant and that entropy either increases or stays the same in a closed system. There have been attempts at trying to figure out the “anti-entropy”, but that’s something else.
Thus, they suggest that the Sun’s energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet.
I think that’s an incorrect interpretation. It doesn’t say that the energy from outside caused or did not cause, it just says that the 2nd Law doesn’t contradict evolution, and it is true it doesn’t.
The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
Since the argument wasn’t in the first place that the sun’s energy causes the difference between life and unlife, I don’t see what they or you are trying to say, Rock.
You saw the 2nd Law contradicts the evolutionary belief that life becomes more ordered in a sense. I’ve said why it doesn’t contradict it. I don’t see what the heat of the sun has to do with why the 2nd Law contradicts the evolving of disorganized systems into more organized ones.
Book,
Interesting how your posts generate such a divergence from the topic..
I am (1) Christian, (2) Fundamentalist, (3) Conservative and it seems my basic Biblical beliefs have been pilloried in these comments.
However, it didn’t hurt, I can still smile and say, we shall see!
But back to the subject. Ann is not publicly sweet, but brilliant. Ann is almost always right meaning there are times when we disagree, but I doubt that she worries much about that.
And on the other hand, Susan is publicly saccharine sweet, and not smart. Susan is always Left and rarely right, we always disagree. I am sure that would not bother her either. Just happy I am not required to be under her tutelage.
ExP(Jack)
Marvin said:
“My point still stands, however. While the influences you mention were certainly there, there are also fundamental differences between Nazim and Communism. In the former ‘vermin’ had to be physically destroyed (since its nature is unchangeable – Hobbes rather than Rousseau), the Aryans are naturally good etc.”
No nitpicking this time; with this I have a fundamental disagreement. The close relationship between nazism and communism is a product of both a de facto commonality (totalitarianism) and a philosophical evolution (collectivism). The precursers of each (Hegel et al and Marx et al are derivatives of Rousseau (as Danny points out) and both systems are collectivist! in form and substance (and utopian in design). The Aryan angle to nazism is Darwian (they are inferior organisms) if anything, not Hobbsian. Hobbes and Locke may have believed in the essential and permanent imperfection of Man, but it was at an INDIVIDUAL level, not group or race, etc. Both felt that a functional society would be based on a common pursuit of wealth and comfort by each individual (knowing full well some would be left behind), in stead of a “more collective ideology” (to quote the jerks at the Seattle public school board). All attempts at collectivism are ab initio doomed to failure and to cause mass destruction, and that includes twenty-first century multiculturalism. collectivism=totalitarianism=horror period
(Danny, it was the monarchists, not the Jacobins that sat on the right; the Jacobins were the bad boys of the left)
the Jacobins were the bad boys of the left
Why is that not surprising to me.
In the National Convention, which proclaimed the French republic, the Jacobins and other opponents of the Girondists sat in the raised seats and were called the Mountain. Their leaders—Maximilien Robespierre and Louis de Saint-Just, among others—relied mainly on the strength of the Paris commune and the Parisian sans-culottes. After the fall of the Girondists (June, 1793), for which the Jacobins were largely responsible, the Jacobin leaders instituted the Reign of Terror. Under Robespierre, who came to dominate the government, the Terror was used not only against counterrevolutionaries, but also against former allies of the Jacobins, such as the Cordeliers and the Dantonists (followers of Georges Danton). The fall of Robespierre on 9 Thermidor (July 27, 1794) meant the fall of the Jacobins, but their spirit lived on in revolutionary doctrine. The movement reappeared during the Directory and in altered form much later in the Revolution of 1848 and in the Paris Commune of 1871.
Both Nazism and Communism came about because of Revolutionary doctrine. And revolutionary doctrine of the same kind, even. Certainly it wasn’t modeled off Washington.
Sorry, Brad – you’re absolutely right, of course. More later.
The most childish feature of Bookworm’s review of Ms. Coulter’s book is Bookworm’s blind adherence to the false dichotomy between liberal and conservative, with respect to the acceptance of evolution science. Bookworm may read, but she seldom thinks.
Brad you are confusing influences and convergent resemblances with fundamental principles. Kind of like saying dolphin is a fish. It might look like a fish and swim like a fish but it ain’t no fish.
Both nazism, communism and these days islamism converge on the same tactics and approaches. It is still wrong to lump them as the same thing.
With regards to Hobbes vs. Rousseau vs. nazis of course what nazis believed in wasn’t exactly what Hobbes or Rousseau or anybody else believed. Nobody claims that. Still there is a fundamental divide between those that believe that we are born in a blank state and can become what we want or what society makes us and those who believe in inborn human nature. Nazis and Hobbes are on one side of this divide. Rousseau and communists on another.
Marv’s right, it isn’t a fish. It’s a proton.
Marvin, good ripostes, I grant you.
I am beginning to understand that you adhere to a totally mechanistic view of the human experience that I find sad and troubling: the view that human nature, moral values and decisions are the direct consequence of molecular reactions that conform to (what we know as) the laws of physics. Consequently, like the string theories of psychological behaviorism promoted by Pavlov, Skinner and their ilk, human behavior and morality are simply biological processes impinged upon by their environment. This this, incidentally, puts you far more in the camp of Rousseau and the Left than Hobbes, Locke, conservativism (in the American sense) or, theology, where Creationism and Intelligent Design flourish very well outside of the popular media, thank you very much (take heart, expreacherman…you are hardly being pilloried, here).
Consequently, within your “science”-based worldview, political or ideological trends ARE simply rationalized biological and evolutionary processes. It denies any spiritual, transcendental nature to the human experience. It is so rational, so brilliant, so scientific…it is, so the product of hubris. It, in effect, denies thousands of years of recorded human experience and the witness of billions. It’s also hardly new, as the record of the Old Testament (re. King Solomon’s “Wisdom” or “Proverbs”, for example) tells us. Same theology, same actors, just different stage props.
Here is where it gets really troubling:
Your comment in post #35…”As for eugenics (which incidentally is the only one of them that could theoretically work – horrible as it is) it lies in a different plane altogether. It acknowledges human nature and wants to change by breeding. I have no doubts that this will be attempted again once it becomes technologically possible (it isn’t now and wasn’t in the 20s).” You reveal yourself here. From whence do you rationalize such a judgment-laden phrase as “horrible as it was…”? Is there a scientically rational way to put a moral value on something like eugenics?
This is the logical outcome of where atheism and intellectual hubris take us…where Man plays God. This is the common thread that links the great atrocities of the 20th Century, from Margaret Sanger’s race-based, eugenics-rationalized abortion mills of Planned Parenthood, to the Nazi and Communist “scientifically planned societies”. These were “experiments” that for most rational people (but not all, apparently) disproved the “theory”.
“Creationists and ID people live only in the popular media. – Marvin #28″. I am sure that theologians of the major faiths worldwide will be pleased to learn this. Would someone please take the time to inform the Vatican?
From YM – “So Marv basically means that his Evolutionary pet theory includes even Genetic Manipulation technologies and advances, as a way that disproves Intelligent Design. How does intelligent people designing life with genetic manipulation, a disproof of Intelligent Design?” – …priceless, YM, simply priceless!
To build on YM’s point – your quote from Dawkins (an angry man who is way out of his field re. “Evolution”) in Post #35 only references a process called Evolution (which, if you read my posts, I don’t disagree with) based upon what we know of genetics, but offers no insight into or refutation of WHO designed the initial process and why. What the fossil records show is that there are huge jumps in biological creation that remain unexplained. Sure, there are all kinds of mathematical models that seek to explain the process of evolution, but here we get into the same conundrum as the Global Warming models (another theological question for another day) – beautiful human-designed models that can neither predict backward nor forward, conveniently overlook crucial data (e.g., the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas) but claim to explain the here and now without explaining “why”.
For reasons that are way to lengthy to delve into for this post, I don’t believe (as a trained scientist – a long and honorable tradition among religious Anglicans, by the way) that we will ever fully understand the physical world around us. Rather than being confident about what I know, I try to stay humble about what I don’t – the alternative that you propose on the basis of insufficient information, I fear, just leads us to great human tragedy. My data? “There’s nothng new under the sun” – Ecclesiastes.
Nazism was big on eugenics. So it wasn’t as if Nazism didn’t work, Communism didn’t work, and eugenics can theoretically work (horrible as it is). Every totalitarian, entropy based process or system promoting avenue, can “work” given the requisite brainwashing and indoctrination technologies.
Being able to “work” in the scientific sense, gives no ethical sense of whether it should be done or not. Sort of like how people should not tie in their political ideologies with scientific theories like evolution, claiming that evolution proves conservative’s model of humanity, philosophically that is (that’s actually a word). What makes people good and evil is independent of entropy, of physical processes, and of scientific theories, eugenic or simply societal.
The ability to harness or contain or have entropy, does not make a person good or evil simply by that facet alone. There is no exact way to measure a person’s actions in whether it causes civilization to decay more or less. That is why science is only of use peripherally with ethics and philosophy. They can combined, but it should not be used as a foundation.
I use the phrase “servants of entropy” because that is a servile position, which serves entropy’s purpose, not the purposes of humanity. Therefore controllers of entropy and those who master it, are different from servants in my view, different and better.
Science is even more limited in a sense, because it cannot dream, it can only compute via mathematics or through interpretations and observations of hard data. See instead of dreams. Math is a very deductive and hard coded methodology. There’s not much give in it to dream, but there are abstract proofs and mathematical models of extra dimensions. But evolution isn’t about that, is it.
Even with seeing instead of dreaming, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle still has a rather prejudicial effect on the precision to which science can achieve before certain variations come into the picture. The philosophical and epistemological ramifications of his U Principle applies to what Danny said here about evolution not being a experimentally verifiable model on certain evo hypothesis. After all, how can you control the variables to be tested (the creation of new species), with the variables that affect the test (time, design, random probabilities, luck, chance, fate, mutations, environment, etc)? In order to verify the hypothesis of how new species come into being, you have to actually see it occur. But since new species presumably occur over a very long time… what exactly is science going to prove using inductive logic? You can’t do it, you have to use deductive logic, which doesn’t care about the limit to which you can gather data with precision.
Marvin’s claims that U’s principle is not math, and because math contains or is facts, this means evolution is a fact because evolution is explained by mathematical equations… People obviously know there’s a problem with that, even if they don’t get mathematical equations. The problems start in the beginning and they start big.
But to summarize it, there is no mathematical equation that can predict the creation of new species. It’s like a mathematical equation that predicts the exact location and speed of a wave event. Can’t do it. To predict the speed (frequency) with 100% accuracy, you would need an infinitely long wavelength, in order to sample it with 100% accuracy. How many waves have infinite wavelengths? Like dividing by zero, don’t try it.
We cannot accelerate time. In science, 20 years seems long to humans, but concerning data, it is rather short. It’s not enough to say that “my science has math supporting it”. It probably does, but it doesn’t matter. Can scientists accurately predict the evolution of humanity 50,000 years into the future with their “evolution math”. No. So why do people think it can do it via reversing time? If you can’t accelerate time, then you sure as heck can’t reverse time (a bigger and harder challenge).
A certain percentage of Americans are hard core Conservatives and certain percentage of Americans are hard core Liberals. There is a third group of independent voters that Arthur Schlesinger called the “Vital Center”. It is these independent voters who must be swayed to the right or the left for either side to carry an election. If educated with facts and common sense the vital center usually votes with the Right. If confused with the Liberal’s conspiracy theories and outright deceptions, the vital center votes with the Left.
There is no issue that drives the vital center running from the Conservative camp faster than the issue of Evolution vs Creationism. As soon as they hear that Conservatives believe in a religiously based theory of intelligent design, the vital center begins to buy into the Left’s conspiracy theories and deceptions and question the Right’s factual arguments. Right or wrong, this issue is Conservatism’s Achilles Heel and its debate should be avoided at all costs.
I am not sure that I agree with you, DReid. Polls consistently show that a large majority of this country considers itself to be religious, whereas other polls indicate a very significant majority would never consider voting for an atheist for President. That applies also (although to a lesser degree) to many on the Left that consider themselves to be religious (is HelenL still checking in?). Evolution without an “Intelligent Designer” might pose more problems for that vital center than you think.
Thanks Danny,
After posting my comment, I agonized over having made the statement, “pilloried.”
No one is ever pilloried on Book’s Blog, at least not by Book.
Should have said “Had a few puffy cotton balls wafted my way.”
ExP(Jack)
Danny, I am unsure of the exact percentages of independent voters who would be turned off by a candidate talking about either Intelligent Design or Evolution. You are probably correct and I have no information that refutes your assessment. I do know that the Left really plays up the whole rejection of evolution angle and that helps them sell their fallacious argument that Conservatives are all Bible Thumping extremists who reject science.
Marvin said:
“Brad you are confusing influences and convergent resemblances with fundamental principles. Kind of like saying dolphin is a fish. It might look like a fish and swim like a fish but it ain’t no fish.”
Personally I don’t think a dolphin looks like a fish; it looks like a sea-going mammal to me. Blow hole and all.
“Still there is a fundamental divide between those that believe that we are born in a blank state and can become what we want or what society makes us and those who believe in inborn human nature. Nazis and Hobbes are on one side of this divide.”
No. The nazis ideas were derived from Hegel and Neitche et al, not Hobbes. There was no element of the Hobbes/Locke society (the individual as the key component of society) in the nazi system. To quote you: “…you are confusing … convergent resemblances with fundamental principles.”
Let me qualify what I said, DReid: I don’t think voters would be turned off by a Presidential candidate who believed in Creationism or Intelligent Design (we’ve certainly had a few in our history). I do, however, believe that voters would be turned off by any Presidential candidate that interjected Evolution debates into the campaign, as they would figure (rightly) that this is a candidate that is off topic and doesn’t have their priorities straight.
I agree with you about the Left – however, I believe (hope?) that their anti-Christian bigotry will eventually reveal them for who they are and backfire upon them. Too many people know Christian fundamentalists as neighbors and, actually, they tend to make very nice neighbors, even if you don’t agree with them. Nobody likes bigots.
It’s funny that the Left would make a big deal about Evolution – after all, William Jennings Bryan of Scopes Trial fame was certainly a man of the Left, in his day.
Brad, good points. I had forgotten about the Nietsche/Hegel linkage. For those interested, good writings on the common origins of Socialism, Communism and Naziism are offered by Friedrich von Hayek and Hannah Arendt…or, the classic testimonial, William Shirer’s “The Rise adn Fall of hte Third Reich.”
Seems to me that Intelligent Design, in so many words, is posited in the Declaration of Independence: a Creator has created men equal, and endowed them not only with inalienable rights, but with reason to perceive self-evident Truths and the will to pursue those inalienable Rights and thus institute Government to that end.
Zhombre,
Yes, Intelligent Design, and specifically a Christian conception of God, is just replete through the works of our country’s Founding Fathers; their essays, diaries, national addresses, etc. Anyone arguing against this just declares their ignorance on the subject. The belief in God is implicit in everything they write, and where it is not implicit, it is overtly stated.
Furthermore, the conception of the separation of church and state as we now know it is actually a recent development. Read the Constitution. I challenge anyone to show me where it specifically declares the separation of church and state as we now conceive it. What you will find instead is the first Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
This is vastly different from what people are calling separation of church and state.
Btw Thomas, I bookmarked your site and will visit.
Danny, yes of course I know that “human nature, moral values and decisions are the direct consequence of molecular reactions that conform to (what we know as) the laws of physics”. However, most of what you hold dear, human morality or most of religious thought is *not* in any conflict with that. Ideas of Skinner and his ilk do not, I repeat do not, follow from this view. More about this below.
“It denies any spiritual, transcendental nature to the human experience” – Yes and no. It denies *spirits* but has no problem with spiritual.
“From whence do you rationalize such a judgment-laden phrase as “horrible as it was…”?”
From human morality of course, based on the Golden Rule. Which doesn’t require any spirits. Incidentally this rule follows beautifully from the math of optimal behavior of “brainy” replicators. The same math suggests that there will always be opportunists who will try to break the rule. You can call them sinners or immoral persons if you want. The end result is the same as suggested by centuries of human thought and experience. We are on the same side Danny
Which is the opposite side of Skinner or multi-culti relativists new-age “thinkers”.
“This is the logical outcome of where atheism and intellectual hubris take us…where Man plays God. This is the common thread that links the great atrocities of the 20th Century”
This is very wrong. The problem wasn’t that the Man played God. The problem was that ignorant men used their misunderstanding of science or their lack of science and used it for experiments on human beings. Communists assumed that their armchair philosophy rather than brain science (which didn’t exists then) explains human behavior and went on with their revolutions. Nazis used their garbled version of Darwinism together with some pseudo-biology and pseudo-history to do the same. Proponents of eugenics didn’t consider that they lack any practical insight into human breeding. They were similar to medieval folks who tried to fly on homemade wings. Laughable now that we know what level of technology is required for flying.
“Creationists and ID people live only in the popular media etc”
What I meant to say is that they exist outside of science. In this sense theologians and the Pope do exist in popular media. There is no scientific work done based on either ID or creationism. Both are sterile philosophies not science.
Re “Dawkins”. Don’t you think that you fall into the same trap Bookworm is preaching against. Don’t attack Dawkins (he is a bad man, I agree), attack his ideas. Despite him being bad some of his ideas are very good.
“WHO designed the initial process and why”
I don’t know. This is not what “evolution debate” is about. I support certain theories but they are sheer speculation at this stage of our knowledge.
Re global warming cs. evolution.
See this is precisely your problem. You lack scientific expertise to distinguish between junk science (global warming) and real science (evolution) and nothing I can say here will change that. The only thing I can say is what rabbi Hillel said to somebody who asked him to explain jewish religion ‘while standing on one foot’. He told him the Golden Rule and said “now go and study”.
“I don’t believe … that we will ever fully understand the physical world around us”
This is a pointless statement. Either we will understand it or we won’t. At our present state of knowledge about a) our world b) our brain capabilities it is impossible to decide one way or another. All the above sentence accomplishes is to pronounce your personal beliefs, which is nice but as I said, pointless.
I don’t think discussing it any further will be productive. I have a lot of patience for debates with people who know the stuff they are debating (in this case evolution). Otherwise it feels like debating calculus with 2 year old. Which is unfortunately what most of the comments on this page are.
(This joker ymarsakar even writes “I can barely understand some of the conceptual connections to the math, and I surely cannot do the equations and calculations.” and yet he continues to express his “opinions”.
Well, ymarsakar I can follow the math. Any second year physics, math or even engineering undergrad student can. Had you spent some time studying rather than typing pointless tirades on the internet you might be able too. As it stands you are a hopeless ignoramus and should shut up rather than express your 2-year old ideas about calculus)
Marvin, you started off strong but then unraveled into ad hominems. Pity. You made for an interesting debate, up to that point.
Interesting points you make about the shortcomings of the Communists, Nazis and eugenicists: I suppose that someday we can look forward to someone else finally “getting it right”, once they catch up to the math and science of it all. Frankly, I find that to be a very, very scary proposition that is worthy of discussion in Book’s “Holocaust Remembrance Day” post (above). I had also hoped to gain your insights on the scientific or mathematical algorithms that define “The Golden Rule”. Oh well.
By the way, I am a credentialled scientist, so your need to talk down to me…or to YM or any of us…”as 2-year olds” really wasn’t necessary or productive. Like I said, you were going strong up to that point.
This joker ymarsakar even writes “I can barely understand some of the conceptual connections to the math, and I surely cannot do the equations and calculations.” and yet he continues to express his “opinions”.
Unlike Marv here, I have no desire to con myself into believing that everything is all right with the world if people were just on my side
We are on the same side Danny
Which is the opposite side of Skinner or multi-culti relativists new-age “thinkers”.-M
I would be wary of prejudiced and close minded iron that touts its strength based upon being on the same side as other metals.
Ideological loyalty was never a good epistemology to follow in the first place.
Not everything is right and good because they appear to be on your side politically. That’s a wisdom all too few people pick up. There can be friends amongst enemies and traitors amongst friends. Bush, Lieberman, Book, and Neo know this well. As does anyone else who sees with eyes unclouded, like Danny.
The best way to get to what is true is to understand. But you cannot understand if your mind is full of ideological prejudices and axes to grind. You cannot. You will not even. It is not my will stopping people from being unable to comprehend what they need to understand, but the will of the Celestial Heirarchy.
Marv or others can easily take a look at the Wiki equations and explain it to us. But I don’t expect servants of entropy like Marv to do anything productive like that. He might surprise me, but I am not holding my breath.
Entropy destroys your own abilities and power, not just those who you are against.