tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post115919198710113523..comments2023-05-14T05:58:07.794-07:00Comments on Languedoc Diary: A neutral venue: What is Darwinism? by Poul Willy EriksenAlan Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159500820724692542006-09-28T20:33:00.000-07:002006-09-28T20:33:00.000-07:00Yes, it suits creationists to (a) associate whatev...Yes, it suits creationists to (a) associate whatever evolutionary theorists currently believe with Darwin (i.e. "Darwinism") and <BR/>(b) disparage Darwin's own ideas as much as possible. Thus, Gould and Eldredge's work on punctuated equilibrium is still being cited as a refutation of "Darwinism," and therefore as opening up the logical space for "alternative explanations."Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10572308579922684264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159203408726794042006-09-25T09:56:00.000-07:002006-09-25T09:56:00.000-07:00Alan Fox wrote:Darwinian evolution predicts that t...Alan Fox wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Darwinian evolution predicts that there is an unbroken line of descent via viable ancestral forms , so a species is not an immutable concept, rather a snapshot in time of a population of organisms that normally maintain breeding isolation in the wild. Haeckel oviously concurs.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and that's a key factor in Darwinian evolution - the gradualism. Therefore I also find thae frequently posed claim that "Darwinism leads to racism" completely wrong. Any self-respecting Darwinist would also consider races to be simply convenient (or, these days, not so convenient) names.FreezBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13406761666828881397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159202790253553522006-09-25T09:46:00.000-07:002006-09-25T09:46:00.000-07:00That was quick Alan, thanks. I hadn't expected you...That was quick Alan, thanks. I hadn't expected you to have it up today. <BR/><BR/>And thanks for your comments, dr. spinoza and Alan.<BR/><BR/><BR/>dr. spinoza wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>I do wonder who first used the term "Darwinism." Was it Haeckel himself? (Interestingly, I do know that Haeckel invented the word "ecology.")</I><BR/><BR/>Both Haeckel and Huxley used it; but I had only found examples of Haeckel's use. I doubt, however, that Huxley used the word much differently.<BR/><BR/>As for "ecology", it's true that Haeckel invented that word, and it's of course a very important concept, Even baraminologists accept the importance of ecology.<BR/><BR/>Apparently, however, the ecology went somewhat bad - through Rudolf Steiner's biodynamics. See e.g. <A HREF="http://www.spunk.org/library/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html" REL="nofollow">Fascist Ecology: The "Green Wing" Hof the Nazi Party and its istorical Antecedents</A>.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You're right to point out how slippery the term "Darwinism" is. Anti-evolutionists, as I think of them, deny that they are anti-evolutionists by insisting that they are only anti-Darwinian. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, that's quite confusing. Rather than define either what they mean by 'evolution' or 'Darwinian', matters are confused even more by use of both words unqualified.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>What self-styled "anti-Darwinians" say is that they accept "microevolution" but deny that "macroevolution" happens, or at least, that it can happen without guidance from an intelligent agent. What they miss, of course, is the point that there's nothing more to macroevolution besides microevolution over deep time -- they are different patterns generated by the same process, not -- as anti-evolutionists insist -- two different processes.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, some of them do - that's the baraminologist position. Others, like Behe and Dembski, are more unclear, apparently just wanting <I>something</I> to be designed.<BR/><BR/>A minor point here is that, what you advocate is referred to as <I>neo-Darwinian</I> evolution, where macroevolution is just repeated mictoevolution. Apparently Stepen Jay Gould considered this idea untenable.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I sometimes refer to myself as a Darwinist so that they will know how to fit me into their categories, but I'm no more of a Darwinist than I am a Newtonist or a Bohrist.</I><BR/><BR/>I think most have it the same way; being a Darwinist isn't like being member of some cult (Richard Dawkins need not apply, of course). However, the anti-Darwinists use it in line with being Christian, as if it is something that penetrates all you do.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The rise of "Darwinism" can be traced back to an attempt to show that evolutionary theory is not an empirical science but a personal ideology. Hence the emphasis on the founder of this ideology, Darwin. The parallel with Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. is precise and intentional. </I><BR/><BR/>Indeed it is intentional; but unlike other 'isms', Darwinism isn't actually all that related to Darwin. Much was in place already, evolution, natural selection, and so on. Darwin's contribution was mainly providing evidence and going the (almost) full line. He dissolved the species concept and therefore completely broke away from special creation. He didn't go as far as abiogenesis though.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If creationism cannot be taught in schools because it is not a science, the anti-evolutionists reasoned, then evolution should also not be taught, since it also is not a science.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, a standard <I>tu quoque</I> fallacy.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Or at least one should have the decency and good sense to "teach the controversy."</I><BR/><BR/>But that controversy would have to a <I>scientific</I>controversy, and this far the IDists do not impress by their scientific results.<BR/><BR/><BR/>For me the problem is that it's unclear, what exactly is being attacked. Not all that might call themselves Darwinists do necessarily embrace everything that e.g. E.O. Wilson has written. It's a kind of, if one Darwinist has written something unfitting, they all have.FreezBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13406761666828881397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159194842089749472006-09-25T07:34:00.000-07:002006-09-25T07:34:00.000-07:00Thank for your contribution, Poul.The general adop...Thank for your contribution, Poul.<BR/><BR/><I>The general adoption of the theory of evolution has definitely closed the controversy as to the nature or definition of the species. The word has no absolute meaning whatever, but is only a group-name, or category of classification, with a purely relative value.</I><BR/><BR/>Darwinian evolution predicts that there is an unbroken line of descent via viable ancestral forms , so a species is not an immutable concept, rather a snapshot in time of a population of organisms that normally maintain breeding isolation in the wild. Haeckel oviously concurs.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159193898924199022006-09-25T07:18:00.000-07:002006-09-25T07:18:00.000-07:00I do wonder who first used the term "Darwinism." ...I do wonder who first used the term "Darwinism." Was it Haeckel himself? (Interestingly, I do know that Haeckel invented the word "ecology.")<BR/><BR/>You're right to point out how slippery the term "Darwinism" is. Anti-evolutionists, as I think of them, deny that they are anti-evolutionists by insisting that they are only anti-Darwinian. Here's how it works.<BR/><BR/>First, they distinguish between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." (One does find this distinction among practicing biologists, but it's not used in the same way.) "Microevolution," they say, refers to changes in allele frequency over time. Here, some of them concede, mutation and selection have a real but minor role. "Macroevolution," on the other hand, refers to speciation and to major morphological innovations. <BR/><BR/>What self-styled "anti-Darwinians" say is that they accept "microevolution" but deny that "macroevolution" happens, or at least, that it can happen without guidance from an intelligent agent. What they miss, of course, is the point that there's nothing more to macroevolution besides microevolution over deep time -- they are different <I>patterns</I> generated by the same <I>process</I>, not -- as anti-evolutionists insist -- two <I>different processes</I>.<BR/><BR/>In this way, they focus their criticism on a particular person rather than a whole body of theory that was initiated by Darwin. Very few evolutionary theorists refer to themselves as "Darwinists," though some have to reclaim the word (much as African-Americans have reappropriated the slur "nigger"). <BR/><BR/>I sometimes refer to myself as a Darwinist so that they will know how to fit me into their categories, but I'm no more of a Darwinist than I am a Newtonist or a Bohrist. <BR/><BR/>The rise of "Darwinism" can be traced back to an attempt to show that evolutionary theory is not an empirical science but a personal ideology. Hence the emphasis on the founder of this ideology, Darwin. The parallel with Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. is precise and intentional. <BR/><BR/>The overall strategy is to say that evolutionary theory is not a science and should not be treated as such. This strategy arose in the aftermath of <I>Edwards vs. Aguillard</I> (1987), which ruled that creationism was not a science. If creationism cannot be taught in schools because it is not a science, the anti-evolutionists reasoned, then evolution should also not be taught, since it also is not a science. Or at least one should have the decency and good sense to "teach the controversy."Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10572308579922684264noreply@blogger.com