Re: [asa] Quoting Darwin out of context

On 8/13/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *What nearly all citations of this sentence
> omit to put was the very next sentence, which is ...
> *
> .... but I can find out no such case.
> Quote mining is certainly a problem in the evolution/creation wars, but I
> don't see the big deal with this one. The IC / ID folks who quote that
> passage don't claim Darwin ever found such a case. They claim that we have
> now found such a case based on our vastly superior knowledge of
> biochemistry. Whether that claims is true or not, I don't see the problem
> with quoting Darwin's own falsification criterion when presenting new
> evidence that arguably meets it.
>

Sorry, I meant to reply to this in the same post.

I think the real problem I have is that I don't think much of Darwin's
falsification criterion!

The problem is that unless it's a mathematical proof by reductio ad
absurdumI don't see how you can prove that something that arises by a
physical
process is impossible, which is what Darwin's criterion is. (If it could be
shown that .... could not have arisen by ....).

The answer to any claim that you've found something (e.g. the bacterial
flagellum) that you believe could not have arisen by gradual evolutionary
steps, is simply that you can't see at the moment how it could have arisen.
Then you are arguing from a position of ignorance (what Dawkins calls the
"argument from personal incredulity"). What you need to do is to argue from
solid evidence, not from lack of evidence.

If you argue from this position of ignorance, then you are using a God of
the Gaps argument. Francis Collins in his new book "The Language of God" (I
do recommend you read it) points out that since the publication of Behe's
"Darwin's Black Box", the subject has moved on, and some of the things that
Behe claimed to be irreducibly complex (e.g. the flagellum, the
blood-clotting cascade) are now looking shaky - and science must and will
look for natural explanations. It has already been shown, for example that
if you pull the flagellum apart, a bit that is left functions as a secretory
gland, and hence the flagellum as a whole isn't irreducibly complex - while
the emasculated flagellum no longer functions as a flagellum, it does have
another useful function. The problem with the irreducible complexity
argument, it seems to me (and it took me a long time to see it), is that it
only really works if you consider the evolutionary process aiming at a long
term target with a specified function - it does not allow for change of
function. If one pins one's faith on the flagellum, then when someone finds
a plausible sequence of evolutionary steps that leads to it, then even if
this isn't the right sequence, Behe's claim falls apart, and Darwin's
falsification criterion hasn't been met, because it will have been shown
that the flagellum could have arisen in an evolutionary manner.

It may be of some interest to quote the full context from the web-page
(written by a creationist) that I pulled the Darwin quote from. What was
written was as follows:

*Charles Darwin*

It may be of interest to note that Charles Darwin, the human credited for
the so-called scientific development of the theory of evolution, wrote the
following in his book *The Origin of the Species*: "If it could be
demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have
been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would
absolutely break down" (Darwin C. *The Origin of Species*. In Chapter 6,
Difficulties on Theory).

Thus, even Charles Darwin's writings admit that evolution cannot be true.
Cellular life was simply much more complex than he at that time must have
realized. Thus, he was correct when he wrote about evolution, "my theory
would absolutely break down", as it scientifically has (though many will not
admit it).

So, this writer's second paragraph really does take Darwin out of context in
saying that the writings admit that evolution cannot be true, considering
that Darwin immediately said afterwards that he could find no such case.
Shortly after making my original post, I wrote to the author of this web
page and politely challenged him on this, in the interests of intellectual
honesty. He considered what I wrote and agreed to change it somewhat - not
as much as I would have liked, but he did change it nonetheless, proving
perhaps that if you approach people in a polite way and reason with them,
that it's occasionally possible to make some progress. If I'd sent him a
strongly worded email suggesting he was a liar, a term I've seen used often
on this list, then I doubt if I'd have achieved anything other than to
antagonise him.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 13 16:18:14 2006