Vote on Tuesday.
Do the right thing.
Posted on 11/03/2002 6:20:35 PM PST by Heartlander
Since the neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s, evolutionary biology has become a growth industry. This growth has resulted in the demand for more flexible methods of establishing evolutionary biology's grandiose claims than the laborious, difficult, pedantic, and "rigorous" methods favored throughout the rest of the sciences. This demand has been met by what is now a well-developed branch of evolutionary biology known as evolutionary logic.
I can't here develop the theory of evolutionary logic in detail, but I will introduce some necessary terminology. In ordinary logic, which is used throughout the rest of the sciences, one is justified asserting that a claim is true provided one can formulate a coherent and rigorous argument that supports it. In evolutionary logic we relax both these restrictions: an evolutionary claim is true provided there is an evolutionary argument that supports it. This definition is sufficiently clear as not to require elaboration. Further, we stipulate that any circularity in this definition is virtuous rather than vicious.
The benefits and practical applications of evolutionary logic will be obvious. Professional authors of evolutionary tracts depend on it for their livelihood. Instructors in evolutionary biology find that evolutionary logic enables them to make complex ideas readily accessible to students regardless of their preparation or background (indeed, proficiency in evolutionary logic has been shown to be positively correlated with high self-esteem). Research workers in a hurry to claim priority for a new result or who lack the time and inclination to be pedantic find evolutionary logic useful for expeditiously writing up their results. In this respect evolutionary logic has a further advantage, namely, the results are not required to be true, thus eliminating a tiresome (and now superfluous) restriction on the growth of evolutionary knowledge.
I want next to consider some of the actual techniques for establishing evolutionary claims that evolutionary logic makes available. I will be concerned mainly with ways in which these techniques can be applied in lecture courses -- they require only trivial modification to be used in textbooks, research papers, formal debates, and Internet discussions.
In evolutionary biology, organisms transform by an evolutionary process into other organisms. This means that evolutionary biologists are often called on to establish lineal relationships. There is a whole class of methods that can be applied when an instructor can't quite bridge an evolutionary gap. Suppose an instructor can get from organism A to organism B and from organism C to organism D by an evolutionary process but cannot bridge the gap between B and C. A number of techniques are available to the aggressive instructor in this emergency. The instructor can write down B and then, without any hesitation, put "therefore C." If the class is bored or the organisms in question are not terribly interesting, it is unlikely that anyone will question the "therefore." This is the method of argument by omission and it is remarkably easy to get away with (sorry, "remarkably easy to apply with success").
Alternatively, there is the argument by fiat, where one simply posits an intermediary between B and C -- call it Z -- that shares characteristics of both. The evolutionary transitions from B to Z and then from Z to C are now obvious. The argument by fiat is a special case of the argument by misdirection, where in place of a difficult problem that was supposed to be solved, one solves an easier problem that is superficially similar to the original problem.
Argument by definition can be extremely effective. Here the instructor defines a set S to be whatever biological systems satisfy some property. For instance, S might consist of all irreducibly complex molecular machines that are the result of Darwinian evolution. The lecturer then announces that in the future only members of S will be the focus of discussion. Even honors students will take this at face value, not questioning whether the set S might in fact be empty.
Argument by assertion is unanswerable. If, for instance, some vague waffle about an evolutionary transition does not satisfy a recalcitrant student, the instructor simply says, "This point should be intuitively obvious. I've explained it as clearly as I can. If you still cannot see it, you will just have to think very carefully about it yourself, and then you will see how trivial and obvious it is." The instructor at this point might also want to add, "What are you, a creationist?" or "Are you one of those Christian fundamentalists?" Arguments by demonization like this are particularly effective when one or a few students get unruly but the majority sides with the instructor.
Yet when the majority of the class becomes unruly, nothing beats an argument by obscure reference. This will silence all but the most determined troublemaker. Few students take the time or want to take the time to hunt down an obscure reference in the evolutionary literature. And even if students locate the reference (which is becoming easier with the Internet), if the reference is sufficiently technical and difficult to understand, it is an easy matter for the instructor to inform the student that he or she simply doesn't comprehend the relevant passage.
In this case, if the instructor is kind, he or she may simply offer an argument from removable ignorance -- "Just keep studying evolutionary theory, and eventually it will all make sense." If that doesn't work, the instructor may wish to try an argument from stupidity -- "How can you be so stupid?" But if the student is otherwise at the top of the class, this approach may backfire. In that case, either the argument from wickedness ("You are just being perverse") or the argument from insanity ("What are you, nuts?") should do the trick. And always keep the argument by demonization in your front pocket.
A variant of the argument by obscure reference is the argument by irrelevant reference. This works in a pinch when you can be reasonably sure that the student won't track down the reference (perhaps because of time constraints). But be careful -- if the irrelevance is palpable (say you are discussing the evolution of vertebrates and the article you cite is on the evolution of organisms in a completely different phylum or even kingdom), then you may be in trouble if the irrelevancy is pointed out. Make sure the irrelevance is hard to fathom. And then there's the argument by nonexistent reference -- this works best in public debates.
Because the public debate over evolution tends to pit academic high culture against the moronic masses, it is helpful to have a technique specifically for keeping the masses in check and for keeping the academic elite from being seduced by populist sentiments. The argument from aesthetics is the technique of choice here. "This theory is just too beautiful to be false." Evolutionary biologists regularly use this technique to establish the validity of their theories when the evidence for them otherwise is extremely slender.
By now it will be apparent what riches derive from the study of evolutionary logic. I therefore appeal to evolutionary biologists everywhere to institute formal courses in this discipline. This should preferably be done at the undergraduate level so that those who go teaching with only a bachelor's degree will be familiar with the subject. But high school students too should be exposed to the rudiments of evolutionary logic. It is certain that in the future no one will be able to claim a biological education without a firm grounding in the practical applications of evolutionary logic.
This article adapts and extends Paul Dunmore's "The Uses of Fallacy,"
New Zealand Mathematics Magazine, vol. 7, 1970.
the evolution pulpit
the evolution kneeling pads
the evolution holy robes
the evolution catecism of evolution indoctrination
...etc...
Hey! This most popular religion needs some hymns too!
Surely all the evolution seminaries (universities) are working double-time on this
and other pressing needs for their popular faith.
Do the right thing.
Unfortunately, the scientific biological Darwinian door is marked ‘sane’ for those who go ‘in’…
<> Evolutionary Logic. This bit of frivolity adapts and extends Paul Dunmore's "The Uses of Fallacy," New Zealand
Mathematics Magazine, vol. 7, 1970.
And just so you know --
The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design. Dr. Dembski's contribution to Debating Design...
Is it still over the 10,000 year-old-earth figure? Or has something bigger come up?
The problem with evolution is that there was no one there to observe it. The problem with creationism is there was no one there to observe it. The problem with anything is that everyone can't be there to observe it.
Are there laws that are universal and pervade every corner of the universe? How do you know unless you visit every corner of the universe?
Can't prove evolution, can't prove creationism. What is left to prove?
Kinda scary isn't it?
Dead link, my friend. no realplayer file found.
But you cannot explain anything separate from natural causes and empirical data. Unless you are a mystic who can make the deity appear at your command.
You might find the Meditations by Rene Descartes useful to your inquiry. From the synopsis:
It is even worse than that. An evolutionary claim is true even if the evolutionary argument that supports it is false.
Sciam:15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times. As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
| NOTE THE PROGRAM IS EDITED TO DISPLAY THE FALSE ARGUMENT. THE COMPLETE AND UNEDITED PROGRAM CAN BE VIEWED BY FOLLOWING THE LINK.
|
I am not interested in finding errors in the musings of ancient philosophers. I am not talking to them and you are not a professor lecturing me on what I need to study.
I been there.
Explain your point or bye.
While the article doesn'tdevelop the theory of evolutionary logic in detail, it sure hits some of the invalid arguments we see in print and here on FR. Great article.
The problem with creationism is there was no one there to observe it.
God observed creation and He testified to it in the Word. He continues being, so you can ask Him directly if you wish.
Of course they do. In fact it started with Darwin's 'proofs'. Here is a great example:
He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.
From: Origin of the Species, Chapter 6
In other words, because we have bothered to read through a few hundred pages of his nonsense we need to jump to the conclusion that the eye was built gradually. Some proof! Some nonsense, and exactly what Dembski is talking about.
I would not say that. Everyday we see humans born from humans, dogs born from dogs, cats born from cats yet no one has ever seen anything evolve. Seems the proof, the overwhelming proof is on the anti-evolutionist side.
I'm sorry I brought it up. Most of these words are undefined. These sentences have no meaning. Please have God show up at the UN and explain.
C'mon Gore. You see humans born from humans, not humans born from nothing. Not species created by fiat from nothing.
There is no 'proof' on either side. That is why it is just a theory. (and don't give me that, 'they teach it as fact stuff.' *I* don't say it is a fact, just a theory.) But there is no evidence of the central premise of creationism. There is no central premise for evolution, other than the existence of the world as we know it now.
Please have God show up at the UN and explain.
Christ will show up, but not at the UN - at Mount Zion, as promised in the Word; and no explanation will be given.
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. - Revelation 19:11 and continuing through 16
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; - Philippians 2:10
where did I contradict myself?
LogicWings and I have ended two conversations for failure to communicate and this will likely end the same way. But I always pray before posting on these types of threads; and tonight I felt compelled to make a few observations.
and how long will it take before you all realize that 'this generation' has long since passed away, and it ain't gonna happen?
I assure you, based on personal spiritual knowledge (I Corinthians 2) - that Christ came as the suffering lamb (Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22) but that He will return as the conquering lion, so long expected by the Jews and prophesied by the Word.
We have again broached the failure to communicate because, in this case, I am using a "foreign language." In the previous two discussions, I couldn't relate to your language (LOL!)
It's been nice discussing with you, LogicWings!
Ohh, I understand the language just fine. I know more than you give me credit for.
By the way, is there such a thing as 'impersonal spiritual knowledge' as opposed to 'personal spiritual knowledge?'
I would call conscience an 'impersonal spiritual knowledge.'
Thanks for your post!
How is it spiritual and how is it impersonal?
yeah, think about what you said here. and who is it that wants to define exactly what is happening here, based upon what evidence?
How do you know that crocodiles haven't budged an inch in over 100 million years? Is this accurate information? Based on what? How do you know what a crocodile looked like 100 million years ago? How do you know the earth has existed for 100 million years, as opposed to 6000?
I'm sorry. I'm tired.
IMHO, conscience is impersonal because it doesn't require one to commune with God - and it is spiritual because it is exists, but not as a part, or result, of that which is material.
Why is it important? What difference does it make? Do any of you really think this subject makes any difference whether you eat tomorrow, whether you get that job tomorrow, whether your kid passes math tomorrow?
Does it really matter to God whether you believe that life began in the ocean or was created by fiat if you give the beggar a crust of bread? Whose better, the atheist who gives the beggar a crust of bread or the Christian who doesn't? What does any of this really matter to an Infinite Being?
The idea is absurd. Is God so blind that HE would cast a kind heart into everlasting torment because of the failure to believe an arbitrary notion as opposed to cruel rapist catholic priest because he believed the correct thing?
This is all children playing in the sand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.