A quick treat for lovers of the never-ending evolution debate, whom I have cruelly starved of material for so long. Wesley Crosland says that ‘nothing can ever be proven in science.’ I am not quite sure what definition of 'proven' he is using here. It seems to me that there is a hierarchy of proof. Some theories can be demonstrated pretty conclusively by their reliable ability to predict, which many scientists believe to be the gold standard of scientific enquiry, and these are plainly of a different order from those which merely offer a plausible explanation for things which have already been observed. Even they are superior to theories which attempt to fit all known and many unknown facts into a pre-set theory, based on inadequate knowledge of the unobserved distant past and completely bereft of any predictive power.
(radiometric dating) it really isn't comparable to evolution by natural selection, which arranges the known facts to suit its own subjective beliefs, and ceaselessly invents equally untestable supplementary theories to explain the various gaps and inconsistencies which then arise. (I said 'punctuated evolution' the other day when I meant 'punctuated equilibrium'. My apologies, though I suspect everyone who cared, knew what I meant to say). But if, as he says, radiometric dating has no more objective basis than evolution, perhaps I had better be more cautious about it. Any thoughts?
I am perfectly prepared to accept the possibility, dispiriting though it would
be, that evolution by natural selection might explain the current state of the
realm of nature. It is a plausible and elegant possible explanation. I just
think the theory lacks any conclusive proof, is open to serious question on
scientific grounds, from which it is only protected by a stifling orthodoxy.
(This is always expressed by such expressions as 'overwhelming majority', as if
scientific questions could be settled by a vote or a fashion parade).
So I am at liberty (I happen to think) not to accept it or its drab moral
implications as proven or inescapable. I could do this privately and keep quiet
about my view, as I suspect many do, but I think that would be
cowardly.
In this matter of accepting that Darwin may conceivably be
right, I have to deploy reason to triumph over my emotions. These lead to me
laugh till tears flow down my face, every time I contemplate the theory of
evolution for any length of time. I'm sorry. It just is very funny. I can't help
it. Other people think the Marx Brothers are funny. I don't, nor am I moved by
much of Monty Python, especially the 'Dead Parrot' sketch. But Darwin really
does it for me, especially the bit about how a bear might turn into a whale, or
was it the other way round? Ah, here we are: ’I can see no difficulty in a race
of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure
and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as
monstrous as a whale,’ he once speculated. Golly. ‘No difficulty’? I can think
of a few. So, I'm sure, could he, if reason rather than emotion had been on top
when he wrote that. I know that I cannot let this hilarity guide me into any
sort of certainty. Darwinism, despite this piffle, might in fact be true, which
would in some ways be even funnier.
What I enjoy about this debate is the
way in which my cautious modesty about the unknowable is made out to be a fault
- often by the same people who belabour me about my passionate certainty about
knowable things. You just can't please some folks.
Part 2
Can Bears Turn Into Whales? (Part Two) - Charles Darwin Revisited
Mr Platt says I have been ‘put right’ about evolution. I imagine he says this to provoke another posting on the subject. Well, it’s been a while, so here goes anyway, useless though it is to reason on the fanatical faith which has the mighty Selfist Church in its thrall (I don't mean you, Will) .
I’ll come to the matter of being ‘put right’ in a moment. First, he resurrects a silly comparison. He tries to equate encylopaedia references (and medical journal references) to an observed fact (Delirium Tremens) witnessed by doctors and classified since 1813, and encyclopaedia references to the theory of evolution by natural selection. The latter is opinionated, differing and rapidly changing speculation about supposed events in the remote past, long before we were there to witness them (and far too slow to be detected in our own time).
Why does he do this obviously misleading thing, and not notice he is doing it? As I said, and now repeat, the theory of evolution, *whatever its merits and problems*, is – and has to be by its nature - a theory about the distant past, witnessed by nobody, based upon speculation, not upon observation.
Mr Platt says : ‘If he had bothered to look it up in the encyclopaedia he relied upon for information about DT, and by implication trusted as a reliable source, he would have seen how badly mistaken his ideas on the subject are. Realising the implications of his theory, Darwin spent several years making observations and collecting data after his return from the Galapagos Islands before publishing his great work. To suggest that the theory is “based upon speculation, not upon observation” is an insult to Darwin, and to the many biologists who have studied and refined the theory over the years. But why take my word for it? Consult one or more reliable texts and see for yourself! Mr. Hitchens has just taken on a medical professional and (in my view) won, simply by quoting from various textbooks. Steadfastly refusing to believe what those textbooks tell him about other subjects – presumably because it would mean having to transform his entire view of the world – seems at best stubborn and at worst hypocritical.’
Let me say it again. These are different kinds of information, treated differently by works of reference. The fact that they both appear in the same work of reference does not make them necessarily comparable, let alone identical. Newspapers contain weather forecasts, sports reports and obituaries, as well as news of differing kinds. Because all these things are in the same place, do we read them all in the same way? Not if we have any sense.
Mr McStraun, whom Mr Platt applauds, had said : ‘Your [my] statement that the Theory of Evolution only concerns the distant past cannot pass uncontested. It is also used to explain present day phenomena such as the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the rapid (within a decade) changes in common beak shapes in the Galapagos finches as a result of vegetation changes.’
First, what do these two gentlemen think my position is on the theory of evolution by natural selection? I will re-state it, yet again. It is that I am quite prepared to accept that it may be true, though I should personally be sorry if it turned out to be so as, it its implication is plainly atheistical, and if its truth could be proved, then the truth of atheism could be proved. I believe that is its purpose, and that it is silly to pretend otherwise.
It is an elegant and clever explanation for the current state of the realm of nature. But it is a theory . Personally, I have no idea how the realm of nature took its present shape, or how life began, and I don’t think anyone else does either. There are several strands of belief among supporters of the theory (much as there are several sorts of belief in God), with Stephen Jay Gould disagreeing with Richard Dawkins, among others. The theory of evolution by natural selection has altered substantially since it was first set out, stumbles over the fossil record, which provides some unwelcome evidence of large-scale sudden change, especially in the Cambrian Explosion, and has a general circularity problem (as do most all-explanatory theories), which has troubled at least one notable philosopher, Sir Karl Popper. Don’t tell me he ‘recanted’ (even that is in dispute, by the way). So did Galileo, and in both cases the recantation said more about those who desired and pressed for it than it did about those who made it. In both cases a rather ossified faith come up against an enquiring mind, and the enquiring mind was compelled to conform, by ossified faith. Which side are you on in such conflicts? I am always on the same one.
Mr McStraun’s citation of ‘the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the rapid (within a decade) changes in common beak shapes in the Galapagos finches as a result of vegetation changes,’ simply moves the problem along a few feet, much as a motorway shifts a traffic jam from one place to another. It also suggests he may not fully understand the immense ambitions of the theory he embraces. It seems to me that these problems are so obvious to a thinking mind that nothing short of fervent faith protects them from sceptical examination.
These undoubted phenomena, which he mentions in the apparent belief that I haven’t heard of them, are evidence of *adaptation*, which could easily exist in a non-evolutionary system (as could extinction) and fall well short of the far more ambitious changes required for the evolutionary theory to work. The point at which adaptation becomes evolutionary change is one of the most interesting in science, and not easily answered, particularly by measurable evidence. This is where the circularity tends to come in.
The theory’s confidence has often led its proponents into error (E.g. : Darwin’s own wondrous speculation that ’I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,’ and the willingness of so many to be fooled by the blatant fake which was Piltdown man) . Why shouldn’t it be doing the same now? And what exactly *is* punctuated equilibrium? It makes theology look straightforward.
Mr Platt’s assertion that ‘to suggest that the theory is “based upon speculation, not upon observation” is an insult to Darwin, and to the many biologists who have studied and refined the theory over the years.’ , with its interesting use of the word ‘insult’, is a mild but important warning of the inquisition-style rage which quickly enters arguments on this subject, and which is in fact the biggest single argument against the theory. Why are its supporters so furiously intolerant of doubt and dissent, if they are so confident?
By the way, I must request Mr ‘Crosland’ not to contribute to this debate until he has answered the ‘childishly simple questions’ on this subject I put to him some years ago, but to which he has mysteriously failed to respond despite numerous promptings, and now says he has lost. Of course, I cannot stop him contributing, but I will not respond to him unless he answers the questions.
I’ll end as I did the last time I wasted my time trying to approach this matter in a reasoned, sceptical way, three years ago. This can be found here
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/02/can-bears-turn-into-whales.html
‘What I enjoy about this debate is the way in which my cautious modesty about the unknowable is made out to be a fault - often by the same people who belabour me about my passionate certainty about knowable things. You just can't please some folks.’
