
 Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live - nickb
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html
======
scott_s
"We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism."

We do refer to "Newtownian physics" to refer to pre-relativity and pre-quantum
mechanics.

I think this is a non-issue. The people who think evolutionary theory stopped
with Darwin aren't going to pick up on that because you use a different name.

~~~
toodlestech
I believe the author is referring more so to the people that tend to think
that one person came up with, and wrote it since its attached to a persons
name. It also makes for a good (read good in their heads) excuse why not to
believe it. I know I have experienced that poor logic in conversation before.

~~~
scott_s
It's not an excuse, it's a rationalization. The difference being that once you
address the problem they claim to have, they still won't care.

------
yters
The problem is that once they stop calling it Darwinism, what do you call it,
to keep it distinct from ID? They can't just call it evolution, since IDers
don't all deny common descent, old earth, etc. and can thus claim the
evolution label for their theories. It has to be called something like
"evolution only by natural selection" or "natural evolution" or somesuch. But
then this sounds too restrictive and gives popular credence to the ID rhetoric
of "why are evolutionists so cloes minded?"

An added problem is that ID doesn't even have to appeal to a god or aliens.
They can just restrict their theory to a more Lamarckian idea, that animals
genetically engineer themselves, either intentionally or by happenstance. Once
they do this, then the theory fits entirely within a naturalistic paradigm.

So, I'd say the essay is right. Darwinism has a problem of rhetoric on its
hands.

~~~
DannoHung
You don't really need to entirely eliminate the idea of ID. You just need to
ensure that the accpted mechanism is evolution. If you can convince ID
advocates that the mechanism for design was that of evolution, then, who gives
a crap? You're just arguing for or against God at that point.

~~~
likpok
It's not just arguing about god though. ID makes statements of fact which it
is unable to back up with experimental evidence. Evolution makes statement of
fact which it _can_ back up with experimental evidence. So the two should not
be conflated (at least in the scientific realm).

Outside of science (philosophy?) they are nowhere near the most "out-there" of
theories.

~~~
kirse
_Evolution makes statement of fact which it can back up with experimental
evidence_

No. Evolution (specifically biological macro-evolution, which is what ID and
science disagree upon) does NOT make statements of fact.

Both ID and Evolution make conjectural (non-factual) statements and then look
for evidence that supports their specific view. The only problem is that none
of us have empirically observed how life really came about, so we have no
basis on which to say that the end results (or evidence) for a process is
really correct.

Let's review science first -- evidence in science is only authoritative when
you can (without fail) repeat an _empirical process_ X and come up with the
end result Y (the evidence). Don't you see the problem of trying to define an
umempirical process by the evidence? This is basic rationale, you have no way
of knowing WHAT produced the evidence because it is unempirical.

So I can see why Bio. Macro-Evo. is nice. You get to bullshit about what you
think X process should be, bullshit about how you believe X process should
produce Y evidence (more importantly -- with no empirical observation to prove
that X indeed produces Y), and then go on a search for Y evidence to confirm
all your bullshitting. When you find Z evidence instead of Y, simply say that
X process actually produces Z evidence to make it look like you have a whole
bunch of Z evidence to back up process X. Meanwhile, everyone forgets that you
actually have to show X process _empirically producing_ Z evidence to even
logically conclude that the existence of Z evidence is a valid byproduct of
the existence of process X. Brilliantly rational science we have there.

Both ID and Biological macro-evolution are the equivalent of a pack of
toddlers that have no concept of forensics and criminal behavior attempting to
explain what happened at an extremely complex crime scene. They know a bunch
of people died (the end result), and that's it. Logically and rationally,
that's all they can know.

~~~
jballanc
Wrong on many levels. First:

 _"The only problem is that none of us have empirically observed how life
really came about, so we have no basis on which to say that the end results
(or evidence) for a process is really correct."_

Evolution makes no attempts to describe how the first living cell came about.
Evolution begins from the first cell, and goes forward from there. The study
of how that first cell formed is called Abiogenesis.

 _"Let's review science first -- evidence in science is only authoritative
when you can (without fail) repeat an empirical process X and come up with the
end result Y (the evidence)."_

Predictions made by science can speculate on the outcomes of a particular
experiment _or_ on the ability of a hypothesis to explain past outcomes.
Without the second half of this statement you can discard all mathematical
models, including the science of the big bang, star formation, weather/climate
prediction, and nearly all of social science.

 _"Brilliantly rational science we have there."_

Science, when done well, does nothing of the sort. What you have described is
poor science, and there is poor science much the same as there is poor coding.
However, Evolution is a framework arrived at from many hypotheses, many
experiments, and many logical arguments put forward by many individuals over
the past 150 years. You would do well to first comprehend some of the
arguments before dismissing them out of hand.

------
DanielBMarkham
Do we have to associate evolution with Darwinism?

For that matter, why do we keep associating ID with Creationism?

Fuzzy words lead to fuzzy arguments.

~~~
likpok
At least for the second point, that's because IDH _is_ Creationism. It
purports that somethings are irreducibly complex and must have been designed
by a creator. Which is basically the same thing (scientifically) as
Creationism.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
ID == given any set of conditions, the cause of those conditions may be
natural or an external agent (or a combination) ID presumes an external agent.

 _Arguments_ for ID include complexity and the watch, etc. _Application_ of ID
may mostly be by religious people.

But ID itself is just common sense. You make an observation -- have a
perception. You acknowledge that you either 1) believe you understand
everything about how that reality occurred, 2) believe you understand a little
but one day will understand everything, 3) believe that agencies unknown to
you created that perception and the true cause lies in another set of facts
unknown to you. (eventually understandable or not)

Maybe I'm missing something, but that's how ID theory looks to me.

To make a factitious example, lizard people from the planet Xypton diverted an
asteroid millions of years ago and killed the dinosaurs. The fall of the
dinosaurs has an ID basis then. But I doubt we'll see a lot of lizard people
churches anytime soon.

It's just basic epistemology.

~~~
gnaritas
> But ID itself is just common sense.

Hardly, rather, it is common ignorance. ID is creationism, plain and simple.
Its primary premise that the universe is too complex to have been an accident
and thus must have been created absurdly ignores that its chief objection must
also be applied to this supposed creator.

If the creator doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe,
making the whole hypothesis absurd. And it is just a hypothesis, not a theory,
and cannot be in any way held up as an alternative to evolution by anyone with
half a brain.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
You're making an attack on religion. I was explaining ID.

I understand that religious creation-type people use ID as a shield from which
to launch their anti-science attacks. I got that. What I'm trying to explain
to you is that ID, as a way of knowing something, is a separate thing. In my
opinion, people who mix up ID and creationism, _from either side_ , look like
morons. They're two different things.

It's like attacking people from the American South as being KKK rednecks. Yes,
there is that part. But to mix it all up is to display a lack of understanding
and a willingness _not to think_. Not thinking is bad. Better to understand ID
and then attack creationists than just lump it all together. Ignorance is one
thing, but stupidity -- the willful continuation of not learning -- is
another. That's bad on any side of a discussion. When the science guys start
acting stupid, you know the discussion is in trouble.

~~~
gnaritas
> You're making an attack on religion. I was explaining ID.

And you're still pretending they're different things. You might like to think
that ID is just a thought process, separate from religion that one can use to
assess anything but that ignores the reality that ID isn't used in that way by
the vast majority of its believers.

It's used as a shield for creationism for those attempting to corrupt our
legal processes. ID is a word, and it means what most people use it for, not
what you want it to technically mean or what you thought it originally meant.

The purpose of words is to communicate, those words are owned by creationists,
so if you're really attempting to just communicate and get others to think
then it's up to you to choose a better word that doesn't already have
massively negative connotations.

Trying to talk about ID in absence of religion is like trying to talk about
hacking to grandma while ignoring the fact that to the larger majority of
people hacking means committing a crime.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_those words are owned by creationists_

Okay. We've passed the point of reason now. I concede.

<sarcasm>Yes. There are special words that are owned by special people. If you
use their words, you must like them/take their side/want to be one. That's a
much more reasoned argument than I was trying to make.</sarcasm>

I stand corrected.

------
dan_sim
We all know an idea is worth nothing until it's turned into a product. Maybe
Darwin didn't invent evolution but he turned it into a product (a book) and
sell it to people. That's why the unknown farmer who maybe got the idea before
him shouldn't be remember and we should remember Darwin forever.

------
DavidSJ
Seems like a straw man to me. I know of no Darwinists who fetishize Darwin.

